would you agree?

[cacian]

if you had liberty/freedom you could not have equality?

[SentimentalSlop]

Yes, I would agree. But I don't believe all people are equal. It's not that I'm saying certain people have inherently more value than another, but not all people are the same, and therefore should not be treated all the same way. You must consider the similarities and differences between people. Some people are better at certain things than others, and vice versa. Some people are smarter than others, more athletically or musically inclined, etc. I would hate to live in a world where everyone had to be at the same common denominator. That is only holding people back and withholding potential gifts from society that could benefit it. in some way. It is not a good thing to bring the standards so low that everyone can meet them...

[cacian]

Yes, I would agree. But I don't believe all people are equal. It's not that I'm saying certain people have inherently more value than another, but not all people are the same, and therefore should not be treated all the same way.


in what ways should one be treated differently from another way?

You must consider the similarities and differences between people. Some people are better at certain things than others, and vice versa. Some people are smarter than others, more athletically or musically inclined, etc.
these are not differences these are capabilities and skills. they are not the ground for making one different from another.


I would hate to live in a world where everyone had to be at the same common denominator.

how do you mean?
I would love to live in a world where everyone was musically skilled and fluent in all other languages.
I would love a world where everyone has visited/seen the world and and knows what it looks like.
I would love a world where everyone knew how to cook.
these are huge missed opportunities. there is so much to do and learn and yet we have nothing to show for at the end of it. to think that one lives in this world and has not had the opportunity to know what the world looks like is a sad affair and says a lot about the human mind set how lazy thinking it has become.

That is only holding people back and withholding potential gifts from society that could benefit it. in some way. It is not a good thing to bring the standards so low that everyone can meet them...[/QUOTE]
I am not sure I understand this. standards is what you make of them. I understand the world to be rich and yet an individual in a life time has only achieved reading and writing holding a job.

[Volya]

in what ways should one be treated differently from another way?

these are not differences these are capabilities and skills. they are not the ground for making one different from another.



how do you mean?
I would love to live in a world where everyone was musically skilled and fluent in all other languages.
I would love a world where everyone has visited/seen the world and and knows what it looks like.
I would love a world where everyone knew how to cook.
these are huge missed opportunities. there is so much to do and learn and yet we have nothing to show for at the end of it. to think that one lives in this world and has not had the opportunity to know what the world looks like is a sad affair and says a lot about the human mind set how lazy thinking it has become.
I am not sure I understand this. standards is what you make of them. I understand the world to be rich and yet an individual in a life time has only achieved reading and writing holding a job.

If everyone is amazing, then nobody really is...
I think you can have absolute freedom and absolute equality, it's just extraordinarily improbable.

[OrphanPip]

Equality has to be defined before this question has any real meaning. Is it legal equality, equality of opportunity, equality of ability? An olympic sprinter and a one legged man may not have equal racing ability, but they are still legally equal. I would further that to say their lives also have equal worth as conscious human beings.

[cacian]

Equality has to be defined before this question has any real meaning. Is it legal equality, equality of opportunity, equality of ability? An olympic sprinter and a one legged man may not have equal racing ability, but they are still legally equal. I would further that to say their lives also have equal worth as conscious human beings.

equality means everyone has the same amount of everything the same opportunities the same learning curbs the same aspirations the same amount of happiness.

freedom the ability to decide for oneself without the dictation of another.

[mal4mac]

I would love to live in a world where everyone was musically skilled and fluent in all other languages.
I would love a world where everyone has visited/seen the world and and knows what it looks like.
I would love a world where everyone knew how to cook.
these are huge missed opportunities. there is so much to do and learn and yet we have nothing to show for at the end of it. to think that one lives in this world and has not had the opportunity to know what the world looks like is a sad affair and says a lot about the human mind set how lazy thinking it has become.


What's so important about seeing the world? Imagine if everyone takes several foreign holidays a year, global warming would be far worse than it already is. Holidays are often a great disappointment, and people travel to places without knowing anything about them. What a waste of time. Why not stay at home and read books?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/735900/Why-we-should-cut-down-on-flying.html

I can't play a musical instrument or speak another language but I don't feel impoverished. I'm free to do both but I don't feel inclined to do them. You should also have the freedom to not do what trendy middle class mothers think are good things, due to their narrow minds. Children might then be more free.

What's so great about cooking? Eating ready meals & restaurant meals gives you more time to read.

