TL;DR: The Thread

[Claeyt]

see above

You are misunderstanding inequality of ability with the inequality of oppurtunity. You are confusing the roots of crime (poverty, lack of education) with a belief in the inheritance of cultural criminal conduct. You are confusing paternalistic society with where most women would like society to be. Again, You two, don't fear change, fear the lack of change.

Progressive thought would define "Equality" as: "a dream, a goal of least inequality and most opportunity."- Robert M. La Follette

...as for gaming companies. Dev politics are stayed away from for a reason. Games for the masses means just that. If Jorbtar don't want to sell games or make money doing it fine, I respect that. All I'm saying is they didn't make Salem an easy sell here on the forums or to Paradox.

To acknowledge the fundamental differences between our races

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

What exactly are the fundamental differences between the races in your opinion?

[jorb]

Our problem is that we simply don't see why equality is so terribly important, Claeyt. We would all much rather be true to our actual selves than to try to pretend to be things we are not. We recognize superior ability when we see it, and we seek only to learn and grow from and within our own, objective and actual abilities and circumstances. Being objective about oneself and others does not -- or at least should not -- imply contempt or hatred for those of lesser or greater ability, skill, looks, wealth, mojo, power, whatever.

If I could realize this supposed ideal perfectly with a genie's wish right this instant I would turn down the opportunity without even giving it a second thought, and never look back.

[Droj]

what is failure if its not the undesirable outcome projected by capitalistic success. starting from a young age and throughout education ive always been told to succeed along with my peers. failure is just not an option but in reality it doesnt exist. we were made to believe it and fear it and those that did set themselves up for a detrimental, self loathing, inhabitual future if they believed themselves to be unsuccessful.

[Claeyt]

Our problem is that we simply don't see why equality is so terribly important, Claeyt. We would all much rather be true to our actual selves than to try to aspire to things we are not. We recognize superior ability when we see it, and we seek only to learn and grow from and within our own, objective and actual abilities and circumstances. Being objective about oneself and others does not -- or at least should not -- imply contempt or hatred for those of lesser or greater ability, skill, looks, wealth, mojo, power, whatever.

If I could realize this supposed ideal perfectly with a genie's wish right this instant I would turn down the opportunity without even giving it a second thought, and never look back.

There is no ideal, again it's about equality of oppurtunity. Tho you and I might be more skilled and thoughtful than someone with a lower ability to express themselves, that person still deserves the full and equal rights of society and opportunity. When people with ability and access begin to judge who does or does not have the ability to participate fully in society, that path leads to the dictatorship of the aristocracy and oppression of those not in it irregardless of ability. That suppresses creativity and the growth of society.

Withholding Citizenship or Access to Opportunity because of perceived ability leads to Tyranny. Everyone should be able to participate in society fully to their desire, but that doesn't guarantee a place or success. Ability determines eventual success and where you end up, that, and good luck and an ability to adapt to a changing world and society.

[jorb]

No. One law for the lion and the lamb is foul tyranny and an injustice to both.

[belgear]

I feel like I should just post a troll face.

Making words tabu just makes them more meaningful. Just as society progresses so does language. Words change, gain, and lose meaning. You wanna know who I call a ******? That guy that just threw his ***** mcdonalds bag on the street as he drove by. You wanna know who I call a *****? My best friend, as he enters the room. It is a term of endearment. Earlier today I heard a woman call her son a *****. I asker her if she knew what she just did. She told me he had to get it from somewhere. Stopping language's progression doesn't seem too progressive to me.

As for equality,
***** all of your opinions mine are better.

Now please quit being ****** so we can get back to being ******.

[Claeyt]

No. One law for the lion and the lamb is foul tyranny and an injustice to both.

...but they live under one law already. Society isn't for the strong only. That is the antithesis of Society. Society is for the betterment of the whole. Basic human society was created so that the strong and weak could work together to create something bigger.

What's that one law that I mentioned at the beginning? That both lions, in packs, and lambs, in herds, exist and hunt and eat in groups to make them safer and more successful as a whole. The ability of the individual Lion or Lamb within the group determines their outcome but each lion or lamb born is given an equal opportunity at success and is part of the society and it's general success.

[jorb]

Let us assume that Mozart and I are children growing up at the same time.

Should we be given...

A) The same number of piano lessons
B) The same amount of money to spend on whatever we wish
C) The same amount of money to spend on lessons
D) The same number of hours in school

...? "Equality of opportunity" can mean whatever you want it to mean. The only predictable result from your schemes and calculations are massive redistributions of wealth according to political whims -- as opposed to personal merits -- and horrible bouts of socialism that fail miserably.

To me it seems rather obvious that society would be better off if it spent more money on Mozart than on me, and this does not strike me as unfair in the slightest. On the contrary, equality in the matter strikes me as a grotesque unfairness against Mozart.

[jorb]

Society isn't for the strong only.

Of course not. It is an edifice that the strong create precisely so as to protect the weak. The truly strong would do fine without it.

[Claeyt]

Let us assume that Mozart and I are children growing up at the same time.

Should we be given...

A) The same number of piano lessons
B) The same amount of money to spend on whatever we wish
C) The same amount of money to spend on lessons
D) The same number of hours in school

...? "Equality of opportunity" can mean whatever you want it to mean. The only predictable result from your schemes and calculations are massive redistributions of wealth according to political whims -- as opposed to personal merits -- and horrible bouts of socialism that fail miserably.

To me it seems rather obvious that society would be better off if it spent more money on Mozart than on me, and this does not strike me as unfair in the slightest. On the contrary, equality in the matter strikes me as a grotesque unfairness against Mozart.

But Mozart growing up didn't have an equal opportunity to lessons, school, or money. He wasn't born rich or in the aristocracy (much) instead he was given the opportunities of the times to achieve his maximum talent based on his ability. Wealth saw his ability and flowed towards him. The same thing happens today but the opportunities to recognize and advance the next Mozart living in poverty are greater and stronger than back then.

We may lose the next Mozart if we don't spread chances of opportunity to the poorest among us. Equality of opportunity will never be spread evenly but society as a whole can dream of a goal of making it better for those who don't have the chances of wealth. A basic level of opportunity and shared success makes the society stronger.

Think of the weakest human you can, someone catatonic or disabled and ask what do we get by helping this person. We gain as society by furthering our humanity and group capacity for Love, which is a very Christian Value.

Think of a less weak child who can't read and has a low IQ who cost twice as much to educate as other children. What does society get by offering them opportunities and citizenship. It gets a basic knowledge that the weakest among us will be taught to take care of themselves and have a say in how society is run and even tho their ability is not going to lead them to riches or power their opinion matters as much as those who are, and that availability of equality sustains that persons belief in society, even if it's out of reach, thus calming their capacity to revolt against the norms of society.

Think of a rich child with tons of access to unlimited opportunity but little ability. His parents who used their ability to gain wealth will try and protect that access and those opportunities for him irregardless of ability and pass it on to their grandchildren to the detriment of society as a whole.

The great middle is where equality to opportunity is needed. Born in poverty or to parents with no ability, if society provides a basic level of equality to opportunity those children will succeed or fail based on their ability. That basic level of structured equality for the masses is how society betters itself as a whole. Without it, society stagnates, hardens and collapses.