Toribash
You make no sense at all. There is mathematical equality and social equality. They are two separate things.
If what you say is true there would be formulas to solve social issues.
X is also not equal to x unless you define them so.
x is equal to x, however.
People are also not mathematically equal. I am definitely not equal you.

Seeing as you admit that social equality is not quantifiable, I have no idea why you would say that in the first place. I get the impression you are just typing down things for the sake of typing down things.
Don't do that.

You also do not seem as though you understood my post. I did not ask for a definition of equality but for a state in which people would be equal. There are many hypotheses regarding this issue, and many have way different views on the world as well as different ways to solve inequalities.
For each hypothesis you will have to define equality, so defining it in general would make no sense as it is a highly dependent variable.
Karl Marx would define equality differently than Milton Friedman, for instance.
Last edited by Redundant; Jun 21, 2014 at 07:43 PM.
How are you?
You are probably right. I seems I had indeed misunderstood your post.

I retract my previousness arguments.

Social equality, I think, is generally perceived as a state of fair and indiscriminate treatment of everyone so that the rewards for their actions are equal in value to their actions. Unfortunately this would mean profiting from a free market would be impossible. On the other hand it would focus on a work based economy (similar to Marxism) rather than a market based economy which is not always a bad thing. Many prefer the latter because it allows more space and insensible for the production of luxuries rather than only necessities.

I hope this suffices to replace the idiocy of my last post. Thank you for reading.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron View Post
I believe that it is, to a greater extent, a child's birthplace and upbringing which determin his or her merits and values, rather than being completely determined by the child.

Actually, it's not so much birthplace and upbringing as it is peer influence that determines values.

I studied child psychology and development this semester and we learned about Erik Erikson and about how, starting from the age of five, children's morals and values and largely determined by their choice of peers.
When I said birthplace and upbringing I kinda meant all aspects of the environment. But I guess it being mainly peers make a bit of a difference to the whole debate since it means that if a child is surrounded by rebellious children that this child will most likely become a rebel rather than the actual area being such that al the children become rebels of their own accord.
Good morning sweet princess
Can't we just cut to the core of the question; Is Equality in itself good?

Have it so or not, then what do we mean by equality? Just to take a example from the tip of an iceberg; Should people that are hardworking be rewarded just as much as someone who is not for the sake of equality? Should people be treated differently due to their genders, as our biological code does lead us to have different needs? And so the list goes on...

This question;
Originally Posted by Kradel View Post
What's your thought on the current equally status. World wide and within your country. Is it fair? Or is it not controlled? This applies for all categories.

is about as wide as it gets. This is no discussion material, and if it were, then the question if good is good is also to be defined within it. Please refrain from posting overwhelmingly large questions without some boundaries or definitions, else it'll just become a definition debate.
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
Not all humans are equal, I think it's a farce to pretend they are. Each human's value should be independently determined.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by Smogard49 View Post
Can't we just cut to the core of the question; Is Equality in itself good?

I don't think that's the core of the question. I think the question is more to do with the current state of equality and I don't see how this question is too broad. On to your point though, equality of opportunity is of course good. It helps achieve social cohesion (a goal of any society). Conflict between groups, caused by inequities in the distribution of power (google 'Intersectionality' or 'Matrix of Domination'), obviously detracts from social cohesion. Equality is good.

Originally Posted by Smogard49 View Post
Have it so or not, then what do we mean by equality? Just to take a example from the tip of an iceberg; Should people that are hardworking be rewarded just as much as someone who is not for the sake of equality?

I think we can all recognize the difference between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, and I don't think anyone here (except the dirty communists) would suggest equality of outcome is something we want.

Originally Posted by Smogard49 View Post
Should people be treated differently due to their genders, as our biological code does lead us to have different needs? And so the list goes on...

Biological determinism (your underpinning premise) has been pretty much discredited. If men are supposed to be like X and women like X, then why do men and women act like A, B and C in different cultures or in different times in history? Women and men don't naturally act in the way we think they do. Transhistoric and transcultural examples blow away the idea that they do.

Sociologists recognize that gender is socially constructed, and thus, definitions of gender vary from society to society.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I don't think that's the core of the question. I think the question is more to do with the current state of equality and I don't see how this question is too broad. On to your point though, equality of opportunity is of course good. It helps achieve social cohesion (a goal of any society). Conflict between groups, caused by inequities in the distribution of power (google 'Intersectionality' or 'Matrix of Domination'), obviously detracts from social cohesion. Equality is good.


I think we can all recognize the difference between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, and I don't think anyone here (except the dirty communists) would suggest equality of outcome is something we want.


Biological determinism (your underpinning premise) has been pretty much discredited. If men are supposed to be like X and women like X, then why do men and women act like A, B and C in different cultures or in different times in history? Women and men don't naturally act in the way we think they do. Transhistoric and transcultural examples blow away the idea that they do.

Sociologists recognize that gender is socially constructed, and thus, definitions of gender vary from society to society.

So if a woman gets hospitalised and needs a tampon in the US and then gets a bill for that, whilst the man getting hospitalised for the exact same reason does not need one, is that equality?

Would you then argue that "gender is socially constructed"? Don't even try.
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
FYI Ele, "gender" is synonymous with "sex" in everyday conversation. It's pretty clear that you are using it to refer only to social and cultural factors, but it's important to mention because Smogard was using it to refer to biology.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
People are not all the same but it would be nice if we were not exposed to unequal prejudices. Although a system must accommodate unequal needs and give unequal treatment it should only do so when necessary, and a lot of the differences in treatment we see in society are far from necessary. It is ok for less intelligent people to be given fewer opportunities than those of above average intellect as long as the type of intellect we are measuring is relevant to the opportunities. We should not, on a moral level, assume that a person is intelligent because they went to a good school even if this rule tends to be efficient and mostly true. Unfortunately finding a more fair and equal system of choosing who should get opportunities (such as employment or university offers) would take time and resources which could otherwise be put to better use. It is possible that a better system of judgement would lead to people working in the most appropriate field of employment and thus benefit the employer with a more productive workforce but this benefit is unlikely to make up for the cost of the system.

I really hope this makes sense. I think it can be summarised as: equality is inefficient and institutional prejudice is often much more efficient and productive even if it is sometimes unfair.
Good morning sweet princess