142 replies to this topic

[Feebs]

and havnt men made so many real good decisions in the past ?....we live in the 21st century not the 1st....yes things were different then but only allowing a woman to speak when accompanied by there husband is just daft to me...equality and freedom is the way forward x

[Sean93]

Feebs, on 10 December 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

and havnt men made so many real good decisions in the past ?....we live in the 21st century not the 1st....yes things were different then but only allowing a woman to speak when accompanied by there husband is just daft to me...equality and freedom is the way forward x

For all it's worth, I agree with people like George Carlin when they say that if we want to see the world improve, then we need an empowerment of women in politcs and the like...but like that'll ever happen.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 10 December 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Why?

I think the more pertinent question would be "why not?". If you can't provide a good argument against it, then a society that values equality has to be preferable to one that doesn't.

Can you tell me where equality has caused harm? Because I can think of countless examples where inequality has (and still does) cause plenty of harm.

[scowl]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 09 December 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

That's what I go by. If Christ really is the son of God and the only perfect being, then why do we follow the teachings of all these other people in the bible? They're all admittedly imperfect and flawed. Christ himself said that only through him can you truly be saved, yet people cling to the teachings of other followers and accept them as absolute fact.

The four gospels were written by men too, decades after Jesus was gone. That's why they contradict each other. In the end all you get out of the Bible is second hand information.

I actually liked the books like Corinthians since they're all about Paul with no apologies. In a couple places Paul even says he's only expressing his personal opinion but damned if those didn't go straight into the Bible as if he had been quoting Jesus. In one place Paul even tells people they must follow him alone if they don't want to go to hell. He's the prototype of the celebrity evangelist whose followers believe everything he says, even fashion tips!

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 10 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

I think the more pertinent question would be "why not?". If you can't provide a good argument against it, then a society that values equality has to be preferable to one that doesn't.

Can you tell me where equality has caused harm? Because I can think of countless examples where inequality has (and still does) cause plenty of harm.

Why intrinsically should equality be preferrable?

That is a value judgement based on modern socio economics. It has alwys been absolutely impossible in past societies and certainly not a prefeered way of organising a society. It remains probably unattainable in practice in modern society.

Are you suggesting a socialist form of equality where all are equal regardless of ability and a doctor is paid the same as a cleaner for example; or an out comes based equality where all who produce equally valuable outcomes are equal?
In principle the idea of all humans being intrinsically equal has some philosophical merit but it is not often practical. And it raises practical difficulties For example women still don't reach the top echelons of business and govt in equal numbers. They dont have eqaulity of superannuation but they often have their careeers interrupted by child bearing and raising. If we ensure they go back to work quicly so as not to interrupt their careers is that equality for  them and what about their children who are often then placed in child care with inferior outcomes to a child raised by caring parents.? The idea that very differnt lives can be nmade eqaul is impractical and if it is attempted can lead to actual inequalities eg the concept of half of all CEOS being women via govt legislation works against both the best suited men and women getting those jobs.

I am taking a devi'ls advocate position here but basically equality is a product of our current socio economic environment. If that changes then equality will no longer be seen as adesirable or sought after outcome.

If equality was possible then men would have half the children and do half of the nurturing and child rearing. That would take some alterations in biology to accomplish.

[Feebs]

Sean93, on 10 December 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

For all it's worth, I agree with people like George Carlin when they say that if we want to see the world improve, then we need an empowerment of women in politcs and the like...but like that'll ever happen.

i think we need both...men and women working together would be what i deem a way forward...equals in all aspects with there own strengths..we are beings able to think for ourselves and we dont even work together...men and women are still worlds apart..its rediculous to me x

[ouija ouija]

Mr Walker, on 10 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Are you suggesting a socialist form of equality where all are equal regardless of ability and a doctor is paid the same as a cleaner for example;

Just to pick one line out of your interesting post: I believe a cleaner and a doctor should be paid the same. I can't believe that cleaners are still being considered as being 'the bottom of the heap'! In their own way both jobs are of equal importance ...... have you lived in a city when the refuse collectors have gone on strike even for just a week? Cleaners have monotonous jobs that are undone by others as fast as they are done ...... how potentially depressing is that?! They do these vital jobs week in, week out, often working unsociable hours, to be looked down on and often considered stupid. Doctors are paid while they train, get paid very well once they're qualified, work a lot less hours than they used to and have the capacity to ruin the most precious thing we have: our health. They push drugs at us that we don't need(to get money from the government), and don't listen to what we say half the time. I'm using extreme examples here, but do you see what I'm getting at? Each is contributing in their own capacity and should be equally rewarded.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

scowl, on 10 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

The four gospels were written by men too, decades after Jesus was gone. That's why they contradict each other. In the end all you get out of the Bible is second hand information.

I actually liked the books like Corinthians since they're all about Paul with no apologies. In a couple places Paul even says he's only expressing his personal opinion but damned if those didn't go straight into the Bible as if he had been quoting Jesus. In one place Paul even tells people they must follow him alone if they don't want to go to hell. He's the prototype of the celebrity evangelist whose followers believe everything he says, even fashion tips!

The four gospels were written as accounts of events taken place in Christ's lifetime. Many other books of the bible are accounts of other people as well, but there are still many others that are no more than the authors preeching their own words as the words of God. Those I definately don't accept. And the accounts of other men's lifetimes are all well and good, but they are admitedly imperfect, therefore I ask "why study them as truth?"

I am well aware that the gospels were written by man, after Christ, and therefore cannot be fully trusted. However, fact is there is no other writtings we can go by, other than the lost books denied the official bible cannon, most of which I have read, (a few exerpts of at the very least). Otherwise it must be taken by faith. I understand that, but what other choice do we have?

I personally have found peace with the original 4 gospels, and have found no controdictions in Christ's words or actions in those four gospels. I personally accept it as truth, and if others don't I completely understand and respect that decission. I am simply explaining what I go by, and why.

[ouija ouija]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 11 December 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

The four gospels were written as accounts of events taken place in Christ's lifetime. Many other books of the bible are accounts of other people as well, but there are still many others that are no more than the authors preeching their own words as the words of God. Those I definately don't accept. And the accounts of other men's lifetimes are all well and good, but they are admitedly imperfect, therefore I ask "why study them as truth?"

I am well aware that the gospels were written by man, after Christ, and therefore cannot be fully trusted. However, fact is there is no other writtings we can go by, other than the lost books denied the official bible cannon, most of which I have read, (a few exerpts of at the very least). Otherwise it must be taken by faith. I understand that, but what other choice do we have?

I personally have found peace with the original 4 gospels, and have found no controdictions in Christ's words or actions in those four gospels. I personally accept it as truth, and if others don't I completely understand and respect that decission. I am simply explaining what I go by, and why.

Regarding the part I've highlighted, here's a thought:  how about we just think for ourselves ....... here ...... now?! Given all that you've said about the Bible's inadequacy and faults, I find it puzzling that you would bother with it at all.

[Beckys_Mom]

ouija ouija, on 10 December 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

I believe a cleaner and a doctor should be paid the same. I can't believe that cleaners are still being considered as being 'the bottom of the heap'! In their own way both jobs are of equal importance ......

Please don't take this as nit picking, I am just curious - Can you tell me why going to school, studying for degrees and becoming a life saver and treating the sick,  is equal to a mop and bucket to keep the place clean...why is that?

If cleaners got paid as high as doctors, wouldn't that make people think - no need to try and better ourselves, and study hard, just grab a mop and bucket and we get the live of Riley?

To become a doctor, you have to study and work your ass off, and not many make it..  To become a cleaner, you need to handle a mop and bucket.. The two jobs differ.. One requires years of hard work and study, the other does not... I am not putting cleaning jobs down, but I don't feel they are equal to a doctors position

Even some honest cleaners will tell you, that they only wish they had of worked harder at school to land better jobs..

Quote

  Cleaners have monotonous jobs that are undone by others as fast as they are done ...... how potentially depressing is that?!

Why call it depressing?  Many cleaners love their jobs, and so many of them are inspired to run their own cleaning business... If cleaners found it all too depressing, then why stick at it?  Plenty of other jobs out there with same pay and then some?  Thing is, a good few cleaners will be most loyal to their everyday duties and value them..  If people kept the places clean and neat, those cleaners wont have work, that to them would be most depressing..

You may as well say - Why keep stacking shelves at a supermarket, when people will wreck them and empty them again and again ?

Working as a cleaner is not a bad thing,  it's a hell of a lot better than sitting on their asses sponging off the government..  It doesn't matter what job they do, as long as they can hold their heads up and say - "I am no free loader"  

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 11 December 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 10 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Why intrinsically should equality be preferrable?

That is a value judgement based on modern socio economics. It has alwys been absolutely impossible in past societies and certainly not a prefeered way of organising a society. It remains probably unattainable in practice in modern society.

Are you suggesting a socialist form of equality where all are equal regardless of ability and a doctor is paid the same as a cleaner for example; or an out comes based equality where all who produce equally valuable outcomes are equal?

A cleaner being paid the same as a doctor is not equality. The difference in pay reflects the level of training and accountability. Two people doing the same job and being paid differently. That's
inequality. And that happens. Women tend to earn less than men doing comparable jobs.

Mr Walker, on 10 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

In principle the idea of all humans being intrinsically equal has some philosophical merit but it is not often practical. And it raises practical difficulties For example women still don't reach the top echelons of business and govt in equal numbers. They dont have eqaulity of superannuation but they often have their careeers interrupted by child bearing and raising. If we ensure they go back to work quicly so as not to interrupt their careers is that equality for  them and what about their children who are often then placed in child care with inferior outcomes to a child raised by caring parents.? The idea that very differnt lives can be nmade eqaul is impractical and if it is attempted can lead to actual inequalities eg the concept of half of all CEOS being women via govt legislation works against both the best suited men and women getting those jobs.

I am taking a devi'ls advocate position here but basically equality is a product of our current socio economic environment. If that changes then equality will no longer be seen as adesirable or sought after outcome.

If equality was possible then men would have half the children and do half of the nurturing and child rearing. That would take some alterations in biology to accomplish.

You've concentrated solely on economic equality and, as you point out, this can be difficult (even impossible) to achieve for the obvious reasons you identify. There are many arguments for and against the issues here. Should the government legislate to support women who choose to have children then choose to work? etc. But this is a discussion for another thread and largely irrelevant to what was being discussed here.

I realise you're playing devil's advocate and seeing where the logic of that takes you. But where all things are equal (eg, being able to speak up at meetings, membership of a bowling club or positions in government) then I believe as I wrote earlier that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, equality is preferable. It is not a "value judgement based on modern socio-economics", it's a value judgement based on ethical and moral considerations.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 11 December 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

A cleaner being paid the same as a doctor is not equality. The difference in pay reflects the level of training and accountability. Two people doing the same job and being paid differently. That's
inequality. And that happens. Women tend to earn less than men doing comparable jobs.



You've concentrated solely on economic equality and, as you point out, this can be difficult (even impossible) to achieve for the obvious reasons you identify. There are many arguments for and against the issues here. Should the government legislate to support women who choose to have children then choose to work? etc. But this is a discussion for another thread and largely irrelevant to what was being discussed here.

I realise you're playing devil's advocate and seeing where the logic of that takes you. But where all things are equal (eg, being able to speak up at meetings, membership of a bowling club or positions in government) then I believe as I wrote earlier that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, equality is preferable. It is not a "value judgement based on modern socio-economics", it's a value judgement based on ethical and moral considerations.

Ah, but ethical and moral considerations are based on  values, and values are learned, and learning occurs within our context of current socio -economic political realities.  And so, equality,  especially the current concept of equality, is a concept predicated from within our current reality.

In other words you believe equality is a good thing because you have been taught that/have learned that, it is. You are taught that  it is, because equality fits our current sociall model, and produces generally positive outcomes for people in our society..Education, in any form, is (used as) a social tool to promote social cohesion and lessen social tensions.

Edited by Mr Walker, 11 December 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[Mr Walker]

ouija ouija, on 10 December 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Just to pick one line out of your interesting post: I believe a cleaner and a doctor should be paid the same. I can't believe that cleaners are still being considered as being 'the bottom of the heap'! In their own way both jobs are of equal importance ...... have you lived in a city when the refuse collectors have gone on strike even for just a week? Cleaners have monotonous jobs that are undone by others as fast as they are done ...... how potentially depressing is that?! They do these vital jobs week in, week out, often working unsociable hours, to be looked down on and often considered stupid. Doctors are paid while they train, get paid very well once they're qualified, work a lot less hours than they used to and have the capacity to ruin the most precious thing we have: our health. They push drugs at us that we don't need(to get money from the government), and don't listen to what we say half the time. I'm using extreme examples here, but do you see what I'm getting at? Each is contributing in their own capacity and should be equally rewarded.

Society could (at considerable cost) provide the cost of educating a doctor. If it did so there could be as many doctors as cleaners. Then the cost of employing or consulting  a doctor might be the same as the cost of  hiring a cleaner But unfortunately, it would be economically unsustainable. While the cost of producing a cleaner is very low, the cost of producing a doctor is very high (and time consuming) So if doctors are paid only the same as cleaners, they will not return the costs of educating them. Also they would not do the job, given the personal and legal responsibilities and pressures of being even a GP.

Ps i dont know about your part of the world but doctors  here arent paid much until they get fully trained and have some practice,  which often takes nearly 10 years, and they often have to work ridiculous and potentially dangerous hours. Having more of them would relieve the latter situation.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 11 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

equality fits our current sociall model, and produces generally positive outcomes for people in our society.

So, we agree.

Edited by Arbenol68, 12 December 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[scowl]

Mr Walker, on 11 December 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

Society could (at considerable cost) provide the cost of educating a doctor. If it did so there could be as many doctors as cleaners.

It would just be a matter of tightening the qualifications for getting the free education to become a doctor. Then we would get the smartest and most qualified doctors instead of dumb ones that were lucky to come from families who could afford the education.

Quote

Ps i dont know about your part of the world but doctors  here arent paid much until they get fully trained and have some practice,  which often takes nearly 10 years, and they often have to work ridiculous and potentially dangerous hours. Having more of them would relieve the latter situation.

In my part of the world most doctors are specialists, work only four days a week, and drive expensive cars. They don't talk about how they're worried about getting laid off or having their jobs being offshored to India.