User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is Equality Possible?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 50.00%
  • No

    8 50.00%
  • Apathy

    0 0%
First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 28

  1. #11
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaqcues Le Paul View Post
    I saw a thread called Everyday Sexism Project recently. So I decided to start this thread for the sake of asking the bigger question. Is Equality Possible?

    Personally, I don't think it is.

    As the human perspective is inevitably different between people. As no two minds are the exact same.
    There was an earlier thread asking something similar. Equality among people is impossible due to the many ways in which we are different. Legal equality and equality of opportunity are quite possible, on the other hand, and we should continue to work toward these goals. Only then will the actual inequalities in people's experiences be due to actual differences, and not artificial barriers.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #12

    Default

    I think there needs to be more thought about what equality is and what its purpose is too.

    The fact that people can be apathetic about it or deny its possibility, I believe, illustrates that its worth isnt believed or is only believed with reference to specific things or people.

    Rawls argued in his theory of justice that inequality could be justified if the very least of the unequal society were still more prosperous than the least of the hypothetical egalitarian society, I think he was writing at a time when that hadnt really been tested and there were not plutonomies and plutocracies quite like those in existence today. Still his theories are good and a good place to begin whether your favour more or less equality, did you know that despite the popularity of libetarianism and free market sound bites more US citizens favour a measure of equality in personal wealth which rivals and even supersedes those of countries like Norway or Sweden and Scandinavian states?

  3. #13
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    I think it's possible to be almost 100% equal, but never totally 100%, just because of the biological differences and because people are so drawn to categorize people as "in-group" vs. "out-group".

    But, I think it's possible to be functionally equal in most areas, which we are close to, but there is still a considerable amount of improvement that needs to happen for some situations, which I think will take both effort and time (as people are raised in more and more "equality-minded" families).
    -end of thread-

  4. #14
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    It seems to me that, paradoxically, a lot of effort in gender or feminist studies goes into re-defining and underlining the differences between the two sexes and various gender groups. But definitions, as the word foretells, socially function as demarcations. If the goal is to produce equality among individuals, I wonder if we are not actually fueling the intersocial machine that runs on thinking in groups by creating and publicizing more and more gender concepts and, consequently, groups of people identifying with them. Does a theory of queerness, open as it is, not eventually run counter to a society free from gender role pressure and gender difference? A concept to fight all concepts is still a concept, and just an additional one if it does not, as it surely will not, win the fight. In practice, it appears to have become almost as stiff a label as 'straight', anyway.

    It reminds me of typology: Apparently, many people have difficulty choosing between 16 types, because if there are 16 different types and everybody is one of them, then there are groups of people that are, among themselves, equal, an ideal community, and at the same time different from all the others. It would seem, then, that you need to find the right one. Thus, in the end, it merely multiplies the two-gender problem; for, without distinction of person, we all know that SJs suck.

    Does going to war not inevitably imply raising an army?

    That is all a bit unstructured and I have no idea whether you buy into need for a conceptual gender diversification, @Salomé, but since you are obviously interested in the sex and gender business I would like to hear what you think about the impact it has on achieving the glorious goal of equality.

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Equality of what?

    Everyone already has a reasonable opportunity (if they apply themselves) to succeed.

    Cultural and family make up factors influence this, but regardless, the opportunity is still there.

    I don't think a child born in the lowest income quartile is ever going to have as easy a time taking advantage of opportunity as is the child of a sitting US congressman.

    The opportunity is there in both instances, but for the child of the congressman, they have an incomparable support network to ensure they succeed. The child from the lowest income quartile does not have that, but the opportunity to succeed still exists.

    No government policy can ever address this, and in fact I don't think they should try. It is that support network that one generation passes on to the next, and by that means that one generation gives their children the ability to be more successful.

    One of the greatest incentives to succeed is passing on those advantages to one's children.

    Surely everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, but we shouldn't try to legislate against the desire to give one's children a better life than they had.

  6. #16
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Being equal is different from being the same. You misunderstand equality. People have equal worth before God, and hopefully before the law, not equal skill or talent or wealth or anything else.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  7. #17
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Everyone already has a reasonable opportunity (if they apply themselves) to succeed.
    Do you think, if you applied yourself, you would have a reasonable opportunity to be as fast as Usain Bolt? I mean, you can both afford the unitard and footwear...

    Obviously, not everyone can or should be president, but everyone should have the opportunity to live a happy life. So to have true equality, you not only need equal opportunies for everyone, but opportunities equal to everyone.

    I am not looking for a discussion, but it always bothers me in Republican pep talks that they forget that the advantages of motivation and talent are also socially influenced and not equally distributed.

  8. #18
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Do you think, if you applied yourself, you would have a reasonable opportunity to be as fast as Usain Bolt? I mean, you can both afford the unitard and footwear...

    Obviously, not everyone can or should be president, but everyone should have the opportunity to live a happy life. So to have true equality, you not only need equal opportunies for everyone, but opportunities equal to everyone.

    I am not looking for a discussion, but it always bothers me in Republican pep talks that they forget that the advantages of motivation and talent are also socially influenced and not equally distributed.
    I could train my whole life, and never have a chance.

    Talent and motivation aren't equally distributed, but luckily it takes all kinds, there are people out there who want to run the best landscaping business they can, and we need them every bit as much as we need Tax attorney's (actually we need tax attorneys less because, our tax system should be easy enough to navigate that an individual shouldn't need one).

    Talent I would argue is genetic, and you pretty much have to play the hand your dealt on that one. But motivation, which I think plays a much larger role in success, is as much about culture (having good role models etc..) as it is anything else.

    Social factors are never going to influence how fast I can sprint. How hard I train to sprint will affect that, but regardless of training, I will always be limited by my genetic disposition.

    It is the job of parents, to demand the best from their kids, and to instill industrious habits. And hopefully the culture that child is born into values academic achievement.

    It mostly comes down to the parents (parents plural) in addition to being born with the God given talent. Everyone has the ability to do something well. Being raised to make the most of ones natural talents goes farthest in insuring that one takes the greatest advantage of their potential.

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    What would true equality even look like?

    Would we need to take all children away from their parents at birth so as to not convey an unfair advantage on children whose parents read more to them, or have a larger vocabulary?

    Would we then need some gov't approved child raising method by which every one enjoys the same environmental factors so that no one has the advantage of being born to very involved parents?

    I believe everyone should have the opportunity to succeed. It is up to no one but them to decide whether they take advantage of that opportunity.

  10. #20
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    In law, equality means discriminating against or in favor of people only in the ways considered acceptable by the law. It is not legally acceptable to throw someone in prison because he's a man, but it is legally acceptable to throw him in prison because he's a rapist.

    When people say that true equality has yet to be achieved, they usually mean that their own prejudices are out of synch with the law's prejudices.

    Is true equality possible? Yes, if every person can be held responsible for the same vices and virtues as the next person.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

Similar Threads

  1. Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?
    By swordpath in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 06-16-2016, 09:21 PM
  2. is it possible to be a peaceful muslim?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 09:11 PM
  3. Light barrier broken? Is this possible?
    By Athenian200 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 10:27 AM
  4. INTJ --> ISFP: Is it possible?
    By TheLastMohican in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 10:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO