Do you believe in Equality?

[crayons]

This is brought about by that thread about whether people here donate to charities. Do you believe everyone should be giving an equal shot? Do you believe justice and equality can co-exist? Because I don't and have a hard time understanding this stuff.

[casca82]

no they can't, there is no system of goverment, created by man, that can guarantee true equality. History is full, of such attmpts they've all failed. Justice is grey,inmy view. A persons morals and values, color what they perceive as just. :|

[Falrune]

This is brought about by that thread about whether people here donate to charities. Do you believe everyone should be giving an equal shot? Do you believe justice and equality can co-exist? Because I don't and have a hard time understanding this stuff.

Every person should have the right to make their voice heard (free speech and voting, mainly) and believe what they choose. I also believe in equal opportunity; people of equal merit should have an equal chance at work or education. I think justice and equality are not mutually exclusive and do coexist.

What is unjust is affirmative action (which has been confused with equal opportunity and equality).

[SarahG]

This is brought about by that thread about whether people here donate to charities. Do you believe everyone should be giving an equal shot? Do you believe justice and equality can co-exist? Because I don't and have a hard time understanding this stuff.

How are we defining equal shot? If you mean not allowing anything to be implemented to systematically keep people down based on some arbitrary characteristic, I think that works fairly well with having justice and equality co-exist.

Example- having everyone have the same set of established, natural rights allows equal shots and justice to co-exist but the same can't be said if these rights were conditional based on something pretty meanless (like "you have no right to freedom of expression if your first name ends with a vowel").

I don't see how equality and justice can coexist if it means acting to ensure everyone has the same SEC, health, # of offspring etc. This comes back to the whole free but bound in chains analogy. Everyone should have the same freedom of expression, due process, etc but there's gonna be some who by the pure probability involved at birth will end up with physical, mental, genetic, or economic limitations when compared to "everyone else." The only way I could see equality when taken to such extremes, is through an invasive process of eugenics, enslavement, forced poverty, etc. You can't make everyone have the same advantageous state of existance but you can bring everyone down to the same dire existance (responding to physical limitations by limiting everyone else in the same manner etc). There was a Bradbury story or two about such a situation but I can't think of titles right now.

[qeuqheeg222]

large scale donors are looking for tax offsets...............

[ShadowMaster]

Forced egalitarianism is not equality. I believe in equal opportunity and due process before the law. However all systems are inherently flawed because they're created and run by people. Life is inherently unfair. But what keeps you down may bring you up in different situation. The people who are the most successful are thse who best adapt to change. And being successful has nothing to do with morality which are ideals created and enforced by people. Life is not static. Society was created to best serve a group as a whole and as long as that society meets those needs it shall remain. Societies that became too corrupt or inefficient failed. If leaders become too corrupt their people purge them legislatively or violently but no one is going to knowingly allow you to drive the car in to a ditch without a fight. Nero and Caligula were executed.

A strength in one area may be a weakness elsewhere. Being tall might help you reach fruit easier but it also makes it harder to hide from predators. Being solo means you don't have to worry about group think dynamics but you don't have the benefit of dissenting opinions that may be helpful.

Affirmative Action came into being because the North did a half-ass job after the Civil War. During Reconstruction the North pulled out and let the South do WHATEVER! White Southerners took their frustration out on Blacks and other minorities. They made up more racial based laws in that time period except during maybe segregation. They could've played and fair and treated Blacks equally under the law but instead chose to abuse the power of local government. When Blacks as group achieved progressed the local whites would smash it with extreme prejudice. For example the Destruction of Black Wall Street in Oklahoma and along with the destruction of many other black towns based off piss poor excuses. They had no attention of allowing achievement based on merit. Civil Rights activists forced change so that Blacks couldn't just be outright murdered for nothing. They used to make postcards for Lynchings it was a social event! And that's just a tip of the iceburg. Segregation was instituted but law was still unequally enforced. After that was rescinded the decision a short time later affirmative action instituted. Why? Simple the government knew unless their was some sort of check and balance they wouldn't play fair. They would just choose/opt-out of hiring people who coincidently happened to be Black. They learned from the last time people would resist treating people fair unless their was a threat of being kicked in the nuts by the government. Before segregation college could allow Blacks who were qualified into school just most opted not too. How do you build a house if your enemy holds all the materials and tools? I just want to know exactly when people collectively decided to act fairly to make measures such of this unnecessary. I wonder what would happen if they did remove such measures meaning they would never have give it any thought.

