Is equality a bad thing?

[Individuality-ness]

"Equal treatment under the law"
is good pay has not a thing to do how the gov shod treat you

bob makes 1,000,000 a day he kills a man he go's to jail.
Jill makes 50 a day she kills a man he go's to jail.

that is equality that is good.

Translated: equality under the law is a good thing, no matter what gender or how rich you are.

[Morganutopia]

Translated: equality under the law is a good thing, no matter what gender or how rich you are.

yes

[Wielki Lechia]

All require more money than anyone is willing to spend when "more pressing things" are on the table. It is all good in theory, but how efficient are they in practice?

Very efficient if you do simple things like not requiring race/gender on the application form and assigning every applicant with a unique ID number during the hiring process. It's not hard.

Which has never happened on any of my application processes, ever. Like I said, good in theory.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Translated: equality under the law is a good thing, no matter what gender or how rich you are.

There we go.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

I want to ensure that this gets a response...

Why do you think this?

· Success & failure are subjective.
· Why do you think this?
· Even the success of an individual was at the expense of many others?

Very well, we shall grace you with our response.

1-Success and failure are only subjective as they occur. History judges them in retrospect.
2-I cannot explain "why" I think something other then to tell you that I came about my opinions through years of careful analysis.
3-Yes

[Individuality-ness]

Very efficient if you do simple things like not requiring race/gender on the application form and assigning every applicant with a unique ID number during the hiring process. It's not hard.

Which has never happened on any of my application processes, ever. Like I said, good in theory.

Doesn't happen when you're applying =! doesn't happen ever.

[The Emerald Dawn]

So, fun question for everyone here:

Why are you against my ever being employed?

[Nua Corda]

"Equal treatment under the law"
is good pay has not a thing to do how the gov shod treat you

bob makes 1,000,000 a day he kills a man he go's to jail.
Jill makes 50 a day she kills a man he go's to jail.

that is equality that is good.

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto. Totally not a jab at Monsanto. No, not at all.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

[America Resurgent]

Depends what kind of equality you're talking about.

^Yeah, this sums my thoughts up pretty nicely.

[Hurdegaryp]

North Stradia:
Believes that wealth redistribution and equality are unfair.

Do you think equality is a good or bad thing?

I think it is a very bad thing. It discourages people from working hard, and it unfairly benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.

Thoughts?

Abhors fairness and wants it avoided at all costs.

Agreed. Fairness is something that should be avoided at all costs.

I get it now. He's a hard-line communist. Obviously.

Oh, you mean he's one of those undercover agitators that is sowing the seeds of a popular uprising by exposing the fallacies of the affluent and pretending they are actually virtues, therefore planting the idea that all the rich are perverted sociopaths?

[Wielki Lechia]

Which has never happened on any of my application processes, ever. Like I said, good in theory.

Doesn't happen when you're applying =! doesn't happen ever.

Loving the assumptions made.

[Indira]

Depends what kind of equality you're talking about.

the kind of equality where we all live in a grey word and we aren't allowed to use "he" or "she" and everyone is paid the same amount for every job and spends all day in a mao suit

That isn't what equality is really asking for these days though. Of course it's a good thing when it comes to education and opportunities

[Individuality-ness]

Doesn't happen when you're applying =! doesn't happen ever.

Loving the assumptions made.

You're making the assumption that a sample of a few equals the reality of the whole. I'm just correcting you.

[Morganutopia]

"Equal treatment under the law"
is good pay has not a thing to do how the gov shod treat you

bob makes 1,000,000 a day he kills a man he go's to jail.
Jill makes 50 a day she kills a man he go's to jail.

that is equality that is good.

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

I agree but how can you fix that.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

I agree but how can you fix that.

Limit spending in legal proceedings to the level of the poorest applicant.

[Thafoo]

Depends what kind of equality you're talking about.

the kind of equality where we all live in a grey word and we aren't allowed to use "he" or "she" and everyone is paid the same amount for every job and spends all day in a mao suit

sounds like a mix of The Giver and 1984

[Wielki Lechia]

Loving the assumptions made.

