Equality - fact or fiction?

[Crazy Horse]

Equal rights under the law are a fundimental necessity for a community to thrive and flourish etc. Thats not in question here. What I would like to examine is this idea of humanity being equal amongst themselves. Eg, is there a need for hierarchy, leadership, even grammar schools?

It seems to me that in this rush to equality we have dragged those "bright ones" down to a more vacuous level.

I mean, what happens to a society when there are no winners in a children's sports day? When you have an exam with a multiple answer question? When positive discrimination disregards a better person simply because they are not from an ethnic minority?

The reason why I am using these as examples is simply because if we want everybody to be equal then you have to drag everybody down to the lowest level of humanity, because trying to raise everybody to the level of genius would take serious time and money and our government has no dog in that race, in fact a dumbed down populace is exactly what "they" want. Our school systems isn't about striving for excellence but to produce unquestioning worker bees.

In my opinion, everybody has a talent and everybody is needed for society to thrive and happiness to flourish. Disregarding those who don't fit in is just creating problems that affect us all - collateral damage.

Would it not be better to admit our differences and then work together? 

We are all different, squeezing everyone into a "one size fits all" box, named Equality, seems to only breed resentment and discord?

[LightAngel]

19 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 

In my opinion, everybody has a talent and everybody is needed for society to thrive and happiness to flourish. 

 

 

There are several types of intelligence, so I agree 

 

 

 

http://www.learning-mind.com/types-of-intelligence/

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by LightAngel

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, LightAngel said:

 

There are several types of intelligence, so I agree 

 

 

 

http://www.learning-mind.com/types-of-intelligence/

 

 

I meant talent in the broadest sense.

Like some people have a talent for doing the most mundane, repetitive, mind numbingly boring job because they find it therapeutic or cathartic. 

Not everybody can be a rock star, and not everybody can clean sewers for a living. Im not judging here, just trying to be honest and then work with these simple truths!

In my opinion, trying to make everybody equal is going to breed disharmony (divide and conquer) and as a result, we the people, will never feel real contentment or happiness.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Crazy Horse

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

No disrespect intended crazy horse but from your examples I'm not sure you understand what equal rights are. 

[sees]

I am wondering if the topic is more about questioning competitiveness.

[Essan]

I think the OP's issue  is with the attitude that its "not fair" that some people are faster, more popular or cleverer than others, and that consequently everyone should win the race, be prom queen and get full marks in the test before going to university ........ where everyone then melts on discovering that the world doesn't work exactly as they think it should.

[spartan max2]

It depends on how one defines equal. If equality is defined as everyone being the exact same , intellgence , physical build, money etc then no that is not possible nor desirable.

If it is defined as treating everyone with an equal amount of respect and rights then I think that is possible 

Edited November 9, 2017 by spartan max2

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

 

It seems to me that in this rush to equality we have dragged those "bright ones" down to a more vacuous level.

 

That's what the goal of communism is.

It's for the purpose of the elites to enrich themselves and make slaves to the state out of the people.

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

4 hours ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

No disrespect intended crazy horse but from your examples I'm not sure you understand what equal rights are. 

Please elucidate.

Because I am trying to figure out whether the ideal of equality actually prevents a meritocratic society from forming.

 

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, sees said:

I am wondering if the topic is more about questioning competitiveness.

Its not competitiveness that I am questioning but the lack of it, and the general dumbing down of society under the guise of equality.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Please elucidate.

Because I am trying to figure out whether the ideal of equality actually prevents a meritocratic society from forming.

The only equality that people usually refer to is equality before the law, which it seems like you are not talking about.  I don't think there is a push outside of that that everyone be 'equal', whatever that really means.  Who is saying that someone shouldn't use their specific talents, there are simply too many things that have ranges in expertise or talents than is possible for anyone to develop 'equal' expertise in given our limited life spans.  Again, I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you are making as far as the push for equality outside of the law; what 'box' for example, outside of legal issues, are people being made to comply with a 'one size fits all' approach?

There are winners on kids sports days, even if they are not acknowledged; there are no sports that I'm aware of that doesn't usually involve winning.  I don't see what the issue is with exams with multiple answer questions if the answers are correct.  'Positive discrimination' is not about dragging people down, it's about lifting people up to compensate for the fact that historically and currently there are forces in place that unfairly make people unequal.

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, Essan said:

I think the OP's issue  is with the attitude that its "not fair" that some people are faster, more popular or cleverer than others, and that consequently everyone should win the race, be prom queen and get full marks in the test before going to university ........ where everyone then melts on discovering that the world doesn't work exactly as they think it should.

......when in fact we are different and unique and its the celebration of our individuality that can make the world a better place.