Cali removed affirmative action and considering students based on race. That year they had a large influx of Asian students into the top schools. What happened? People started bitching to high heaven that maybe race should be considered. What the fuck happened you got what you wanted! People were being considered based on merit. Basically the my-kid -didn't-get-into-my-alma mater crowd started screaming. They thought their children were "ENTITLED."

TX did the same thing. They did the Top 10 percent of all schools were guaranteed free collegiate education. Sounds good on paper don't it. However they hadn't addressed the fact that not all their schools most of which were from poor areas weren't preparing their students for college. The kids were flunking because they weren't prepared. How prepared can a school's Top 10 percent be if the valedictorian has 3.6 . On the other side of the tracks rich kids parents were whining because Susie didn't get in although she had 3.9 but wasn't in the Top 10 of her school. The affluent areas have the best schools because people with money live their with the tax bracket to fund them. Poor can't afford to live there. Is that fair? Is it the rich guys fault for having a bigger wallet? So what's really fair?

As far as education goes your nation is only as strong as your succeeding generation. Do we want more people better educated or just a select few?

Apologize for the tirade but I hope this has been useful for some.

[macfan]

This is brought about by that thread about whether people here donate to charities. Do you believe everyone should be giving an equal shot? Do you believe justice and equality can co-exist? Because I don't and have a hard time understanding this stuff.

While I do not think that we can ever attain true equality because of nature itself, we can strive our best to attain some semblance of common respect and compassion in dealing with others.

I feel that if someone has wronged someone else wilfully that person who has committed a wrong, say a rapist, killer has helped to create their condition to be judged by society, how it plays out from there depends on many variables however.

[DJ_Asia]

This is brought about by that thread about whether people here donate to charities. Do you believe everyone should be giving an equal shot? Do you believe justice and equality can co-exist? Because I don't and have a hard time understanding this stuff.

Every person should have the right to make their voice heard (free speech and voting, mainly) and believe what they choose. I also believe in equal opportunity; people of equal merit should have an equal chance at work or education. I think justice and equality are not mutually exclusive and do coexist.

What is unjust is affirmative action (which has been confused with equal opportunity and equality).

I agree with you,but where in the world do these liberties exist...surely not in AmeriKKKa...

[Falrune]

Cali removed affirmative action and considering students based on race. That year they had a large influx of Asian students into the top schools. What happened? People started bitching to high heaven that maybe race should be considered. What the fuck happened you got what you wanted! People were being considered based on merit. Basically the my-kid -didn't-get-into-my-alma mater crowd started screaming. They thought their children were "ENTITLED."

You've got this backwards. California removed affirmative action because it adversely affected the entry of qualified Asians (and whites) into the university. Yes, there was a large number of Asians in higher education, but what was found was that qualification-wise, there should have been more. It was the bias against Asians integral to affirmative action that led to California eventually eliminating affirmative action (and replacing it with an equally odious policy of admissions based upon "special consideration," which no one talks about but is still in place).

And it wasn't just ONE year that Asians were adversely affected by Affirmative Action. For many years, since the late 1970s, Asian admissions were seriously hurt by affirmative action.

This is an abstraction of the Princeton study:

If affirmative action were eliminated, the acceptance rates for black applicants would fall to 12.2 percent from 33.7 percent, while the acceptance rates for Hispanic applicants would drop to 12.9 percent from 26.8 percent, according to the study. Asian-American students would fill nearly 80 percent of the spaces not taken by black and Hispanic students, the researchers found, while the acceptance rate for white students would increase by less than 1 percent.

The researchers who conducted the study -- Thomas J. Espenshade, a professor of sociology, and Chang Y. Chung, a statistical programmer at Princeton's Office of Population Research -- looked at the race, sex, SAT scores, and legacy status, among other characteristics, of more than 124,000 applicants to elite colleges.

