And of course if you believe in EVOLUTION - by definition all are not equal - then if you have an advantage that is passed on in ones genes etc. So evolution requires that all are definitely NOT equal.
Do you believe that "all men are created equal"?
by nicolaou 23 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Legolas
With all seriousness aside.....NO, I don't think all 'Men' are created equal!
-
daystar
No need to talk down to me dahlin'. I never said the U.S.S.R. had true communism. They didn't any more than the U.S. is a democracy, because it's not.
I see your point in your first response here. But the biggest problem I see with either assumed equality, like we have here in the US, where everyone expects to be treated as equals even when they're not, is just as bad as the forced equality of the U.S.S.R. where it was taken advantage of by those who were "more equal", is in the assumption itself.
Should opportunities be available to all? I think so. But in actuality, there is no such thing as equality among people. You're talking about open opportunity. A person who does the same job, but better should be paid more, not equally, regardless of gender. That's not the same as "all men are created equal".
Philosophical visions of government never work the way the philosopher wants it to, does it?
-
daystar
Sherry
Slightly off-topic if you don't mind. You lean in interest toward some sort of an egalitarian nature-centric feminist spirituality, do you not? Or am I completely mistaken?
-
Gretchen956
No need to talk down to me dahlin'
Not my intention! Sorry if it came off that way. I should put the smiley's in so people can know when I'm trying to be more light hearted.
As to my spirituality, it is goddess and earth centric. But I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion on it if you don't mind?
There are two types of people (IMO) those who are more logic-driven, and those who are more emotion-driven. The thinker perceivers (to borrow from Meyers Briggs) will always think themselves superior than us intuitive-feelers. Thats because you can't prove intuition nor quantify emotion, they aren't scientifically provable. I think this pertains to this discussion because it tends to be the thinker perceiver personality types that think that there should be no social programs at all or very few, and some of them believe that society needs people to fail so that others can succeed. They typically don't care as much about the numbers of homeless or food deprived children, they see it as a personal failure instead of a societal failure.
Of course that is a broad generalization and I'm sure that I'll be called on it. But it has been an observation lately.
Sherry
-
Narkissos
Food for thought here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/
-
FlyingHighNow
I think this pertains to this discussion because it tends to be the thinker perceiver personality types that think that there should be no social programs at all or very few, and some of them believe that society needs people to fail so that others can succeed. They typically don't care as much about the numbers of homeless or food deprived children, they see it as a personal failure instead of a societal failure.
My dad is like that. He's big on republican politics and he's also a diehard evolutionist. He believes in survival of the fittest and he applies that socially as well. I have noticed that GW Bush is the same way. He may claim to be a big fundy christian who cares about the poor and less fortunate, but his actions prove otherwise.
-
Elsewhere
There's a saying from the old west... God created all men and Smith and Wesson made them equal.
-
roybatty
Equality, in the sense they are talking about doesn't mean a ditto-head carbon copy of each other. That would be ridiculous. But it does mean the same freedoms and the same responsibilities for all humans. It means that whatever law applies to one person should apply to another. Yes, it is an imperfect world, women still make 71 cents for every dollar a man makes with the same education and experience. That is neither fair nor just. And that is what those words were meant to protect. That right to have the same pay for the same work (as one example).
Exactly. What the founding fathers meant that, unlike the King of England and his like, no one is born with any special rights, nor should anyone be denied these basic rights because of the family they are born into.
It doesn't mean that physically or mentally we are all born equal. Go challenge Shaq to a game of one on one and you'll find this to be true
-
roybatty
I have heard if you read Marx and Tolstoy you'll see a different form of government advocated than what was ever practiced in the USSR.
"Greed is good." That's why even a "perfect" Socialist form of government will not work. Ingenuity AND big $$$ is the mother of invention. Just look at what Bell, Ford, Gates, etc.
True, the Soviets suffered from mass curruption but it still would not have worked. Case in point, look at the two Koreas. It's not an accident that the one country that choose a free market society is much better off the it's brother to the north.