There are winners and losers in life, it is how we react to winning and losing that counts. Teach kids to be good sports, grace in victory and defeat, that will change the world right there. In any team sport you need a certain type of person to do a particular job - its the same in life!

Theres nothing wrong with a healthy competitiveness, striving for excellence. 

We should celebrate our differences, not all try to be equal.

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Its not competitiveness that I am questioning but the lack of it, and the general dumbing down of society under the guise of equality.

I don't see how 'society' is being dumbed down under the guise of equality.  Society being dumbed down is a result of, for kids, possible issues with our education system and for adults, with those adults themselves.

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It depends on how one defines equal. If equality is defined as everyone being the exact same , intellgence , physical build, money etc then no that is not possible nor desirable.

If it is defined as treating everyone with an equal amount of respect and rights then I think that is possible 

Equality under the law, and I would say under God too, then yes, we can at least try to treat everybody with respect, or if not respect then at least understand them.

But this practice of having no winners in a school sports day, this could be very damaging to society.

We should be encouraging kids to do the best they can, to dream of excellence, prepare, train, have dedication etc, but if someone happens to be better at something than you are, then its no big deal either. 

Use your peers as motivation. Healthy competition is good, but winning isn't everything either.

Im sure that everybody has a place in the world, and that everybody is needed - but we are different!

[sees]

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Its not competitiveness that I am questioning but the lack of it, and the general dumbing down of society under the guise of equality.

Yes what I meant was that the topic is ABOUT competititveness i.e. you don't want it!  

I don't feel comfortable with your idea of dumbing down society in order that we are all equal - do you realise the implication here?  Classrooms may have some slow learners so are the brighter sparks supposed to suppress their intelligence to not make the slow learner feel like he is a slow learner?     That feels wrong and problematic on many levels.

Although I dislike elitism, I am not sure what the solution is since competitiveness seems somewhat natural, i.e. it is evident in children playing!    Schools do not encompass the field of all talents e.g. creative talents can be developed outside of the system.  Also, socially, charisma goes a long way so someone may not be academically bright but still very popular!

Edited November 9, 2017 by sees

[Crazy Horse]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

That's what the goal of communism is.

It's for the purpose of the elites to enrich themselves and make slaves to the state out of the people.

 

 

A New World Order from a partially toxic notion of communism and fascism.

They can only do this if we the people are dumbed down, unfit, unable to think straight, fearful and divided.

I would say that the unnatural part of equality is just a small part of that over-all plan. 

[simplybill]

5 minutes ago, seanjo said:

 

For me equality is about equal opportunity, people are not equal in reality, we all have our different talents and our flaws, but give people the opportunity to better themselves or excel in what they are good at and I believe you will have the closest thing to equality.

Well said, seanjo. Recognizing and respecting the differences is the beginning of true equality.

The high-profile jobs get the most recognition, and draw the most respect from the world. I’ve made a habit of looking for the invisible people behind the scenes, like the restaurant cooks hidden away in the kitchen, or the janitors that keep the building spotless. I try to acknowledge them in some way, by asking the waitress to deliver a tip to the cooks or just stopping to have a brief conversation with a janitor. It means a lot to them, and it makes my day to see the looks of gratitude they have from being appreciated and valued. 

 

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

A New World Order from a partially toxic notion of communism and fascism.

They can only do this if we the people are dumbed down, unfit, unable to think straight, fearful and divided.

I would say that the unnatural part of equality is just a small part of that over-all plan. 

That's right. The other part of the plan hasn't been instigated yet, but you can see it coming in the belicose and violent behavior of the proponents of communism and marxism.

Like it has occurred in every totalitarian communist country in the past hundred years, once the elites (criminals) establish control of the government they move quickly to suppress dissent. 

People who don't submit or conform to communism are then rounded up and imprisoned. 

 

Or killed.

 

That's the plan that has worked for communism in the past and if we don't wake up, we'll be dead.

 

 

[taniwha]

I think this notion of equality is mythical in practice. Some people will always be more equal than others it's just how the world turns.

[rashore]

9 minutes ago, sees said:

Yes what I meant was that the topic is ABOUT competititveness i.e. you don't want it!  

I don't feel comfortable with your idea of dumbing down society in order that we are all equal - do you realise the implication here?  Classrooms may have some slow learners so are the brighter sparks supposed to suppress their intelligence to not make the slow learner feel like he is a slow learner?     That feels wrong and problematic on many levels.

Although I dislike elitism, I am not sure what the solution is since competitiveness seems somewhat natural, i.e. it is evident in children playing!    Schools do not encompass the field of all talents e.g. creative talents can be developed outside of the system.  Also, socially, charisma goes a long way so someone may not be academically bright but still very popular!

