With whom do you most want equality? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

With whom do you most want equality?

1. The gods
8
40%
2. The rich and famous (celebrities, pop stars, successful business people, leading statesmen)
2
10%
3. The comfortable
2
10%
4. The poor
2
10%
5. The pariahs (criminals, perverts)
No votes
0%
6. The damaged (disabled, terminal illness)
1
5%
7. Other
5
25%
#14880615
The modern fashions of political masturbation boil down to two different cults of loons witlessly braying their respective half-slogans, either "liberty" or "equality", though of course no longer both, dumb they may be but they are learning... [Zag Edit: Rule 3]This question concerns the equalitards who maybe more numerous or at least more noisy than their opposite gang. With whom do you most want equality?

I just want to get at what is actually materially desired by the abstract and unreferenced demand for "equality"?
#14882067
SolarCross wrote:The modern fashions of political masturbation boil down to two different cults of loons witlessly braying their respective half-slogans, either "liberty" or "equality", though of course no longer both, dumb they may be but they are learning... [Zag Edit: Rule 3]This question concerns the equalitards who maybe more numerous or at least more noisy than their opposite gang. With whom do you most want equality?

I just want to get at what is actually materially desired by the abstract and unreferenced demand for "equality"?


Give me equality or give me death. Give me liberty or give me death. Lol.

Oh, I will say folks, you can't vote in that poll. I tried. It is not working. I have no idea why it is not.

SolarCross, equality for me is very simple. You might have huge differences in all things... with other human beings.....but I acknowledge they are human beings and have some hard evidence indicating they are human beings.

They have to breathe air. They got to drink water. They got to eat. They got to grow from infanthood and to adulthood, to be either man or woman or trans or whatever...human. They have thoughts and emotions and as humans I empathize with that.

We are born, grow, live and then expire. Die. Human. Frail. Like bubbles of soap in a vast universe. Not tremendously significant.

I don't think I am better or great. Don't believe in some folks are different than others to the point that they cease being human in my eyes, and they are different because when they open their mouths and decide to die someday?....they are going to die in a superior way or an inferior way....a violent way or a peaceful way....a good way or a bad way....what I believe in @SolarCross? They are going to die the HUMAN way. Like every living thing in this world. The human way. Denying them their humanity because I believe in class systems and dominating and controlling in my mind? No. You are never going to be able to even control your wife's or husbands thoughts in their heads about you....to believe that somehow in an ego fueled delusion that your race, class or gender is the one who is going to over power all others? No. Delusions SolarCross.

Even the best attempts at Master Race theories like the Nazis? It got a reaction from the Jews. The founding of Israel. Aggressive you must serve in the Israeli army (man or woman). Zionism. But weren't the Nazis aiming to destroy any sense of nationhood in the Jews? The INFERIORS. The lowest of the low. The rats and the roaches? Why did they fail?

because the Jews and any other human group are not less human. They are human. Humans all have that seed of potential. To be what they need to become. Master adapters for many hundreds of thousands of years. If we sucked as a species at that? Would not have grown to 7-8 Billion in numbers.

You either are smart enough to accept human beings are all the same species,and have the same seed of change and adaptation to changing conditions...and the conditions are always changing....or you believe in some hierarchy of humanity with the car assembly shit Solar Cross....economy car, mid sized sedan, luxury vehicle. Humans are not that. Never will be. They are not just tiny limited things. Not if they live in society. The first rule of evolution is about which of the two parts of a human society has more power SolarCross. It is simple. The individual is limited. Can't evolve. Not by themselves ever. The group? Has all the power. Only the group evolves. Not the individual. So what does that mean? Our relationships with each other is where the power of change resides. Not in our individuality. So? Elite people are always a tiny minority of the whole in these capitalist systems. They won't be the ones making the evolving changes and adaptations (most might empires fall and the only people left behind in the rubble that rebuild and go on to survive are the commoners, the regular ole folks who had not much to lose in all those high and might battles for glory and spoils)....and individuals only contribute to the whole via social interactions. Without equality? You keep everyone in wasteful and ineffective social relationships doomed to be inefficient and impractical. It is also morally weak to only see humans like machines. We have never been strictly machines.

Though we oftentimes treat each other as such.

