Define and defend equality as an ideal

Don't be such a crybaby.

I prefer the idea of equal opportunity. Being truly equal requires that we're all the same. We're not all the same and pretending that we are is stupid.

a very effecient brain bug for ''useful idiots'' and one of the quickest ways to overthrow a healthy civilization

Equality is the same un achievable goal as an utopia is.

People are from nature purly nepotistic and tribalistic, that's why you can't create any equalitarian ideal, even if you try to force people with every means possible

>see 3rd wave feminism,cultural Marxism and professivism as a whole

Except all the healthiest civilizations at the moment are based on some form of equality.

Everyone should be equal under the law that's it basically.

Equality in its original intent alluded equal opportunity and rights under law. Rights not being things that disadvantaged others to artificially impose equality.

We have achieved virtual parity in terms of rights in the United States at least and meddlers shifted the definition to mean total parity across all demographics, rooted in a false belief in total inherent equality, which is obviously a lie.

But what if you've done things that make you more valuable to others? Do I have the right to demand that we be treated equally? What if you're fit and sexy and I'm fat and pimpled? Can I demand women look at us equally?

Kek wills it

>Prosperity causes degeneracy
>Degeneracy causes prosperity
>Being this stupid

Plenty? lol

>People can never become different from their ancestors.

I don't hold equality as an ideal but arguments like this are pretty shit.

>cryptic greentexting

I can't think of a single nation whose sole founding feature is "equality". America holds equality as one ideal but it also holds republican government as another and the two are often in conflict and its justifiable to think that the equality portion is part of what makes America shitty. Not trying to say that you're clearly wrong but rather that your very far away from clearly right.

What about meritocracy. It's all about what you have done.
The more higher your merit the more privileges and rights you have.

I guess I need to spell it out. Equality is a degenerate ideology. We have the luxury to indulge in it when societies become prosperous. Christianity emerged from decadent Rome. Social Justice emerged from the 50s/60s America.

You're confusing cause and effect. Equality doesn't cause "healthy" societies, it results from them and corrodes them from within.

Alright fair enough.

Who do you think should have the authority to determine who's more valuable and deserves better treatment?

>America holds equality as one ideal but it also holds republican government as another and the two are often in conflict

Republican government is a form of equality, there's republicanism and there is monarchism.

>But what if you've done things that make you more valuable to others? Do I have the right to demand that we be treated equally?

Well no, that's not usually what is meant by "equality." Depending on what you mean by "treated equally," of course - e.g. you have a right to equal protection under the law even if I'm richer or better liked than you.

>What if you're fit and sexy and I'm fat and pimpled? Can I demand women look at us equally?

I know there are people who would say yes (r9k, tumblrinas, etc), but again, that's not what people typically mean when they say "equality."

"Equality" is a liberal perversion of the idea that the law needs to apply to all citizens to be legitimate. Its the difference between Roman Pragmatism and Rousseau.

Which is why you have to define it in order to defend it. Can you do that? I've yet to encounter someone who can.

Rome fell after Christianity took over. I'm not even saying Christianity is the cause (because I don't think that) but one of the proudest boasts of Christianity when you discuss the Roman Empire with them is that they achieved what Romans would consider "SJW shit" like the end of gladiator fights.

Would you mind repeating the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence for me.

I disagree. Republicanism is just a form of democratic governance. Democracies can easily hold inequality as an ideal. That is Democracy =/= Equality. Equality is (as another poster said) a mode of liberalism which has nothing to do with democracy (and by proxy Republicanism)

Christianity was both a method of fighting and channeling degeneracy.
What's wrong with gladitorial combat if both parties consent? Also, most gladiatorial fights were not to the death. That's a pop-culture idea.

>What about meritocracy. It's all about what you have done.
>The more higher your merit the more privileges and rights you have.

True meritocracy IS egalitarianism.

Why would I need to know anything from that poisonous document?

>Darkness IS Light

>What's wrong with gladitorial combat if both parties consent?

I didn't say there was.

"Sweet argument bro."

~Nobody ever~

Because it relates to my point

>Which is why you have to define it in order to defend it.

Or attack it?

Respond to my response to that shitty point, then

Your first response didn't even address my main point. You just fixated on my Christianity example. Engage with the principle.

I can't attack a word. I need a definition. Most believers in equality never define it, and so I have nothing to attack. Its a buzzword, like "God".

What's the problem? Egalitarian means no unearned privilege. Meritocratic means privilege must be earned. Same idea.

Which one's your post?

The name of the thread is "Define and defend equality as an ideal"....so, idk man.

Yeah I think people should have a clue before they attack anything but according to the nature of this thread you're kind of missing the whole point here.

To all the people who say there is no true equality, answer me this.

How should we determine who is better of us? Who gets ultimate authority to rule who who's superior and who deserve better treatment? Who will enforce this. What should we do with the inferior people?

>>Egalitarian means no unearned privilege.
A definition! Lets test it.
If a banker learns how to manipulate the world's financial system (merit) and figures out how to profit from perpetual war, is that equal?

The one I link to. (sorry, I can see how that's unclear)

It is up to the superior people what to do with the inferior people.

See: white Europeans ceding colonies and power and white Americans giving rights and opening immigration to non-Europeans

Outcome. Eliminate wellfare and other altruistic ideologies, thus making people liable for their choices.

>Republicanism is just a form of democratic governance.

As opposed to having a unequal system where rulers are selected purely by birth.

But what if two peoples decide they're both superior?

Depends what you mean by "manipulate." If we're talking about deception and/or criminality that seems like a separate issue entirely.

>Egalitarian means no unearned privilege

I disagree. It's actually a pretty robust philosophical concept distinguished from "meritocracy" which is a less complicated political concept. To identify the two would require a justifying argument. You seem to be taking it as obvious that they are the same but the burden of proof is on you. As an example, it's easy to imagine a meritocracy where the rich abuse the poor pretty justifiably but its hard to imagine an egalitarian society where the same can be said to be true.

Through legal means. He didn't even have to rewrite any laws to do it.

The reason I focused on Christianity was that you entire argument seemed to pivot on how Christianity emerged from "decadent" Rome when in fact Christianity correlated (not necessarily caused) with the fall of Rome and early Christianity (allegedly) led to some forms of equality you are now ranting against.

What if a superior individual decides to sympathies with, help or seek mutual benefit for the inferior people? Who do we prevent that from happening?

Monrchy vs Democracy is not the most fundamental split in politics. Kinda silly to think that. It's not even the case that monarchy is a strictly "by birthright" form of governance. You seem unclear on the subjects of political theory and governance. You should feel less strongly about this issues.

>Through legal means. He didn't even have to rewrite any laws to do it.

But laws are not necessarily fair. But sure, the fact that someone is able to make shrewd investments and become wealthy does not imply an "unequal" society.

Nothing. In fact he'll gain a substantial amount of power when he does. He'll eliminate competition by mollifying a huge segment of society, and will be able to weaponize them against the rise of other meritous parties. Hence Imperial/Medieval patronage of Christianity and the modern welfare state.

The difference between republicanism and monarchy is pretty clear cut and an equality issue where republicanism is left wing in countries that have monarchs.

I'm not uneducated on political theory or governance, you are just confused because by pretty much historical coincidence the right wing party of the US are called Republicans so you happen to think there is some bizarre contradiction between republicanism and forms of equality.

What if starts to use his wealth, accumulated through legitimate means, to encourage war? Is merit still equal?

I'm sorry but I must disagree again. There is actually a large tradition ion philosophy and political theory about the distinction between Democracy and Liberalism. Again....you uneducated. Not a criticism. Just saying you should better understand the historical division between "liberal" thought and "democratic" thought before you identify the, - as they are quite distinct (unrelated to American politics)

Encourage how?

But wouldn't this completely negate the purpose of making distinction between superior and inferior people? If any superior person can just decide to treat the inferior better or even as well as himself, what would you've actually achieved with this system?

We aren't discussing liberalism and democracy, which are both terms that have wide meanings.

I initially replied to a post that claimed republicanism was against equality, which is false.

Depends on the equality.

Equality under the law, equality of rights. Those are nice, we can talk about them.

If you mean equality of outcome or enforced "equality" that requires trespassing on other rights, no, I can't defend that.

I'm not claiming this is better, I'm claiming its inevitable. I'm claiming this is the system we always have lived in and we are living in right now.

Might makes right and it will shake out according to actual superiority, not pre-supposed

What if one side uses manipulative or pyrrhic strategies?

Everyone can have no rights and that would technically be equality.

Equality is the ideal that all individuals should be given the same opportunities by the structure of their society, and should be treated as any other member of that society would be, barring personal relationships. It is good as an ideal as it is fundamentally based upon allowing more individuals to experience more of the world, and to comprehend and develop their experiences, the basic goal of human existence.

But mud degeneracy

*muh

What happens when the meritous separate from ordinary people?

New International Version
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Because the alternative is complete shit/hell and idiots like thinking themselves as the ones don top rather then taking it up the ass.

What people think about themselves typically doesn't matter. What about the genuinely meritous who can get results? Why shouldn't they rule?

The genuinely meritorious don't rule, they serve.

Equality is a buzzword used by certain groups to cast light or shade on a topic.

He is a member of that founding group, which means he has a claim to the country. If he ruins the country with his laziness, then so be it, but at least the country died with its own people at the helm.