Um sees.. I think Crazy Horse is saying he wants to see competition, wants to see folks not dumb down society. That classrooms should not hinder the brighter sparks for the sake of the slow learner.

[sees]

2 minutes ago, rashore said:

Um sees.. I think Crazy Horse is saying he wants to see competition, wants to see folks not dumb down society. That classrooms should not hinder the brighter sparks for the sake of the slow learner.

      

[RAyMO]

To me its not about everybody being equal - its about

1. Equality of Opportunity - opportunities to be available to all those with the inclination and the ability
2. Equality of Respect - respecting sameness and difference - determining whether an individual is deserving of respect purely on the basis of the individual, not a through wider grouping or stereo type perspective. 

I'm sure I could have worded it better, but there you go.

[Crazy Horse]

51 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The only equality that people usually refer to is equality before the law, which it seems like you are not talking about.  I don't think there is a push outside of that that everyone be 'equal', whatever that really means.  Who is saying that someone shouldn't use their specific talents, there are simply too many things that have ranges in expertise or talents than is possible for anyone to develop 'equal' expertise in given our limited life spans.  Again, I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you are making as far as the push for equality outside of the law; what 'box' for example, outside of legal issues, are people being made to comply with a 'one size fits all' approach?

There are winners on kids sports days, even if they are not acknowledged; there are no sports that I'm aware of that doesn't usually involve winning.  I don't see what the issue is with exams with multiple answer questions if the answers are correct.  'Positive discrimination' is not about dragging people down, it's about lifting people up to compensate for the fact that historically and currently there are forces in place that unfairly make people unequal.

No, there are not always winners on kids sports days. So what kind of message is this sending out to children subconsciously? The actual reason given by the schools is to not hurt the feelings of the children who didn't win. 

As for multiple answer questions I don't actually know the official reasoning behind it, but nevertheless, a monkey could get 1 in 3 correct by pure chance. Not having to learn the subject thoroughly, can only lead to a dumbing down of society.

And as for 'Positive Discrimination' lets just call it for what it is, flat-out racist. If you own a company and you are forced to hire someone based entirely on their ethnicity instead of who has the best experience and qualifications, or who has the best attitude and personal skills etc, then your business is going to go down the tubes pretty quickly. 

If I were to put an ad in the local newspaper saying, "bricklayers needed, must be white working class men." that would be racist, but when the BBC, a publicly funded corporation seeks only ethnic minorities, thats ok?

Positive Discrimination is absolutely a dumbing down of society, under the banner of Equality.

 

[Illyrius]

8 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Equal rights under the law are a fundimental necessity for a community to thrive and flourish etc. Thats not in question here. What I would like to examine is this idea of humanity being equal amongst themselves. Eg, is there a need for hierarchy, leadership, even grammar schools?

It seems to me that in this rush to equality we have dragged those "bright ones" down to a more vacuous level.

I mean, what happens to a society when there are no winners in a children's sports day? When you have an exam with a multiple answer question? When positive discrimination disregards a better person simply because they are not from an ethnic minority?

The reason why I am using these as examples is simply because if we want everybody to be equal then you have to drag everybody down to the lowest level of humanity, because trying to raise everybody to the level of genius would take serious time and money and our government has no dog in that race, in fact a dumbed down populace is exactly what "they" want. Our school systems isn't about striving for excellence but to produce unquestioning worker bees.

In my opinion, everybody has a talent and everybody is needed for society to thrive and happiness to flourish. Disregarding those who don't fit in is just creating problems that affect us all - collateral damage.

Would it not be better to admit our differences and then work together? 

We are all different, squeezing everyone into a "one size fits all" box, named Equality, seems to only breed resentment and discord?

In short - I am STRONGLY against equality in a sense you present it here. Equal rights under the law - yes.

[Crazy Horse]

51 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Equality always seems to mean reach for the bottom level.

 

For me equality is about equal opportunity, people are not equal in reality, we all have our different talents and our flaws, but give people the opportunity to better themselves or excel in what they are good at and I believe you will have the closest thing to equality.

 

Of course, there will always be people that aren't interested and will just idle along in life, taking and not giving.

Yes, a reach for the bottom level, exactly. 

If we are all going to be equal then we have to drag everybody down, because raising everybody up to the status of genius is going to be very very expensive, if it is possible at all!

Its like Equality between nations isn't a rising of standards, but a deterioration down to a third world level, because otherwise the rich elite would lose a bunch of money, and if we all strived for excellence in education etc, then we wouldn't stand for this nonsense, ie, 8 men having the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion folk here on planet earth.

So with all of these schemes, they are heralded by some pleasent sounding name, Equality, or Social Justice or something, but when you look to the detail, then actually these plans only serve to divide us.