Quantcast
Do you believe equality and equal treatment under a law to be undesirable?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do you believe equality and equal treatment under a law to be undesirable?

Joelcool7 said:

This is the very danger of atheism and the belief that humans are just another animal. Fact of the matter is if humans behave like animals the human race will collapse. Their has to be a moral basis in society that which was provided by the Abrahamic faiths largely Christianity. The idea of looking out for yourself and not valuing those around you will lead to Doomsday.

Considering that the people who support conservative christian organizations are the ones who have the image of 'greedy' and that when christianity was in power (Middle Ages) a strong anti-equality class system was in place, I think you're terribly out of line. It's precisely the authoritarian systems who preach 'morality' (e.g. the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, Communism) who are the least moral of them all.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:
maximus22 said:
MrBubbles said:
Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.


If I know one thing it is that strength is fleeting.  Nobody but nobody stays strong forever.  Yes equality is a perversion of the natural order but then so is civilization itself.  We are humans not animals, our compassion and respect of fellow humans is one of the few great things about our species.  For now I am strong but when I eventually grow weak it is good to know that thanks to the compassion of others I won't be decimated because of it.


I couldn't bother listening to the whole thing, but how in the world is being anti-welfare the same thing as being against equal treatment under the law? Surely the person receiving welfare is being given preferential treatment under the law compared to the person who is paying into the system since the government takes from one and gives to the other.

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 said:
maximus22 said:
MrBubbles said:
Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.


If I know one thing it is that strength is fleeting.  Nobody but nobody stays strong forever.  Yes equality is a perversion of the natural order but then so is civilization itself.  We are humans not animals, our compassion and respect of fellow humans is one of the few great things about our species.  For now I am strong but when I eventually grow weak it is good to know that thanks to the compassion of others I won't be decimated because of it.


Interested.  In regards to him, I heard there can only be one.



badgenome said:

I couldn't bother listening to the whole thing, but how in the world is being anti-welfare the same thing as being against equal treatment under the law? Surely the person receiving welfare is being given preferential treatment under the law compared to the person who is paying into the system since the government takes from one and gives to the other.

The entire video was against equality in any form, whether it be protection under the law.  The video reduce people to animals, and argued a case for why anyone should bother to get any semblance of equal treatment of any sort, and such things as arguing the case for letting the disadvantaged die off.



Mr Khan said:

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse

Problem is, the provider and the consumer are in no way equal.

Such a system as you describe, if it can work at all, is only feasible when a society is almost entirely homogeneous and has a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse

Problem is, the provider and the consumer are in no way equal.

Such a system as you describe, if it can work at all, is only feasible when a society is almost entirely homogeneous and has a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.

that and i'd really find it hard to see a situation where everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously.

Someones going to be jealous... whether it be that they're workering harder for an equal good, or not as hard, or even just like it is now.  Everyone being jealous of people who get to be famous doing entertainment and artistic things.



Kasz216 said:
maximus22 said:
MrBubbles said:
Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.


If I know one thing it is that strength is fleeting.  Nobody but nobody stays strong forever.  Yes equality is a perversion of the natural order but then so is civilization itself.  We are humans not animals, our compassion and respect of fellow humans is one of the few great things about our species.  For now I am strong but when I eventually grow weak it is good to know that thanks to the compassion of others I won't be decimated because of it.


very funny



as someone else said earlier in this thread- equal opportunity not equal rights.



Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse

Problem is, the provider and the consumer are in no way equal.

Such a system as you describe, if it can work at all, is only feasible when a society is almost entirely homogeneous and has a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.

that and i'd really find it hard to see a situation where everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously.

Someones going to be jealous... whether it be that they're workering harder for an equal good, or not as hard, or even just like it is now.  Everyone being jealous of people who get to be famous doing entertainment and artistic things.

Well, they found a way to do that in Brave New World.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse

Problem is, the provider and the consumer are in no way equal.

Such a system as you describe, if it can work at all, is only feasible when a society is almost entirely homogeneous and has a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.

that and i'd really find it hard to see a situation where everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously.

Someones going to be jealous... whether it be that they're workering harder for an equal good, or not as hard, or even just like it is now.  Everyone being jealous of people who get to be famous doing entertainment and artistic things.

Well, they found a way to do that in Brave New World.

Yeah, it's called being a fictional book.

The problem with Soma and pleasure by distraction is two fold.

1) Drugs don't effect people the same way.

2)  Distraction by amusement doesn't work, because everytime your working your crappy unimportant job, your not being amused.

Outside which, living in the Brave New World society would just be horrifying.  I mean, Huxley's whole point was that such a society was on it's way down the pipes and should be avoided at all costs.

If he saw the world today he'd probably think we were well on our way to such a society.  For example, I currently work in one of the areas in the country with the largest unemployment rate in the country in Las Vegas.  In the area by where I work I think it's something like 14%?   Though I'd say over half of my customers are unemployed, it's easy to tell because unemployment debit cards look different from regular ones.

They all come in, take money off their unemployment cards and throw them in the slot machines hoping to get rich.  They're upset with their lives but also generally apathetic because they get enough money to eat and to fuel their hopes of hitting the "Big One". 

However would see the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements are the exact reasons why it won't work out in the end.  People want more then just distraction.

Heck, even look at the communist Utopia of Star Trek, they have jealousy.

 

That's not to say such a society couldn't work.  It just couldn't work with humans.  Even in the most "community" based societies there was more then enough indivualism out there to make such a system useless.  Even in an area where confusinism ruled there would be a large amount of jealousy and discontent over who could help the state best.


Oh, and additionally.... Brave New World is about fascism, not communism.

Outside Soma you could argue hitler's gameplay was page for page out of that book.  Though instead of Henry Ford he wanted to replace Germany itself as a sort of god like figure that replaced all relgions.

If I remember correctly, Huxley himself states the main difference between Nazi Germany and a Brave New World was that technology was more advanced in his book.

 

Food for anyone who actually thinks that would be an ideal society.  Of course, some people think "The World Stood Still" was a utopian tale as well...

When it was about a Giant Robot who murdered anyone who did anything so mildly violent as slapping someone.

To be fair the movie did release in 1951 but i mean... still!