Equality. The solution to human arrogance. Lol. And fallacious ideas of what nature is all about. In the big Picture....we are not that important SolarCross and the elite delusions of superiority and being better than the next human being? All an illusion.
#14882289
I have always viewed our "ruling class", our super rich, our famous with a certain pity. Never envy. Pity. Why? As is said, "Absolute power (and wealth) corrupts absolutely." I would say that the vast majority of these people have a rather obvious arrogance about them. A feeling of superiority. They, like everyone, are going to die and rot in their graves. Is that not a humbling thought? And then ..... peer into space, the universe. We are rather insignificant to say the least. I pity these people who are so wrapped up in their self importance. They are missing the boat and they will never know that they have missed the boat. They're many exceptions of course. Albert Einstein comes to mind. And, perhaps, Donald Trump ...... :lol: The question is N/A. All humans are "equal".
#14882410
If humans are all equal because we all die, then we are equal with the every lifeform from the amoeba to the zebra. Anti-racists often turn out to not just be closet racists but also speciesists. They always have this underlying assumption that their own species is special and superior, the bigots. Humanism is basically a cult for speciesists.
#14882425
One would have to discern that on a case by case basis somewhat in that many people give the vague term different meaning of course.

When it comes to the term equality, I think it's most commonly associated with liberal rhetoric in regards to formal law. So often it's about formal equality in law (treating people exactly the same is fair).
But this of course has problems where there is difference.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
This epitomizes liberalism in it's abstractness, it was progressive to contemplate the abstract equality of people though. It of course didn't presume a inherent human dignity in many without struggle though.
But getting formal legal recognition is a big gain for a demographic to have.

But because of substantive differences, there can be justification for differential treatment. So for example if abortion is to be legal, it in practice is a legal right for women as men can't get pregnant and so can't have an abortion. The differential treatment doesn't deprive men of a right, but grants a legal right for a difference. In the same way disability rights grants things to the particular needs of a person with a disability, and is inapplicable without those disabilities.
Substantive equality is what I think some people get at if they're not liberals, in that what seems like unjust differential treatment to liberals, is in fact treating people in better accordance to their particular needs and existence. It's a higher moral standard than treat people how you wish to be treated in instead being about treating people who they wish/should be treated. Emphasizing that materially, we're not exactly the same, clone #10085 on the production line, there are differences, which need not be assumed inherent across time and place but historically contingent and thus can even be temporarily based.

But to get at what a person refers to with the use of equality, one would need a context because it could just as readily be the formal or the substnative.
Because in some cases its progressive to press for the formal, in other cases it's detrimental. And so can see people shift their emphasis on where they want things to be equal of some sort depending on the issue.
Some might for example talk about treating women equal in the formal sense in regards to abortion, which may be that no one should be allowed abortions. Much like the earlier quote about the rich and poor.

Also see with liberals that don't wish to change the conditions that underpin the visible outcomes, that they want equal outcomes in quotas and such.
http://unityandstruggle.org/2013/09/12/i-am-a-woman-and-a-human-a-marxist-feminist-critique-of-intersectionality-theory/
For several pages, Fanon argues that black people must embrace blackness, and struggle on the basis of being black, in order to negate white supremacists social relations. But to stop there reproduces our one-sided existence and the forms of appearance of capitalism. Identity politics argues, “I am a black man,” or “I am a woman,” without filling out the other side of the contradiction “…and I am a human.” If the starting and ending point is one-sided, there is no possibility for abolishing racialized and gendered social relations. For supporters of identity politics (despite claiming otherwise), womanhood, a form of appearance within society, is reduced to a natural, static “identity.” Social relations such as “womanhood,” or simply gender, become static objects, or “institutions.” Society is therefore organized into individuals, or sociological groups with natural characteristics. Therefore, the only possibility for struggle under identity politics is based on equal distribution or individualism (I will discuss this further below). This is a bourgeois ideology in that it replicates the alienated individual invented and defended by bourgeois theorists and scientists (and materially enforced) since capitalism’s birth.
...
On the one hand, abstract “sociological” groups or individuals struggle for an equal voice, equal “representation,” or equal resources. Many have experienced this in organizing spaces where someone argues that there are not enough women of color, disabled individuals, transfolks, etc., present for a campaign to move forward. A contemporary example of this is the critique of Slut Walk for being too white and therefore a white supremacist or socially invalid movement. Another example is groups and individuals who argue that all movements should be completely subordinate to queer people of color leadership, regardless of how reactionary their politics are. Again, while intersectionality theorists have rightly identified an objective problem, these divisions and antagonisms within the class must be address materially through struggle. Simply reducing this struggle to mere quantity, equality of distribution, or “representation,” reinforces identity as a static, naturalized category.

This is where see emphasized that there should be 50/50 or some proportion related to the local demographics represented.
But one might speak of equality not necessarily in the outcome, which may or may not occur, but in regards to the starting conditions (equality of opportunity). Which would be more merit based in the sense that one is seeking to give ample opportunity to all. But this is unrealistic within capitalist relations where there just is no way for a kid from a poor family to be on par in life with that of someone raised with reasonable wealth.

So I think the question is framed too open ended and ambiguous, where should deal with real examples that come up and assess them and what seems to be going on. Because the idea that someone is speaking about being equal with the demographics in the poll seems misplaced from contexts in which equality arises.
#14882492
SolarCross wrote:If humans are all equal because we all die, then we are equal with the every lifeform from the amoeba to the zebra. Anti-racists often turn out to not just be closet racists but also speciesists. They always have this underlying assumption that their own species is special and superior, the bigots. Humanism is basically a cult for speciesists.


That is not what I meant Senor SolarCross. My point was more subtle and also obvious. I will be very clear. Because I want to hear your side of the argument. (I happen to like how you explain your philosophy about many subjects). No, I don't see humans are vastly superior to all other species. What I do believe is that we as humans have tremendous amounts of things in common with other species and we are composed of the same things that the Earth has in abundance. Our bodies are mostly sea water, and our cells share many functions and behaviors as the cells found in dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, chimps, etc. We have a natural history with just about every living creature and plants and fauna in the world. If we had no relationship with plants for example @SolarCross , then giving us some ibuprofen for a headache would be useless. Or aspirin for a pain or anything that is from the pharmacy. All derived from plants, that produce all these 'drugs' that get reactions in our biological systems. If we had no relationship with plants? Get nothing from the drugs in our bodies. We get a reaction from sunlight on our skin. You might get sunburn from hanging out in the sun and doing a @SolarCross move. I like your name by the way. Very cool. Anyway, my point is that if we have such a connection to nature, and we depend on all of nature for surviving, why don't we work with natural laws and nature's systems in order to cooperate within human societies so that we can benefit from human connections (the source of our wealth in our economic systems), so that we can surge forward and live well? I don't believe in thinking by dominating and strictly restricting and attempting to subjugate natural systems that somehow we win in the long run. The key for progress for me SolarCross is about working in tandem with natural law and natural processes and recognizing our common human needs, that we share with most living things in this world. That way? Instead of wasting a lot of human potential and energies in trying to dominate other people, fighting for territories and land and trying to be the king of a universe that might crumble if we don't learn how to live within certain boundaries of natural law----might lead to our extinction as a human species.

I want a society that instead of creating denials and human miseries in each other trying to dominate and control that which in the end? Can't be controlled---we work on cooperative models and exploit that greatest of all things in human beings. Adaptability, learning, using the group to evolve what is important. Sharing resources, sharing knowledge and sharing wealth.

That is why I say....give me equality or give me death. If we continue to go the way we are now? We are going to wind up denying who we are as a species, wasting resources, wasting minds, wasting time, wasting energy and being bigots. Against nature. Against all others and against ourselves.

Eso es todo CruzSolar. ;)
#14882812
The gods. Nothing else makes sense to me. But I could settle for the comfortable as the floor.

SolarCross wrote:If humans are all equal because we all die, then we are equal with the every lifeform from the amoeba to the zebra. Anti-racists often turn out to not just be closet racists but also speciesists. They always have this underlying assumption that their own species is special and superior, the bigots. Humanism is basically a cult for speciesists.


We are superior in that only we can bring salvation to other species and in general imporove the lives of others due to our brain power and social instincts.

