Equality or Superiority

[levasty]

blaugh  

[bluecherry]

As far as equality and superiority goes, for the most part, I think people are born equal, the "Tableau Rosa" idea like John Locke proposed. we are all born pretty much neutral and not inherently better or worse. However, it's what you do with your life from there on out that makes you better or worse, decides superiority if you will. Somebody who has spent their life as a decent human being and discovers what can cure HIV/AIDS I'd say has made themselves through their own choices and efforts a better person then somebody who has chosen to make a living by robbing people and then killing them.

 

[Demoire]

levasty

in advance i apologize to those who will get offended by this topic and if there is already a topic similar to this please direct me to it and don't post in here anymore

Equality or Superiority?
i for one believe in superiority equality does not and never did existed while superiority was always there and i think that everyone needs to be superior in orded to survive in this world
Eye for an Eye....an Equal trade? if that's the case that would only make the world go blind don't you think?

A superior of a superior, can be insuperor to his insuperior.
That's the balance.

But not everyone believes in, "an eye for an eye".
It's like we should be putting a fire out with fire, if we live by that.

 

[Silent Roar]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Miss Cherry. People are not born equal. You are either superior, or inferior. That's that.
Take Hinduism for example. The Hindus believe in reincarnation, and they believe that, through good deeds and good lives, they will one day be born as a Brahmin; a superior caste in wealth, spirituality and intellect.

 

[bluecherry]

Do you believe in Hinduism? Because if not while Hinduism may agree with your idea mentioning it does not explain why you think that.

 

[static-vision]

I think the superior ones might think that equality exists only because at times they seem oblivious to what is going on around them due to their superiority. sweatdrop  

[static-vision]

I think it is safe to say that superiority and equality both exist; just in different ways. But without those considered "superior" to those "inferior" there really would be no balance.

How is one equal to another anyways?

How is one not equal to another? stressed  

[static-vision]

It really all depends on how you are talking about the word.  

[Sorrow Surgeon]

Both exist,but not because that's "the way things are".They exist only in the perceptions of people.Anything can seem to exist if one believes it to.I think the question is, in what ways are things equal or superior.I could be equal to someone else,yet more superior than them at doing something like spelling.  

[justamat]

Equality is the ideal while superiority is the norm. We strive for equal opportunity, but equality isn't always a good thing. Life is messy; sometimes too messy for human ideals such as equality to exist.  

[bluecherry]

I don't think you actually mean it how you worded it, because if superiority was the norm, it would cease to be superiority and simply become the average. xp But I do so you mean to say different levels existing of sorts is what commonly happens. I think one problem we have in this thread though is we haven't really specified equal or unequal in what aspects and measured how? ninja

 

[lost_gaze]

i believe that both exist...unfortunately. i hate to believe in superiority but it does SEEM to exist...i prefer to believe in and stand by equality. alot of people seem to think that those with titles have more power. but do they really? and should they? i mean, they're just a couple of words strapped to the front of someone's name. isn't it funny how those with more power seem to screw it up even more?  

[bluecherry]

Well, there's kind of reason for that. The more power you have, the more able you are to influence things. That could be for better or worse. So naturally, those with more power in general also have more power to screw things up. Which is why being careful about who you put into power is a good idea. wink

 

[Baulder]

Meh, I don't really agree with any of you.
We are equal. No one has right over the other.
Superiority does not exist. It is merely a belief, or matter of perspective, like good and evil, sort of. No one can tell you to do anything you don't want to. And yet, it is just the 'idea' that they are superior to you that makes you believe you must.
If one chose, one could easily decide to break away from the government. No one is under the other. It is just what you choose.  

[bluecherry]

As long as we're arguing not quality of people (kind of hard to judge small things in this case any way) but instead a more clear thing like who has what rights and why as a basis for what is equal and what isn't:

I have spent my life trying to be a decent human being, going about my business and respecting the rights of other people. I pwn rapists and serial killers. talk2hand Why do I have (and rightly should have) more rights than rapists and serial killers? Note that I have NOT inflicted massive violations of the rights of any other human being(s) and they HAVE.

Everybody has the same rights right up until you violate another person's rights. As long as you respect other people's rights you have the right to have yours respected too. Once you stop respecting other people's though, you give up any cause for having your own respected. This is why self defense lets you violate the rights of somebody trying to harm you and is the entire basis of the criminal justice system. In proportion to how much you are violating other's rights you can have your own disrespected right back. Notice once you are caught in the act of a crime and/or found guilty in a court of law you can be: fined, sued, or have property seized (there goes property rights), imprisoned (no more freedom and pursuit of happiness for you pal), executed (no more right to life if you are found guilty of doing something extremely bad enough). But you know what? This is all in fact done in the name of preserving equality. When a person violates another person's rights, it is like saying "I'm better than you. I have the right to do things to you that you aren't aloud to do to me." So the criminal justice system is there to turn around and tell them "No you're not. You don't have more rights than them. So to set this back to equal again, you'll either make it up to the person/people you harmed if possible and/or you will have your rights violated now in order to undo and set right that false proclamation of superiority you made when you violated the rights of others."

So if this is about equality, who's superior or inferior in this case? In this case I'd say the jack asses who tried to say they were superior by going and violating other people's rights but have not made it up (or been made to make it up) yet and set things straight to get themselves back to being equal again, I'd say they have made themselves inferior. Their assumption of superiority actually makes them inferior (they have opened themselves, invited it really, to have their rights violated unlike other people who haven't done such things) up until they have done what is necessary to be set back to equal again. And because they are inferior, by default that makes the other people who are not in the same state as them superior to them.

(This is all in the ideal circumstances though admittedly. In reality so far every law system I've ever heard of has had at least some unnecesary crap in it that it shouldn't and there are still unfortunate cases so far of people convicted of crimes and punished for them who were in fact innocent. The people getting let out of prison now on DNA evidence that wasn't possible back when they were convicted is an example of this having happened.)