Is there a single reason not to be one that isn't edgy or retarded?
Equality is a spook
>>996056
Only if you put it ahead of yourself.
>>996051
Equality can't exist.
>>996056
What if the opposite also is a spook?
>>996051
You can think that egalitarianism is OK, but that doesn't make it real.
>>996062
Inequality is very real
>>996061
you cant say something like that without an explanation
>>996063
not yet, but with work we can make it more of a reality
>>996067
Of course not. A species is very vague and undefinable because there's genetic differences between every human on Earth.
>>996069
A species consists of all individuals capable of interbreeding.
>>996069
Bad argument.
The human species is very homogeneous, any genetic variation is almost always cosmetic with very few processes that genuinely change like organ or mental structure.
even under your vague or nonexistent definition of a species humans are still roughly equal
>>996073
Yet neanderthals aren't considered humans
>>996051
if someone is going around raping children, maybe they should be inside a cage rather than running around outside
>>996076
its a little more complicated than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
>Species or subspecies of human in the genus Homo
>For some time, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens
>>996067
Biological classifications are a social construct.
>>996076
Sometimes they are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, this largely comes down to taxonomy autism. Also we were different enough genetically that Neanderthal weren't able to pass on their Y chromosome.
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-dna-not-seen-in-men-160408.htm
>>996051
People aren't equal, so why insist that they are?
>>996081
Races are a social construct as the divisions don't represent the biological reality, species level of classification however does (even if naming systems aren't able to be applied to all individuals of a particular extant species, there would exist a definite number of individuals capable of interbreeding in any particular moment).
Money in a general sense ascribes a mediator and universal equivalence between things which are non-equal; example 4 apples can never be 4 peaches but from the standpoint of exchange there's no difference if they cost the same as they usually do. Aside from speculative and ascribed quantities matter as the general composition of the universe is identical outside of the appearance of it's temporary form.
>>996084
the only way they aren't equal is when society makes them unequal.
>>996088
the hell does that have to do with anything?
>>996081
You're exactly as closely related to an Echidna as a Poriferan.
>>996061
If an ideal can't exist, does that make it any less worth trying to achieve if trying to achieve has better consequences than not doing so?
>>996084
Because it's easier and more productive to society to treat everyone as an equal than to try and quantify the value of people? Any attempts to do so would be both unacceptably inaccurate and prone to abuse.
>>996091
egalitarianism means equality between humans y/n?
If equality is a property of matter then the same for a subset of the same is automatic.
>>996121
are you being facetious?
a rock is not equal to a human just because it has the same matter.
A rock of the same material makeup and weight of a human is vastly less complex than a human for hopefully obvious reasons and therefore does not require human rights. it doesn't care, nor would it affect anything in the long run. humanity is the most complex organism we know, so it deserves rules to help keep it functioning properly, and unless you're an edgelord you should understand why.
Rational self-interest in this life dictates that notions of equality be set aside; take advantage of people, or be taken advantage of. That's the message behind capitalism; i.e., there's a sucker born every minute. So egalitarianism is impossible to the extent that capitalism makes the world go round, and the dollar certainly appears almighty...
>>996149
Seems like an ideology with a very short term view.
>>996152
That's my criticism of capitalism. Obviously, the only way to really achieve anything of substance is to come together behind notions of equality. After all, how was this country founded? On those laudatory ideals of egalitarianism. The capitalist model eventually leads civilization to ruin.
>>996157
I was talking about capitalism too, as long as those who disregard consequences in a psychopathic manner can function legally they will.
In terms of evolutionary game theory, psychopathy is a parasitic strategy.
>>996157
capitalism is a beneficiary evil at the current moment, because there is still a lot of contention and power struggles in the world as a whole, therefore the nations attempting to be egalitarian can't unify it towards a single goal. Capitalism is basically the first world nations attempt to make it possible to let those within its realm have opportunity, without wasting its time on major governmental and social reform. once we get an idea of what to be as a whole, we will start working towards true egalitarianism.
>>996166
>beneficiary evil
My brain isn't working and auto correct is a piece of shit
>Necessary evil
>>996165
That's great. We're in agreement! I agree with the parasitic analogy. That's essentially how Wall Street has behaved. They spend tax payers' money recklessly, cause a global financial collapse, then ask tax payers to give them more money so that they can do it all over again. And, because they can keep gaming the system - they will. The only thing they care about is money, though they hide behind the prospect of bringing prosperity to all. It's the same story that's played out since antiquity, and it's shameful that people who claim to serve the people (elected officials) work hand in hand with them.
>>996166
Well, I think it's hard to see the benefits when inequality is rising, the climate is rapidly changing, and the political environment is turning toxic. War now seems unending (ISIS, Syria, Drones, cyber warfare, etc.), financial crises unavoidable (housing bubbles, wall street 's reckless trading, student loans). The problems seem to be mounting. Capitalism is failing, and the sooner we move away from it and towards socialism as the nordic countries (and Canada) has, the better we'll be for it.
Granted, I agree that true egalitarianism is likely decades, if not centuries away...but staying with this broken model seems like a sunk cost fallacy (or an ends-justifies means laden conclusion).
In either case, I can't really support it as a necessary evil - certainly not in its present form. It will only metastasize if not controlled, and end up doing greater harm (i.e., climate change, growing inequality, more wars, etc.). We need something better: a balanced approach which has the best of both words - a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy, at the very least.
I know, it's a bit out there, but that's what I think.
>>996179
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out a few things first before I go deeper.
>Well, I think it's hard to see the benefits when...
Most of the things (barring climate change) has always been apart of the system through human history, and has so far either stayed the same (political toxicity and financial instability hasn't changed much as obstacles and will most likely be around far into the foreseeable future) or gotten better (Despite what you see on TV, war tragedies has gone down drastically and, while we still need improvements, inequality has also gone down.)
> It will only metastasize if not controlled, and end up doing greater harm
In the long run, I have to agree. this system isn't made to last forever. its exists due to the modern era demanding something resembling equality, and the people in charge could only really give us this much. people of the future will probably look back today and see our political system in the same light we do towards the absolute monarchs of last century
>>996179
>Capitalism is failing, and the sooner we move away from it and towards socialism as the nordic countries (and Canada) has, the better we'll be for it.
I always love how the definition of socialism changes over the years. To claim that CANADA is socialist is fantasy.
>We need something better: a balanced approach which has the best of both words - a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy, at the very least.
You can't have a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy And because the terms 'socialist' and 'capitalist' are always used so broadly, it doesn't mean anything.
For as much shit as egalitarianism gets, I still have yet to see a level-headed non-biased reason as to why it's wrong.
>>996192
Yes, somethings have been around for a long time. And, in fact some people would argue the world is becoming a better place -- but I fail to see how given the various seemingly intractable problems. If we don't move towards solving them now, it seems like we're doomed to be trapped in this cycle going forward (which will probably grow worse with time). Granted, I may be overstating some things, but it seems we generally agree. Anyway, it's my last post for the day.
>>996204
Well, how socialism is applied varies by location: latin american socialism is different from the socialism in the nordic countries. So is the Canadian system. You don't have to listen to me on this: confer with some experts; eg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhH-PWjR3b0
I'm not the one who's defining socialism in strict terms - it's you.
And, of course you can have a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy. Even the US is somewhat socialist (we have socialized medicine, for instance). The point of being hybrid would be to approach equal parts socialism, and equal parts capitalism - of course, taking the best of both worlds in the best case.
Also re canada and socialism: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-07-15/hardheaded-socialism-makes-canada-richer-than-u-s-
Though you might have sources which say otherwise - I've never seen anything to the contrary.
>>996051
Define "egalitarianism".
Equality under the law? Or equality of outcomes?
>>996231
>I'm not the one who's defining socialism in strict terms - it's you.
That's the whole point. It's never actually talk about what 'socialism' is but you still cling to the label. I mean if an economy is 98% capitalist 2% socialist, is it really useful to call it a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy?
>>996144
I'm not being facetious or an edgelord, I'm just responding to OP's question in a universally applicable way. I just don't have the same sentimental attachments you do to whatever perverse and subjective metric you're using as a basis http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-04/1080923553.An.r.html. It's interesting to note that if the rock in question were gold or a diamond it would require property rights concerning it's role between humans that are the result of similar speculative conjecture regarding it's proper function or functioning. You've even contradicted yourself by stating that because humans are complex organisms they should be preserved and therefore the complexity as a category of essential worth would stagnate as the preservation of a specifically complex organism would be the objective of the human rights which you state. Human rights, incidentally, aren't a necessity for the organic functioning of humanity.
>>996232
"outcomes"
not a vague weasel word ever, no sir.
>>996250
You didn't answer my question.
Can you define egalitarianism?