Abolitionism (animal rights)

(I'm not vegan because I'm a hypocrite, not because I disagree with it.)
#14884615
SolarCross wrote:The modern fashions of political masturbation boil down to two different cults of loons witlessly braying their respective half-slogans, either "liberty" or "equality", though of course no longer both, dumb they may be but they are learning... [Zag Edit: Rule 3]This question concerns the equalitards who maybe more numerous or at least more noisy than their opposite gang. With whom do you most want equality?

I just want to get at what is actually materially desired by the abstract and unreferenced demand for "equality"?


I believe that people should be judged solely on their merits.
#14884617
I want the wealth of Bill Gates, the guest lists of Mich Jagger and the spiritual authority of the Dalai Lama.
#14884676
I think sensible people don't bother with retarded false dichotomies and understand that it's best to strike a reasonable balance between equality and liberty. Sensible people understand that the current system is a fucking travesty that gives a few inordinately more than they deserve and most far, far less that they're due, and that liberty is meaningless without a reasonable degree of equality.
#14887578
SolarCross wrote:The modern fashions of political masturbation boil down to two different cults of loons witlessly braying their respective half-slogans, either "liberty" or "equality", though of course no longer both, dumb they may be but they are learning... [Zag Edit: Rule 3]This question concerns the equalitards who maybe more numerous or at least more noisy than their opposite gang. With whom do you most want equality?

I just want to get at what is actually materially desired by the abstract and unreferenced demand for "equality"?


I don't understand what you are getting at. Equality is not identifying with iether the richest or poorest in society.

Equality is defined by the Oxford English Dictionaries as -

1. The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
"an organization aiming to promote racial equality"

synonyms: fairness, justness, equitability, impartiality, even-handedness, egalitarianism, equal rights, equal opportunities, non-discrimination; More justice, freedom, emancipation;

rarecoequality

"the union's efforts to promote equality for women"

antonyms: inequality

2. Mathematics

a symbolic expression of the fact that two quantities are equal; an equation.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality
#14887666
Paddy14 wrote:I don't understand what you are getting at. Equality is not identifying with iether the richest or poorest in society.

I didn't use the word "identifying".

With whom do you most want equality?

I just want to get at what is actually materially desired by the abstract and unreferenced demand for "equality"?

This is what I asked. If there is something you don't understand perhaps I can clarify for you?
#14887693
Your OP is vague at best.

Anyway:

    Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning 'equal') – or equalitarianism – is a school of thought that prioritizes equality for all people. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English: either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights; or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

    Some specifically focused egalitarian concerns include communism, legal egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial equality, equality of outcome and Christian egalitarianism. Common forms of egalitarianism include political and philosophical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

So, when I say I want equality, I mean that every person should have the same political, economic, social and civil rights. I also mean that we should get rid of economic inequality.

I tend to focus on communism, legal egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial equality, and international equality.

In my version of equality, we would not be equal to gods. There would be no rich or poor. We would all be comfortable. Criminals and perverts would get what they need to get better if that is possible, and would otherwise be comfortable but separate if it were not possible to get them better. The terminally ill or those dealing with disability would get what they need to live a life as comfortable as the rest of us.
#14887836
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, when I say I want equality, I mean that every person should have the same political, economic, social and civil rights. I also mean that we should get rid of economic inequality.

I had a pair of brothers in my cab last night. One brother, we will call him poorboy, was complaining of the other, we will call him richboy, that richboy worked too much. Poorboy worked just 2 days a week and that was enough for him, he liked idleness better than he liked having money in his pocket I guess. Richboy worked 12 hours a day seven days a week, because he wanted to buy his own one-bedroom flat while he was still young. Brothers.. nuts that fell from the same tree...

Maybe richboy will be a manager one day and then a director, he might buy shares, another house to let out for rental income... If he marries and has children he will be able to give them good head start in life. Poorboy will still be working just enough to get wrecked on cheap cider and watch day time television to fill up his vast freetime. How to make them equal? Force poorboy to work more? Force richboy to work less? Steal from richboy all that he has earned so that despite all his endeavours he is no better off than poorboy? More to the point why even bother making them equal when neither of them want that and both are getting what they want?

One of my local acquaintances eloped with the wife[…]

Is light energy time?

Gravitons, photons, how do you spell these in Spa[…]

If thats the case then laws regarding guns would […]

Trump and Russiagate

Now Manafort's deputy and Deputy Campaign Chairman[…]