[ShadowMaster]

I mean if you really wanted to be equal you would have to get rid of legacy preference for applicants. Then people would have less incentive to give to schools. What happens when the Oil Tycoon can't buy his son into school. What about the children of politicians? You really want to tell the President/Senator/Governor/Congressman no. Do you really want to suffer that backhand wrath from them or their friends that make your life difficult? They're just legal mobsters. Georgie or B-Dub as like to call him didn't get in on his merits. Grandpappy was rich and Pop was a Congressman. You going to them no Georgie can't enter. One of the reasons poor performing school do bad because they don't have competive incomes of affluent areas. Teachers train in the trenches then after 2 or 3 years go to a better district for higher pay. Students are better prepared and you live in a better environment. Less work, better equipment, more money. Poor schools get stuck with a constant influx of rookies and hand-me-downs. Only the diehards will stay behind. But only a small percentage of teachers are like that. It's a job like anything else for most people although it should be a calling. But if it was how many would show up?

I think when it comes down to it people favor the system that favors them even at the expense of another. That's partially why were seen exploitative around the world and even by nations who exploit others or their own people. There just mad they don't have a bigger pimp stick!

My thoughts anyway.

[Falrune]

Every person should have the right to make their voice heard (free speech and voting, mainly) and believe what they choose. I also believe in equal opportunity; people of equal merit should have an equal chance at work or education. I think justice and equality are not mutually exclusive and do coexist.

What is unjust is affirmative action (which has been confused with equal opportunity and equality).

I agree with you,but where in the world do these liberties exist...surely not in AmeriKKKa...

The United States of America is one of the few countries where theoretically, at least, the people rejected being the "subjects" of a monarchy at the inception of the country. Despite all of it's imperfections (such as realizing that rights require responsibility), the USA is still better than most countries in protecting the individual rights of its citizens (at least on paper).

[ShadowMaster]

Well Falrune I stand corrected but I think my interpretation still holds true. They put in a new policy once they realized that they were going to have a large influx of Asians if AA was removed. A lot of Whites were under the impression that it would help them but it wasn't nearly as beneficial as they thought it would be. My thing is you want it based solely on merit then do so but don't turn around and come up with a "new" policy to make it closer to the way it was. That was all about politics. The school's demographics wouldn't have reflected the state population. They realized the potential backlash of not instituting a new policy. If Cali had been 80% Asian I don't thinking anyone would've made a peep. The politicians getaway with playing both sides. They can say they killed AA but fixed the demographic problem.

[DJ_Asia]

Every person should have the right to make their voice heard (free speech and voting, mainly) and believe what they choose. I also believe in equal opportunity; people of equal merit should have an equal chance at work or education. I think justice and equality are not mutually exclusive and do coexist.

What is unjust is affirmative action (which has been confused with equal opportunity and equality).

I agree with you,but where in the world do these liberties exist...surely not in AmeriKKKa...

The United States of America is one of the few countries where theoretically, at least, the people rejected being the "subjects" of a monarchy at the inception of the country. Despite all of it's imperfections (such as realizing that rights require responsibility), the USA is still better than most countries in protecting the individual rights of its citizens (at least on paper).

Again I agree with you,on paper the New York Knicks should win the title due to their payroll but what is on paper and what is reality are far,far apart.

Freedom of Speech? Ask the "Dont Tase Me Bro" guy about that right.

Right to vote?Sure you can vote,but ask Diebold and Al Gore about that right...

Right to Privacy? Ask the authors & supporters of the Patriot Act about the 4th amendment.

I could go on but my point is clear...AmeriKKKa doesnt come close to delivering what the founding fathers promised so many years ago.
I have so much more respect for a nation that may not deliver many rights but at least they are honest about it.

[Falrune]

Well Falrune I stand corrected but I think my interpretation still holds true. They put in a new policy once they realized that they were going to have a large influx of Asians if AA was removed. A lot of Whites were under the impression that it would help them but it wasn't nearly as beneficial as they thought it would be. My thing is you want it based solely on merit then do so but don't turn around and come up with a "new" policy to make it closer to the way it was. That was all about politics. The school's demographics wouldn't have reflected the state population. They realized the potential backlash of not instituting a new policy. If Cali had been 80% Asian I don't thinking anyone would've made a peep. The politicians getaway with playing both sides. They can say they killed AA but fixed the demographic problem.