>>996089
Physical
>women are on average weaker than men on average
Mental
>there are far greater men with mental problems due to a genetic proclivity to such a condition/s
Neither of these things are society making them unequal - it's raw fact.
no two things are the same
therefore no two things are equal
>>996252
Groups do not define an individual. There are women who can kick the average neckbeard's ass. Do they make a majority? No, but they exist. Which is why equality pertains to individuals, not groups.
>>996264
So Iron from one area compared with another source of Iron are completely different?
Or is the inherent difference negligible?
>>996268
I didn't say completely different
complete difference does not exist, like complete similarity, or rather it is a fiction of the mind
is iron from just outside your steel mill the same as iron from china? Chemically, physically, maybe, (above a certain margin of error, but exactly, they are never equal), but are they equally close? Do you have equal ownership of them? Do their purchase support the same industry? Are they equally difficult to extract? Will it impact the environment equally? Do I just really hate the idea of chinese iron for some reason?
>>996302
>is iron from just outside your steel mill the same as iron from china? Chemically, physically, maybe, (above a certain margin of error, but exactly, they are never equal), but are they equally close? Do you have equal ownership of them? Do their purchase support the same industry? Are they equally difficult to extract? Will it impact the environment equally?
So mainly geographic and environmental differences while the iron itself largely remains the same.
>>996306
I don't know where you're going to get iron itself, I only know where you can get iron that has a location.
There is no such thing as equality or progress, it is all an illusion created by modern first world politics.
If the lights went out and the food stopped coming no one care about your equality.
But as long as there is peace we will suffer under the tyranny of "equality"
>>996081
Your face is a social construct
>>996346
Tyranny of equality is better than tyranny of "fuck you, got mine."
>>996077
Are you being facetious? Or do you really not know what egalitarianism is?
>>996496
Only if you're a weak baby, when the shit hits the fan the redneck with the guns will be killing the limp wristed liberal with no guns.
Equality wont save you boy.
>>996061
All humans are equality because they are humans. Equality is definitely real and it exist.
>>996505
>I don't understand you so you must be wrong
if a child rapist should be denied rights, then it follows that a bike thief from the ghetto should also be denied rights (in proportion to their inferiority) while a qt genius blonde oxford student is entitled to privileges over others as a reward for being superior
>>996061
Equality of opportunity can.
>>996062
>What if the opposite also is a spook?
For some reason no one ever thinks of these conversal questions...
It seems like people only want to spook good things out of existence.
>>996245
You are being difficult.
> It's interesting to note that if the rock in question were gold or a diamond it would require property rights concerning it's role between humans that are the result of similar speculative conjecture regarding it's proper function or functioning.
Only due to the perceived value humans give it, which is a subset of our actions trying to make a better society as a whole for humanity. Without use, it would be stone like any other.
>Human rights, incidentally, aren't a necessity for the organic functioning of humanity.
its less to do with necessity and more to do with efficiency, we work best in egalitarian societies. In these societies we prosper. the men of bronze age may have made due, but its no question whether or not to live in our modern times over theirs.
>>996673
That a bad argument because we live in a different society. Unless you are one of those people drooling over the "looming" apocalypse, whether or not certain thing are "necessary" to society is a bad argue for if it should apply regardless. We live in an age of excess, and that's not a bad thing, and in fact quite the opposite. We have done nothing but benefit from this so called "tyranny" and have done better a species more than ever before.
>>996756
How? Giving opportunity to one person requires taking it away from another.
>>996051
The mountains of scientific evidence that disprove the idea that every human is equal and that every group of humans is equal?
>>998435
>The mountains of scientific evidence
Everyone is equally unequal.
>>998446
Google "heritability of intelligence", for just one of the many many many reasons egalitarianism is fiction
>>998455
>Giving me a google search as a source
>using a topic still unknown and highly devided in the field.
>said field is based on IQ
are you trying to look retarded?
>>998468
>>Giving me a google search as a source
A Google search that leads you to the countless articles, studies, and summaries of the topic. Do you not have enough agency to read the introduction of a Wikipedia article? Here, I'll spoonfeed you:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html
>>using a topic still unknown and highly devided in the field.
Do you have a citation for any of those weasal words?
>>said field is based on IQ
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305
Interesting how criticism of IQ almost always comes from leftists in the humanities, and almost never from actual scientists in the field.
>>998509
> almost never from actual scientists in the field.
umm, Gould? Lewontin? Rose? Kamin?
