Is True Equality Possible (dealingwithit and Rulke)

Intro (dealing with it): Rulke wrote a topic title, and I started by babbling whatever thoughts came to mind. Then we alternated.

I'd like to start by making it absolutely clear that equality does not mean sameness. Complete sameness is impossible by any standard I can imagine, and barely needs any debate. But what, then, is meant by equality? Are we all to have equal opportunities? The natural and arbitrary distribution of talents makes that, too, infeasilble. Should we give an idiot the same opportunities as a rapidly-calculating physicist? Clearly, they both cannot have the same opportunities.

What about rights? Should we have equal rights, if not responsibilities? That, too, seems impossible: a criminal needs to be restrained in a way that a law-abiding citizen does not. The rights of a felon are considerably fewer than that of the lawful.

Rulke

What I think Dealing with it is trying to say is that 'True Equality TM' first has to have a definition and since equality often tied to freedom and liberty is true equality complete freedom? That's what I got from his diatribe, my opinion on this is such, True equality in it's purest form is impossible in fact it could be seen as a negative, since what makes humanity the most unique species on the planet is that we're so diverse and although we have racists, homophobes and bigots, if we removed them then in turn we jeapordize freedom.

Now let's look at this another way, say for example by true equality we mean instead that there is understanding of what's wrong, much like how many look on racism nowadays. We don't force people to change opinions nor do we dictate how they think. Equality in strictest sense could lead to a dystopia if we start preventing opinions and silencing dissent, instead it's makes more sense to accept it's there, but knows it's wrong.

dealing with it:

So, you got me to start babbling about equality of conscience? Each individual counts as a single conscience, equally free as any other to any thoughts it might have? This seems like a reinterpretation of the soul (or the mind, or the ego, or any other name it's gone by. Conscience in my case.)

Rulke

Perhaps, but I'm saying that while True equality often lifted up as an ideal or something we should strive for, you have to ask one question how do you enfore this idealistic dream?

dealing with it:

I suppose in the same way we enforce the war on terror: act as though an abstract concept can be affected in a concrete way. It's a very conveniently confusing word. I still don't have any idea what we're talking about.

Rulke

Very true, very true indeed, I thought in this debate I'd be declaring true equality is the route we should go for, but more I consider and think about it, the more I realize something... It just seems impossible in every sense, because one way you have to crush and silence all dissent, in another you have to enfore this mindset. If you look for equality in purest sense you think about the debate about freedom and how much we can give or how much is too much. It's the same for equality or should I say true equality, how is it ethical to claim what you force on others is for good of all mankind --- and if they refuse they're ostracized.

dealing with it:

... of course I want everyone to be equal to me. I'll get revenge on 'em all...

Rulke

It's much like fighting a war for overall peace, it's a Catch-22, a example of insanity. True equality seems good on paper, but then you consider logistics and what would need to change, I'm tempted to say we'd never get int properly without brainwashing and cloning same person ad-nauseum, congrats you got your shangri la, only there one thing we forget to tell you, you've lost what made you human. Plus pretty sure all that is illegal and um I'll be blunt here totally and utterly unethical.

dealing with it:

You have your Catch-22, I have my Man in the Asbestos Suit.

Rulke

Touche, honestly when it comes down to it, how many people actually consider the factors when they ask for true equality?

dealing with it:

The web of causality is vast. It's impossible to measure everything that gets effected by one little change.

Rulke

But is it one little change, to achieve what suggested here either it's brain washing or loss of identity (as far as that goes, that topic is for another day). It's just vast, it's not even one change needed, it's about five (pulled out my ass) for example.

dealing with it:

If it's equality of the "soul" that we're looking for, brainwashing is definitely an issue. What about all the people that don't believe that a single human is an individual?

Rulke

I don't really know, seems like we've come to a stalemate here, and perhaps we should allow others to join in. Although in conclusion I think it's safe to say those who preach for true equality much like those who preach for complete freedom, have no real ideas of the implications they're suggesting or how such ideas and ideals would be made to stay, any thoughts on your end?

dealing with it:

All fundamentalists are equally absurd to me. Sticking to one ideal as though it settles everything, , and as though it cannot be improved, is ... equally... blind. Terrorism is universally bad, drugs are universally bad, equality is always good, freedom is always good, science is the answer to everything...

Rulke

As is often said, 'One persons Terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.'

What is everyone else's thoughts on this?

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RolePlayGateway/~3/UM20zmtz1Ac/viewtopic.php

barista university of kentucky ncaa oakland news alec baldwin alec baldwin college basketball