The Regents of the University of California did the right thing. They eliminated Affirmative Action because it was discriminatory against young people with dreams just as important as those dreams of the children that were favored by affirmative action. AA was a racist policy and contrary to the spirit of equal opportunity

[CORVETTEDUDE]

All men are created equal" was meant to be taken in the context of Justice. I do believe, very strongly(since I spent 26 years fighting for your rights) that everyone regardless of race, color, creed should be treated equally, according to the law, without bias.

People, themselves, however.....Are not equal, and never will be. That is why, as a benevalent society, it is incumbent on those with the means, to provide a little assistance to those not so fortunate. We are, in effect, our brothers keeper.

[Falrune]

All men are created equal" was meant to be taken in the context of Justice...

I agree to some extent. You do put yourself on a somewhat slippery slope, however, when you attempt to put things in the context of justice, rather than in the context of the law. In spirit, I agree with you, but in practice, WHO is to decide what is just? Usually, it turns out to be some rich liberal or rich conservative who tells everyone else what is just.


People, themselves, however.....Are not equal, and never will be. That is why, as a benevolent society, it is incumbent on those with the means, to provide a little assistance to those not so fortunate. We are, in effect, our brothers keeper.

I think this is a nice sentiment; but don't spend my money on giveaway programs that foster government dependency rather than independence. Most of these assistance programs have lead to (i) an inefficient self-perpetuating bureaucracy and (ii) a perpetual pool of recipients, where it is financially discouraged for the recipients to get out and attempt to be productive. The problem with this is that it is a burden on the middle class; now if the rich people want to pay for all this, fine. But middle-income families need to put that money away in their own educational trust funds to help their children go to the college of their choice.

[tsmandy]

I don't think equality is possible within a free-market capitalist society.

I don't think equality is possible when speaking about things like ability or intelligence.

I do think it is possible to rectify egregious historical inequities.

Here you speak of Affirmative Action, but not of genocide, slavery, colonization, and its legacy of poverty, war, and disease.

Whether equality is possible is a little besides the point. The legacy of colonialism and slavery needs to be addressed.

[SarahG]

I believe in equal opportunity...

I don't, equal opportunity HAS to involve direct, invasive, oppressive intervention because not everyone can have an equal opportunity for success. The only way someone can be in the top 100 wealthiest American lists with an IQ under 40 is if rich daddy dies and leaves it to them.

Secondary education is unequal as far as opportunities go, college is generally expensive stuff and if you're in the poorest SEC you're not gonna be able to afford to send your kid there even with all the financial aid packages around unless you either take a gamble and burden the kid with loans, or give the school such a sob story that they feel sorry for you and give it away. Even then its not a sure bet, if you're in the lowest SEC you're generally not even making even, the stats show this SEC makes a -1% of the distribution of national income annually. So what about all the costs that even generous schools can't cover?

Sure, we could make secondary complusitory and make it so any random person in the world could afford it; but then the quality of the education decreases, its value decreases and atstead of actually fixing anything; now everyone needs to go to graduate school to make what a 2-yr or 4-yr would have given them in employment earning statistics.



However all systems are inherently flawed because they're created and run by people. Life is inherently unfair. But what keeps you down may bring you up in different situation.


So you're saying that people in the system have bias which will help and hurt people based on meaningless characteristics (discrimination) and this is ok since you might be in the majority and might benefit form it?? When these individual slants collectively result in wholesale systematic discrimination, those in the minority kept down by it will be universally such. It doesn't matter how much you can adapt if no one will hire you, and you can't go just setup your own shop if people will 1- not ever go to it because of who/what you are, 2- unless there is something else involved in the picture you're not gonna have the assets to fund starting such an operation.



no one is going to knowingly allow you to drive the car in to a ditch without a fight.

No one?! Are you sure of this? Perhaps so much as most people are so indifferent that they don't care if the system is run into the ground.