You're making the assumption that a sample of a few equals the reality of the whole. I'm just correcting you.

Would it make you sleep better at night if I got everyone of my friend's friend's family's friend's friend's to respond to the question, create a spreadsheet of the overwhelming 'No' responses, and post it for you? I've never even heard of anyone encountering either. Is that the entire whole? No, but it's more then enough to let me know it isn't adopted in my State.

[Conscentia]

1-Success and failure are only subjective as they occur. History judges them in retrospect.
2-I cannot explain "why" I think something other then to tell you that I came about my opinions through years of careful analysis.
3-Yes

· History is not a sapient entity. I think you mean that future generations will judge.
Their ideas of success & failure will be just as subject as past ideas.
Additionally, history is forgetful.
· If you cannot explain why you believe something, then you have no basis for that belief. It is therefore irrational to continue to posses that believe.
· Why do you think the success of one is praiseworthy if it is at the expense of many others?

[The Emerald Dawn]

You're making the assumption that a sample of a few equals the reality of the whole. I'm just correcting you.

Would it make you sleep better at night if I got everyone of my friend's friend's family's friend's friend's to respond to the question, create a spreadsheet of the overwhelming 'No' responses, and post it for you? I've never even heard of anyone encountering either. Is that the entire whole? No, but it's more then enough to let me know it isn't adopted in my State.

You're assuming that your experience is universal within your state. It's called confirmation bias, it's pretty common.

[Wielki Lechia]

Would it make you sleep better at night if I got everyone of my friend's friend's family's friend's friend's to respond to the question, create a spreadsheet of the overwhelming 'No' responses, and post it for you? I've never even heard of anyone encountering either. Is that the entire whole? No, but it's more then enough to let me know it isn't adopted in my State.

You're assuming that your experience is universal within your state. It's called confirmation bias, it's pretty common.

Please, then, show me of examples were it has been implemented and successful. As I have seen no evidence of such.

[Individuality-ness]

You're making the assumption that a sample of a few equals the reality of the whole. I'm just correcting you.

Would it make you sleep better at night if I got everyone of my friend's friend's family's friend's friend's to respond to the question, create a spreadsheet of the overwhelming 'No' responses, and post it for you? I've never even heard of anyone encountering either. Is that the entire whole? No, but it's more then enough to let me know it isn't adopted in my State.

Of course not, that would be selective bias and confirmation bias. You don't do surveys like that, that's statistically invalid.

[Nua Corda]

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

I agree but how can you fix that.

Well, there are a number of ways.

One would be to do what Emerald said.

Another would be to break up companies that got too big, so they don't have the chance to screw over small businesspeople like Jill.

Still another, in this particular instance (which happens almost every day in the real world, at the hands of the four or so companies that basically own food production in America), would be to make a law that GMOs cannot be considered intellectual property. Or to ban GMOs altogether.

[Genivaria]

Indeed. Such an idea would result in a society where there is no meritocracy, leading to stagnation.

Isn't meritocracy the very thing, North Stradia claims to stand for?

Claims to, but isn't.
Meritocracy requires Equality of Opportunity, which is Egalitarian in nature.

[Nua Corda]

Isn't meritocracy the very thing, North Stradia claims to stand for?

Claims to, but isn't.
Meritocracy requires Equality of Opportunity, which is Egalitarian in nature.

It would also require inheritance to be banned, and a whole lot of other things that make libertarians cry.

[Rereumrari]

It's noble in purpose, but in the end, it always tips the balance of the scale to the other side instead of making things better. In order to make things equal, you have to take from someone else who has an unequal amount and give it to someone that has a negative amount, then the first person ends up in the negative and the other one in the positive. For example, say someone is getting a solid A in math class while another guy is getting an F. Obviously, there is some inequality, but if you were to take his grade and lower it to a C, then you take the second guy and raise his grade to a C, everything is "equal", but the first guy lost what he earned while the second guy gained a few marks for being a failure. It encourages failure and punishes success.

Except that's not how it works, because the goal is to give both the opportunity to do well, not force one person down to build another up.

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?