>>998515
Did I say "never" or "almost never"?
>>998509
>Interesting how criticism of IQ almost always comes from leftists in the humanities, and almost never from actual scientists in the field.
An ad hominem and an appeal to authority
Try again
>>998542
Nice job completely ignoring everything else I wrote and focusing in on my little insult.
Pro tip, pseudo-intellectual: 4chan posts aren't supposed to be dissertations. We can insult eachother.
>>996702
Humans are not inferior to each other expect in ways that are unpreventable like major defects like retardation or crippling accidents or in ways that are rooted in the upbringing of said child, like emotional scaring from the parents or guardians and environmental toxicity.
A child rapist might not have been a rapist if he sought help.
>>998594
that was your sole rebuttal for the last argument.
Also:
>Do you have a citation for any of those weasal words?
From your own source
" Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial."
>>998606
>that was your sole rebuttal for the last argument.
No, you liar. You're purposefully ignoring the link I posted immediately before the insult.
Also, even if it was, you still ignored my other points.
>" Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial."
All that means is that the results hurt some people's feelings.
>>996073
Nice biological species concept you have there, friend. It's just one of dozens that are commonly used.
>>998649
>All that means is that the results hurt some people's feelings.
It means that it undefined and that the science of it is still in development and highly contested you retard.
>>996051
Because people are obviously unequal in every measurable way.
Is an illiterate retard equal to geniuses like Einstein or Aristotle? Is an ISIS fighter who spends his days smashing statues equal to artists like Michelangelo or Rembrandt? Is an unemployed meth addict equal to industrialists like Henry Ford or Bill Gates?
Egalitarianism depends either on willfully ignoring observable reality or relying on vague social construct like "equality before God."
>>998701
Again, completely ignoring all of my points except for the easiest one. This is a totally typical leftist tactic. You can't respond to the objectie evidence that most scientists and most data agrees with me, so you try to steer the conversation towards subjective, unsubstantiated, weasal words like "highly contested".
>>998746
You're using buzzwords
A single article doesn't constituent an argument
>>996051
Because people simply aren't equal.
It's not even a race issue, or a gender issue, or an age issue, some people are just more capable than others
>>997832
As long as it's the same opportunities for everyone then that's equality of opportunity - equality doesn't require liberty.
>>997781
>We live in an age of excess, and that's not a bad thing, and in fact quite the opposite
hedonists please fuck off
>>998789
This is a good point.
However, regulations could be in place to assure some degree of opportunity to everyone - so that we could assess differences from results on a case-by-case basis, rather than from a priori notions.
>>998596
If humans aren't inferior to each other why does plato have a wikipedia page and I don't?
>>998817
because wikipedia isn't a measure of superiority
>>998810
That depends on the outcome, by doing so you naturally want to produce as many capable people as possible. However, if enslaving half the population would create a situation where your culture becomes an incredible masterpiece like the greek civilization, then doesn't that mean you should oppress millions of people?
>>998822
So you're saying I'm equal to plato? Where are my philosophical contributions that will echo throughout the millennia?
>>998887
You can be if you wish, you just have to earn it
>>998832
That's why I say degree. It doesn't have to be a choice between a free-for-all or a totalitarian state.
>>998906
And someone who has earned it is equal to someone who has not? And what about all those people who tried and failed? Why did equal plato succeed where they did not?
>>998944
Shit happens
>>998788
>You're using buzzwords
Name one that I used.
>A single article doesn't constituent an argument
Alright, if you refuse to accept objective evidence, this convo is over.
Just look at this shit, my fellow anons. This is the level of discourse that leftists operate on. They do whatever they can to avoid actually debating.
>>999206
>Name one that I used
leftist and weasel words
and I cant view the articles substance because, besides the summery, there is a login wall.
fuck off
>>996074
isn't the genetic variation of humans like.2%? I know dogs' variation between breeds is way higher than that.
>>999262
That or less.
>>996085
>Species level does represent biological reality
>race level doesn't
It doesn't represent MODERN biological "reality", why invest time, research, and resources into something that might get in the way of the egalitarian, humanist, globalist ideal.
Inequality and differentiation is the essence of life.
Equality is death.
>>998800
Nice job proving your point by using the device, which hold 1000 time the information the library of Alexandria had, and opting for posting on a message board designed to waste time
ITT: Word games and people insulting each other because they can't be fucked to try to understand each other's semantics.
>>996065
How can inequality be real without equality also being real?