[Ecstatic]

Richard Dawkins discusses at some length in The God Delusion the evolutionary force of inequality: that is, that it is beneficial to the survival of the group (and thus of the species) to favor the members of your group and oppose the members of other groups. Over time, this progressed from tribal to city-state to regional to national groups, and there has been a general (and significant) trend towards greater equality (of rights, not of ability or intelligence, as Mandy points out) for all people. We're still a long way from achieving true equality, but consider our progress with a few key notes:

The Magna Carta: the beginnings of modern liberty, though at the time for the noblity only, diminishing the power of the king.

The Amercian Declaration of Independence: "these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis mine). Note the this speaks of MEN: not women. And, in fact, in the cultural climate of the 17th century, Blacks and other minorities were not accepted as "men."

Emancipation Proclamation: freeing the slaves in America (see comments above regarding the negatives that followed this, but it was a major step forward).

Women's Suffrage: Beginning in New Zealand in 1898, and then through Canada, the US, GB, and other industrialized nations over the next half century, women gained the right to vote.

Of course, there's more, and there are failings aplenty. But in general, the trend is towards equality, and perhaps in some distant future century we'll actually acheive equality.

[trish]

Justice is the attempt to establish equality. The angle by which the proverbial playing field is tilted measures how unjust the game.

[crayons]

I find some of the things written here difficult to digest: the most "disturbing" one about all people being equal or that they should all be given an equal shot (or chance to have their voice/opinion heard).

To the individuals that claim this: do you therefore think you and a child molester should be treated equally? You might say that this is a stretch: but by your definition, this should mean you and a child molester both have equal rights.

Also if all people are equal or should be treated equally: what stops you for throwing your ethics out the window? After all, you will be judged as equally as a person that weights his own ethics heavily everyday before making judgments.

I believe today's society is overcrowded and oversaturated by mediocrity and there is nothing more disturbing or disgusting (except for the fact that these people are ignorant about their own short comings.) I'm one of those people that believe in Population Control: i.e. the eradication of useless people though what merits these individuals should be held upon and the criterion for which should be judged is still cloudy (at the moment).

What do you believe is the state of the world currently? How do you believe people can co-exist with less conflict? Do you believe in population control or do you think it is an extreme philosophy? And most important: why should people be given equal rights (especially when considering what sort of people we are talking about like murderers, gang-members, child molesters etc). When and where do we draw the line?

[BeardedOne]

I'm skipping three pages ahead, so please excuse me if I missed anything vital along the way.

Do I believe in equality?

Yes, I do. In the same way that many people believe in a higher being, steadfastly swearing to its existence without ever really seeing proof of it.

[crayons]

Yes, I do. In the same way that many people believe in a higher being, steadfastly swearing to its existence without ever really seeing proof of it.

Then does that mean you believe you and a person that committed triple homicide should be treated equally?

[BeardedOne]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear:

Yes, I believe in it.

That doesn't mean it truly exists.

[BeardedOne]

Addendum:

Some of my friends still pal around with an ex of mine that offed a family member with a shotgun, so I guess we are treated somewhat equally.

:shrug

[trish]

One never knows what traits will prove to be essential for surviving the unforeseen dangers that lie ahead. I think it’s dangerous to prune away human traits just because at present they seem detrimental.

Sickle cell anemia is a genetically transmitted disease. One might like to make a case to eliminate all carriers of the gene. However that same gene provides it’s carriers protection against malaria. It may happen that only these carriers could survive a future mutation of the malaria protist.

I rather see humans do the nurturing and let nature do the pruning.

[crayons]

Believing in things that don't exist is dangerous: especially if you wish for them to exist. It can be like waiting all day for the right woman to knock on your door. :shock:

[crayons]

One never knows what traits will prove to be essential for surviving the unforeseen dangers that lie ahead. I think it’s dangerous to prune away human traits just because at present they seem detrimental.


I like this idea, though one has to consider increased population rise (which mostly remains uncontrollable expect for disease and natural disaster), increased human/wildlife conflict (destruction of amazon, polar caps melting), increased refuse and garbage (NY City) etc etc

What sort of natural pruning do you prefer: Catastrophe's or disease?

