whodo-i-thinkiam t1_j4c3a5m wrote
Totally equality would mean everyone is literally the same person. That's not desirable or even possible. Too much inequality, however, and people have a hard time relating to one another, which inhibits social cohesion.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j4ca3vo wrote
I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether, because the modern meaning is more confusing than quantum mechanics.
I prefer the phrase "To each their own".
Different people need different things to live a good life, equality is meaningless if you give everyone the same thing but still cant fulfill people's specific needs, it would be a huge waste and inefficient.
Equality has become a buzzword that lazy activists use to demand for vague utopian goals that are detached from reality and they dont wanna do the actual hard work of finding out what specific people actually need.
whodo-i-thinkiam t1_j4cc2yf wrote
>I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether
I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose? Maybe just an acknowledgement that people don't all have exactly the same needs but we should still try to meet as many peoples' needs as possible?
That being said, our needs are not necessarily that different. We may not all have exactly the same dietary needs, but we all have dietary needs. We may not all have the same medical needs, but we all have medical needs. We may not all need the same kind of shelter, but we all need shelter, etc.
Plus, there are things that are intrinsically shared, like culture, language, belief systems, etc. Those are things human beings need to live a good life, and those things are social in nature.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments