We should be treated equally as humans. Not equally as people. I'm sure we all know that one idiot who nobody can stand because they have such a bad attitude towards everything? Someone who's incredibly self-serving? We shouldn't sell them to slavery or bully them or anything, we should tolerate but avoid them. Whereas those people who are pleasant to be around, we not only tolerate them but we actively seek to be around them.
-
tldr
I'm not gonna try to be around a moron the same way I try to be around my friends.
No
I don't consider them to be as such. Humans are what we are, people are what we make ourselves to be. What words would you use to fit these definitions?
People just need to realize that equal doesn't mean the same. People are different. That is a good thing. Some people will be better at things than others. That's just a fact. Everyone should be treated equally human, but not everyone should be treated as equally capable. Everyone has strengths, everyone has weaknesses. And everyone's strengths/weaknesses are different.
Of course there are always some taller, stronger, smarter etc than you, but what I believe in is that spiritually as in our souls we are created equal we are all human beings and we should treat everyone the same even if they homeless, stupid, rich etc
13Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
Each life is equal, but there will always be someone better than you at something.
6Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a short story (you can find it online, I'll post a link when I find one) that demonstrates the dangers of trying to make everyone the same in the name of equality.
I think equality is a human right- no one should be discriminated against because of their skin, sex, religion or whatever but the person who is best suited for the job should get the job. Which is why our beautiful and physically superior persons are movie stars and athletes. (Which is also why it's ridiculous to try to achieve their looks.)
You supposed to treat them the same because they're all people, numbnuts.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Yes...I'm just saying that the most qualified person for the job (or whatever) should be the one to get it. Different people have different abilities and that's what we should look at, not their colour or gender or anything.
They make you more or less valuable to the people who matter in getting places. If I were an employer I wouldn't want an architect working on programming, I'd want a programmer working on programming and an architect working on architecture.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
Exactly! You aren't measuring their value as human being, you're measuring the value in their skills for the job.
Nobody cares that people are valuable as a person. Everybody is valuable as a person. It's nothing special. What is special are the skills and abilities you have that make you valuable to people.
But nobody really cares. Basic humanitarian rights are pretty much commonplace in everywhere except terrorist-land.
I don't care that you're a human. I'm a human too. If you don't like it, don't come to me about it.
Equal opportunity, not equal consideration. We should start on equal footing as in everyone's allowed to apply for the job but don't complain when you don't get it because you specialize in surfing the web when that's the last thing i want in someone under my hire.
Thats equil opportunity... The opportunity to go to school and do your best, then apply for a job....then if your the best for the job...regardless of gender, race or age.....you get the job.....
I have a job opening. I'm going to let everybody apply regardless of medical conditions, age, gender, religion, race, or any other factor you can think of. If you're a human, you can apply. Hell, you can apply if you're a Plutonian if you really want to do my homework for me. You're right, I will consider all applicants equally, but as I read the applications I'm going to think of some more highly than others. I'm not gonna read a bunch of BS for fun then throw a dice and see who gets the job.
I'm more arguing semantics. To me "letting everybody apply" sounds synonymous to "giving everyone equal consideration". Equal opportunity is the concept. Equal consideration is the concept being put into practice.
You shouldn't nitpick my point because you seem to understand what I'm trying to point out, but now you're just trying to extend the argument for argument's sake.
Its no use this Garlog guy is a really boring troll, this is their shitck, lame arguments for arguments sake. It's like the trolling version of a single beige sock in your sock draw that you can't fing the mate for.
I have the same opinion of garlog as I did with mgoviea before his banning: I respected and understood his opinions when he was serious but he could also be the biggest dick.
I have absolutely no problem with that assessment of me.
Also, I am genuinely curious as to what that emoticon is supposed to be. Is the face supposed to be upside down or something?
This statement is meaningless until you define superior. And I think that looks a lot more simple than it is: you can't have superior until you have better; ie good/bad etc; ie, the nature of morality, which has gone unresolved for as long as there's been human thought.
If you have superior, it means that they are better than someone at something. But remember, no matter how good you are, an Asian 5th grader will dethrone you.
-
tldr
I'm not gonna try to be around a moron the same way I try to be around my friends.
>humans
These are synonyms.
I don't consider them to be as such. Humans are what we are, people are what we make ourselves to be. What words would you use to fit these definitions?
you have my vote
I think equality is a human right- no one should be discriminated against because of their skin, sex, religion or whatever but the person who is best suited for the job should get the job. Which is why our beautiful and physically superior persons are movie stars and athletes. (Which is also why it's ridiculous to try to achieve their looks.)
I don't care that you're a human. I'm a human too. If you don't like it, don't come to me about it.
Also, I am genuinely curious as to what that emoticon is supposed to be. Is the face supposed to be upside down or something?