[thefrakkincaptain]

And most important: why should people be given equal rights (especially when considering what sort of people we are talking about like murderers, gang-members, child molesters etc). When and where do we draw the line?

I don't think anyone is actually FOR giving these people equal rights. Just by their description, they've been found guilty of a crime of some sort. Society draws the line right there: guilty in a court of law. Once that's happened your rights are forfeit.

Up until that point, EVERYONE should deserve equal status under the law. Are we all equal financially? No. Are we all equal intellectually? No. Are we all equally physically? No. Does that mean that we should all enjoy the same rights and privileges (unless we've been convicted of a crime) as everyone else? Yes.

A society in which everyone is equal financially, physically and intellectually is one that stagnates and collapses upon itself because no one has anything to strive for. It's also an unrealistic dream that got some 75 million people killed in the 20th Century called Communism.

So long as everyone gets equal treatment from everyone else, I fail to see why anything else would matter.

[BeardedOne]

Believing in things that don't exist is dangerous: especially if you wish for them to exist. It can be like waiting all day for the right woman to knock on your door. :shock:

Bra-fucking-vo! :claps :claps :claps

Heh. I said "Bra". :lol:

[crayons]

You also said "fucking" :(

[trish]

diseases are catastrophes. i don’t promote disasters of any kind. i just think they’re numerous enough and they cost enough lives without humans helping them along.

[crayons]

A Slave New Crowd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tU2LJNo7xs) <-- click this :P

[trish]

sorry, i don't trust you enough to click that :)

and besides, it's time to eat supper and watch the PBS News Hour. I'll catch up with you later. nice talkin' crayons.

[ShadowMaster]

Crayons who decides who lives and who dies? And what if those marked death decide not to roll over and die? What you propose will cause conflict. And what happens if those who make those decisions are killed?

Your argument is flawed. Your talking about forced egalitarianism not equal opportunity. EO implies that you won't attempt to impede the progess of others via unfair discrimination. For example you may have schools for flying open to "everyone " but your still not going to accept a blind man. It goes against logic and safety. EO doesn't mean a quadripeligic is on the track team or that a child molester will be allowed to work with children. I wouldn't let a pyromaniac handle the fireworks. They are obviously unfit for the task. Another thing is the examples you've chosen aren't good being a child molester, and murderer are both illegal activies. Those caught doing these things are separated from the community at large. If these people never committed these crimes then they are allowed to interact with everybody else.

EO- basically your allowed to try out but if you don't make the cut then exercise your EO elsewhere in a different field. EO doesn't mean your guaranteed a spot on the team. Unfair discrimination impedes this process, because a person can't try out because their skin is too dark.

[thefrakkincaptain]

Completely off topic question for you Shadowmaster: did you get your name from The Black Company novels by Glen Cook?

I aplogize for the interruption. Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[ShadowMaster]

SarahG I don't think you read my posts thoroughly.

I do believe systematic discrimination is wrong cuz I also said:

How do you build a house if your enemy holds all the materials and tools?

I was just saying preference can also backfire for example:
Ancient Greek Aristocrats and Royalty had plumbing but other people didn't. Seems good but they also were also suffering from lead poisoning so each successive generation born was in worse shape than last. They suspect this is why folks like Nero and Caligula were crazy. Somebody already used the sickle-cell example but that's what I meant. I didn't mean the systematic mistreatment others should be allowed because it might make them better. Some perform well under strife and some don't. We strive to help people perform at optimal levels for their own benefit and the benefit of society as a whole.

I don't believe college should compulsory. College is not for everyone. However I believe school that don't perform well should be given the necessary attention to change this trend so that they produce more students that are college ready or can at least help students improve that are college interested.

And as far as people indifferent to their own existence. I say suffer the consequences. I can't do anything for anyone who doesn't value their own life. Corruption continues because people believe they can't do anything about it and/or they're unaware of the wretched state of things.

