Equlity. Good thing or not?

[poddster]

This is a simple poll (or is it );-)B-)]:)

The question is:-

Should all people be equal?

Give ita bit of thought before you answer.

If you answer Yes

Why did you answer in the affirmative?

Describe the :"equal" person that everyone should modeled on

If you answer No

Why did you answer in he negative?

[*crikey*mate*]

For equality to exist within the general population (I.e. those not controlling it) there needs to be some benchmark of exactly what equality is, and someone has to stop some people from being motivated to rise above that benchmark and encourage others to try and reach it.

Here we go again. Society is comprised of INDIVIDUALS. Equality within the general population would mean that every INDIVIDUAL had the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. How could that possibly entail preventing anyone from doing just that?

because those that want to reach their full potential, but can't be bothered to even try or don't possess the potential that they desire will always try and bring the other down to their level rather than aspire to realize/find their own true potential.

I look to Salieri and Motzart as an example of that, as well as the Tonya Harding debacle and many more everyday examples from taxation to achievment in school.

Not every individual has the same attitude towards opportunity and many would rather complain about having none than doing something about finding one.

[the_great_she_elephant]

because those that want to reach their full potential, but can't be bothered to even try or don't possess the potential that they desire will always try and bring the other down to their level rather than aspire to realize/find their own true potential.

I look to Salieri and Motzart as an example of that, as well as the Tonya Harding debacle and many more everyday examples from taxation to achievment in school.

Not every individual has the same attitude towards opportunity and many would rather complain about having none than doing something about finding one.

Whether or not this is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their individual potential. What people do with the opportunities they are given is a completely separate argument.

[freakiness]

Feminism in itself is discriminatory. Anyone who truly believes in equality could not by any stretch of the imagination be a feminist

You don't have a good understanding of feminism, it is not by definition discriminatory.

[para-sights]

Lets throw your scenario back to 1910. Who would you say is likely to get a BMW first with everyone working 100hrs a week - The white male born to wealth or the black female born into poverty?. They both share the same goals but the lady, determined as she may be, her aspirations and future outlook are limited by the inequalities of her era. Sure we've come leaps and bounds since then but we've not ironed out all the wrinkles in achieving true equality which goes beyond material possessions or personal achievements.

[*crikey*mate*]

Using the 100hrs/week working theory I think what Iza is saying (along with others and myself) is that it's not the hours or money you accumulate or the aspirations you have it's the equality to be ABLE to work. So let's say you want to work 100hrs but certain prejudices exist that prevent you. It's the basic rights to be able to work regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation wealth and status. To be able to get your preferred mode of transport and not be hindered by who you are.

OK - that concept was bought over from a totally different thread (not by me) so i tried to stick to the line of questioning.

The thread never specified one particular aspect of equality (i.e. social/cultural considerations)

The thread asked should equality exist and to describe the ideal person that should be the benchmark.

[the_great_she_elephant]

I look to Salieri and Motzart as an example of that,

Then I would seriously suggest that you check your facts and don't believe everything you see at the movies.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4213

[para-sights]

Ooops sorry so its more a "Who would you like to be?" style question. Ok then in lieu of anyone I can think of I guess rich and powerful but grounded. Good looking but not vain. Able bodied but empathetic. Intelligent yet world/grass roots wise

[*crikey*mate*]

because those that want to reach their full potential, but can't be bothered to even try or don't possess the potential that they desire will always try and bring the other down to their level rather than aspire to realize/find their own true potential.

I look to Salieri and Motzart as an example of that, as well as the Tonya Harding debacle and many more everyday examples from taxation to achievment in school.

Not every individual has the same attitude towards opportunity and many would rather complain about having none than doing something about finding one.

Whether or not this is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their individual potential. What people do with the opportunities they are given is a completely separate argument.

So, it is an expectation that opportunities are given?

Some people look for them and others wouldn't recognize one if it sat on their head.

What one person sees as an opportunity, another person sees as hard work or inconvenient.

[para-sights]

If one person seeks an opportunity and another ignores an opportunity - at least the same opportunity existed for both of them to start with.

[the_great_she_elephant]

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

(Abraham Lincoln - the opening words of  the Gettysburg Address.)