[ShadowMaster]

Well thefrakkincaptain it's actually not quite that deep. I got my name from Double Dragon the video game mostly. It also symbolizes for me people who run things unseen. The real puppeteers. It also means being someone who is aware of movements taking place around them and navigating successfully around these unseen obstacles. I do my best to see what is hidden because knowledge is power. People who know how the secret machine operates can manipulate to their favor sort of like Dark City and The Matrix. That and I like villainous names and horror novels. Don't know why? Maybe I liked playing with Snake Mountain too much as a child.

[crayons]

Crayons who decides who lives and who dies? And what if those marked death decide not to roll over and die? What you propose will cause conflict. And what happens if those who make those decisions are killed?

Your argument is flawed. Your talking about forced egalitarianism not equal opportunity.


I'm one of those people that believe in Population Control: i.e. the eradication of useless people though what merits these individuals should be held upon and the criterion for which should be judged is still cloudy (at the moment).

[ShadowMaster]

Well I'm sure you Idi Amin and Adolf would have a hell of conversation.

Who decides who useless? And useful for what? And what flaw warrants death? And if your related to someone deemed useless would you allow them to be executed for this status quo? The mere suggestion of this would lead to strife. It sounds to me like your advocating war because that's what this would lead to. Or would you enforce this via secret police? Or would round up them all and mass execute them? There's just no nice to perform mass murder. Believe me the Nazis tried and they were damn efficient at it! If you were deemed useless would you volunteer to be executed? And again who would you give this authority too? Will we execute for felonies and/or inherent frailties? Sorry Grandma today is your expiration date but you die for the sake of the people so you should really be happy. Deeming someone useless would make them a non-person. When people attack others they often dehumanize their victims before the assault begins hence the myriad of racial, ethnic, and sexual epithets. But when you break it down translated, you're not like us or what is deemed acceptable therefore it is okay to mistreat people.

Have you ever actually killed/executed someone? Could you look a friend or family member in the eye and say its for the strength of the nation that you die? How exactly would execute them? Firing squad, guns, hanging, lethal injection, etc. Is it okay to torture them before you kill them because it's not like your going to let them live anyway. Or is it more inhumane to torture someone before you murder them? Whoever came up with the criteria would be bias because people are inherently bias based off their beliefs and life experience. How would solve that?

I just want you to work this plan out thoroughly so I can prepare for the NEW WORLD ORDER.

[ShadowMaster]

I personally prefer famine, starvation, and natural catastrophe to ethnic cleansing because at least mother nature is unbiased. We're all just compost heaps waiting to happen! Because life ain't worth living if we give up our freedom to cowtow to someone elses ideals for a perfect world. Anybody who attempts this BS again deserves to be met with DEADLY FORCE! And willing to DIE to annihilate ANYONE who tries to bring back this bullshit. I can't be everywhere at once but if it's in my backyard this DOG HAS TEETH!

Those Nazis should've been rounded and forced to experience first hand the villainy of their own machinations.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This has yet to fail me.

[KiraHarden]

:arrow:
Whats that arrow mean?

[edward almond]

I live in NC where blacks are a large group. Our crime rate is horrendous.Places where blacks are are almost non-existant have almost no crime.The problem is black crime not so called racism. Act right I will treat you right. Act wrong and You justify my beliefs,since over 90 percent of violent crime is commited byblacks or latino's,who the FBI now lists as white so white people look worse than they are.The media who are almost completely jewish are trying to control what we see so they can bring in more cheap labor. Now lets sing cumbaya. I know I will get called racist but I'm not I just read a lot. If you check your facts at somewhere other than hillary.com you may learn something.

[trish]

where does one begin? can a board so horrendously warped ever be straightened? i doubt it. but here's just one nugget to think about. you exclaim:

Act right I will treat you right. Act wrong and You justify my beliefs

ask yourself why your reactions to right and wrong behaviors are so asymmetric? Why didn't you say

"Act right and I will change my beliefs. Act wrong and you justify my beliefs"?

Just as an aside, did you know that crime is horrendously high on wall street? That crime is horrendously high right now in the banking industry (not an especially black stronghold by the way). It's just not called violent crime, even though it does violence to families all around the world.

[trish]

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/52081/is-the-pace-of-human-evolution-speeding-up