[cacian]

What's so important about seeing the world?
the importance of seeing the world is the knowledge of it. that is priceless to me. if i did more traveling and i would do less quarrelling. getting to know the world and what it looks like is worth more then reading a book in my eyes. the world is a book and i by travelling it get to read it without having to pick it up.
everyone should be given the opportunity to get to know what the world looks like. it should be a right of passage. then i can write a book or paint a picture. i have yet to see a picture that tells me that's a world or what it would look like. art would not could not summarise it a book could would not get it into words what the world is or looks like.
to see the world is an opportunity that nobody should miss. it is there for a reason. that is one meaning of life. stop thinking and start doing.
to live to see the world and for free of charge.


Imagine if everyone takes several foreign holidays a year, global warming would be far worse than it already is.
global warming. that is not possible. travelling is natural. birds/animals do it as part of their cycle. we should do it. follow suit is what we should do. shame Darwin did not point it out. he did not see that. he was to busy telling me i looked like one.

Holidays are often a great disappointment, and people travel to places without knowing anything about them. What a waste of time. Why not stay at home and read books?
true. in this day and age the world is costly and the holidays are a shame. in a different better world travelling is a commodity not luxury everyone is entitled to it.


I can't play a musical instrument or speak another language but I don't feel impoverished
you don't? i do. in fact it is shameful that i live this long and have nothing to show for it. what is education if it does not teach how to play an instrument tells me about intuition how to think. it is too busy telling me how not to spell or lecturing me about numbers it cannot handle. apparently zero is a number. it is too busy telling me to recite tables by heart and memorise stuff i copy from a board. nothing to do with whether i understand agree or not.
as long as i spit out what i mushed by heart.


I'm free to do both but I don't feel inclined to do them. You should also have the freedom to not do what trendy middle class mothers think are good things, due to their narrow minds. Children might then be more free.
I agree money is everything in this world but it does not have to be this way.
travelling is commodity not a luxury and so it should be.


What's so great about cooking? Eating ready meals & restaurant meals gives you more time to read.
to know how to cook shows knowledge and appreciation of food. it is important that we understand food so that it understands us. we have diet and health to think about.
to know how to cook shows we appreciate nature for what it is and what it gives us if we all knew how to cook there will be less weight problem because we would understand food balance and taste.
it shows that we reciprocate what natures gives to us.

[mal4mac]

global warming. that is not possible. travelling is natural. birds/animals do it as part of their cycle. we should do it. follow suit is what we should do. shame Darwin did not point it out. he did not see that. he was to busy telling me i looked like one.


If you want to keep it natural, walk everywhere.



true. in this day and age the world is costly and the holidays are a shame. in a different better world travelling is a commodity not luxury everyone is entitled to it.


Walking and cycling are cheap, maybe a short train journey to get you somewhere nice, but why more than that?



to know how to cook shows knowledge and appreciation of food. it is important that we understand food so that it understands us. we have diet and health to think about.
to know how to cook shows we appreciate nature for what it is and what it gives us if we all knew how to cook there will be less weight problem because we would understand food balance and taste.
it shows that we reciprocate what natures gives to us.

The TV cooks aren't great examples of health - "two fat ladies", one dead, the other with chronic problems, "two fat bikers" who needed an old lady to tell them to get healthy, (and both still fat!) Nigel Worrell Thompson with "full system collapse". And it's easy to eat healthy - if you know some science - M&S low fat ready meals, salmon sandwich, apple, porridge,... then forget about boring food. Which great writers sing the praise of food? It's a nothing, a trivial thing to get over with quickly, like cleaning your teeth.

[cacian]

If you want to keep it natural, walk everywhere.
that is not natural that is the least one can do. travelling is natural. in my books if animals can do it and so should we and that is really getting to explain to basic point. travelling is what we do bust you just have to look at the amount of travelling means man has got up to to see that travelling is important.
I would rather travel the world then learnt to fly. flying is unimportant travelling to get to see the world is more.


Walking and cycling are cheap, maybe a short train journey to get you somewhere nice, but why more than that?
what more then that? life is what is more then that. I can think of billions of thigns to do that related to life
instruments/languages/cooking/cities/ and much more is what life is about.


The TV cooks aren't great examples of health - "two fat ladies", one dead, the other with chronic problems, "two fat bikers" who needed an old lady to tell them to get healthy, (and both still fat!) Nigel Worrell Thompson with "full system collapse". And it's easy to eat healthy - if you know some science - M&S low fat ready meals, salmon sandwich, apple, porridge,... then forget about boring food. Which great writers sing the praise of food? It's a nothing, a trivial thing to get over with quickly, like cleaning your teeth.
that is not cooking that is television for you. it likes to make a fool out of itself in order to impress.
the two ladies or the two bikers are mere example of what cooking is about .
to understand food one must get skilled at managing to cook it. the two ladies may have started cooking very late in their lives and so it was too late because their parents were not cooks. they ate what they had and therefore their size is telling of their diet from childhood.
there is so much food nature gives us and not many understand what to do with it. understanding how food impact on our environment body and how it react to cooking is crucial for a healthy body.

[mal4mac]

that is not natural that is the least one can do. travelling is natural. in my books if animals can do it and so should we and that is really getting to explain to basic point. travelling is what we do bust you just have to look at the amount of travelling means man has got up to to see that travelling is important.

Look at man in a state on nature. Tribes usually stick close to their own home area... if they go travelling through the forest other tribes might kill them. You may now mention "nomadic tribes", but at the very least you have to admit "not travelling" is one natural state for man, although some very basic travelling (by foot, camel, horse...) may also be natural. I don't travel much, haven't flown or left the country for over ten years, and don't think I'm lacking anything (except a lot of travel pain!)



I would rather travel the world then learnt to fly. flying is unimportant travelling to get to see the world is more.


OK, you've moved away from saying it is natural. So why is it important to see the world more?


there is so much food nature gives us and not many understand what to do with it. understanding how food impact on our environment body and how it react to cooking is crucial for a healthy body.

This is true, and that's why we need good research. But complicated, faddy cooking techniques have not been shown to impact health in a positive way. For instance, organic foods are not healthier than non-organic foods. I stick to healthy eating guidelines that have strong scientific backing, and can do that with minimal cooking (making a tinned salmon sandwich, or a bowl of porridge... anything more complicated is a waste of my time).

[cacian]

Look at man in a state on nature. Tribes usually stick close to their own home area... if they go travelling through the forest other tribes might kill them.
would they? or is that Hollywood talking? I have only come across that in films.


but at the very least you have to admit "not travelling" is one natural state for man,
I could not. travelling is part of being alive. one must extend boundery if one is to assume foundery.


OK, you've moved away from saying it is natural. So why is it important to see the world more?
earth is a big place and we are part of it the least we can do is get to know it like you would know your husband wife friend. anything. in order to assume knowledge of the world one must show one has travelled extensively. that is one reason why we are here to show that we know our world inside out.
to show we understand we must get to know the world in order to know ourselves better. we are the product of our environment and in order to understand ourselves and our environment we have to travel to gain knowledge of what it is that we live on. the more knowledge we amass of our planet looks like and the more sense we would make of ourselves and life. it is by doing that we conquer ourselves to ourselves.
thinking is up to a point but doing is what it boils down to. active thinking is a healthy way of living. we must get out more.
we must show that we are actively interested in our surrounding our world by travelling in order to grasp one meaning of why we are here.
the other important is contact communication with other people form different part of the world. to understand them is to understand us.

[togre]

You can have equal opportunity or equal outcome, but you can't have both. If you gave every single person $100k today, in one day or one year there would be some people who used the $100k and created more--more money, or worth or whatever. There would be other people who would have wasted or lost the $100k. So what then? Do you continually take from those who have and keep or those who have and make and give to the people who had but lost? Is that freedom--to have success taken from you whenever you have achieved more than others? Freedom must imply freedom to fail--freedom to face the consequences of your actions for good or for bad. Otherwise it is a tyranny of mediocrity, a recipe for equal levels of lack across the board.

[Delta40]

I think legal equality is the basic recognition which is required here. What people choose to do with that
Freedom is up to them. There is no point in pushing ones agenda onto another because that would contradict the notion of diversity.

Having said that, women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars. Gay marriage is illegal. The age of consent differs from culture to culture, children are fighting in wars. Globally, equality is a mighty tin of worms.

[cacian]

I think legal equality is the basic recognition which is required here. What people choose to do with that
Freedom is up to them. There is no point in pushing ones agenda onto another because that would contradict the notion of diversity.

Having said that, women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars. Gay marriage is illegal. The age of consent differs from culture to culture, children are fighting in wars. Globally, equality is a mighty tin of worms.

in other words freedom sucks according to the Saudis. great world we live in.

[JBI]

We are naturally not born with equal abilities. That's a fact of life. So my classmate who memorizes an entire book on the first read will always be better than me at recalling what somebody said. It's a natural talent that I cannot compete with, regardless of how I try. Likewise, some people are born without limbs.

In a sense, we cannot be liberated from the body, and therefore, freedom is merely a political construct used to further maintain order.

[JBI]

in other words freedom sucks according to the Saudis. great world we live in.

No, they are demonstrating a freedom of practicing their religion. In a sense, it is not that freedom sucks, but rather, that tradition rules. Perhaps Saudis laugh at our age of consent for females, and think we are to prude to pursue pre-adolescent, or barely pubescent girls. Humber Humbert. In that sense, it must be really "free" being a Saudi male, minus the additional responsibility of having to "take care of the family" (all 4 wives included). Still, is polygamy not another form of liberation from the confining norms of Western societal pressure?

The idea of freedom in discourse is so easy to spin, as a concrete sense of freedom lacks to define the boundaries. If I were to call everyone I think is fat a fatass, for instance, people would find me socially unacceptable, as I am going against societal constraints. The same way if I were to use epithets that are deemed unacceptable - this exercise of freedom is not met well, and, in many places, could end up with some series legal consequences. In that sense, what is freedom really? in reference to the US, what of the notion of being free from Washington, and maintaining rights to own slaves - the freedom to follow in our ancestors footsteps as racist slaveowners if you will - was that not a war for freedom (inevitably lost?).

[cacian]

No, they are demonstrating a freedom of practicing their religion.

they are? how? a religion is a practice no need for freedom to exerce its power. it is already one.

In a sense, it is not that freedom sucks, but rather, that tradition rules.

not sure tradition is as much as culture. what is traditional is not necessarily cultural. they are not necessarily linked.

Perhaps Saudis laugh at our age of consent for females, and think we are to prude to pursue pre-adolescent, or barely pubescent girls.

laugh? I think laughing is not the word. I do not know what the age of consent is for the Saudi but by the look of it sounds dreadful. it makes sense not to pursue preadolescent because it is not mature to understand old age. it is like a predator trying to manipulate a doll which then eventually ends up damaging it. the image it conveys is twisted .too right the English are too prude.
it is not the done thing.

In that sense, it must be really "free" being a Saudi male, minus the additional responsibility of having to "take care of the family" (all 4 wives included). Still, is polygamy not another form of liberation from the confining norms of Western societal pressure?

I am not sure the Saudi male is free as much tied to their small minded view of the world. the fact of the matter is their reputation abroad is that of a sexual predator and is left to be desired. their freedom and ties are well out of the window and out and about in the west.
polygamy just emphases their sexual frustration or their lack of freedom from it . the need for it is higher then the number because of it.

[JBI]

You are merely using your disgust at the notion of their cultural values and traditions to pass a judgment that these people are somehow less free. Freedom is a lack of restraint - to not need to restrain yourself from laws, whether right or wrong, is in itself freedom. So Americans, from this perspective, could say the right to use drugs constitutes a freedom, and the right to sell oneself, or buy sex is in itself a freedom. And the right to kill oneself, is a freedom. And the right to use racial epithets is a freedom. From a legal perspective, anything that the law does not allow you to do is in one way or another limiting your freedom to do something.

Now, as a constitution, the US Bill of Rights has a nice idea that it allows through law, rather than limits. These sorts of laws are not allowing something, but rather taking away someone else's ability to violate things. So do not kill is in a sense a violation of one's right to kill somebody. If the law says then that the state must not execute people, it has limited the state as a whole's right to execute people, as a judgment in favor of the executed person's right to live.

Now, some times the law can be one sided. So if the law says it is illegal for women to drive, then it means that her right is taken away. Now if the law says men can drive, then it is affirming that the station of the two are completely different legally. If the law allows a parent to hit their child, but does not allow the child to not be hit by the parent, the law is making a judgment call, as it is when it does not allow the child to hit his or her parent.

[cacian]

You are merely using your disgust at the notion of their cultural values and traditions to pass a judgment that these people are somehow less free.

disgust is not the word. disillusionment is better. culture has value only when it applies to both parties being treated in the same way. Saudi is anything but even. a woman is considered of less authority then that of a man. that is not freedom that is a lack of it.


Freedom is a lack of restraint - to not need to restrain yourself from laws, whether right or wrong, is in itself freedom.

restraint and freedom are of opposite direction albeit linked. in fact restrain begs for freedom. one is dependent of the other as you know. take freedom away and there is no restraint.


So Americans, from this perspective, could say the right to use drugs constitutes a freedom, and the right to sell oneself, or buy sex is in itself a freedom.
freedom in this context is restrained. the expression 'the right to' does it conflict. it is a Passover a donation that begs elation.
it is not about the right to do anything. it is about not having to do it or consider at the first place that is freedom.


And the right to kill oneself, is a freedom. And the right to use racial epithets is a freedom. From a legal perspective, anything that the law does not allow you to do is in one way or another limiting your freedom to do something.

the law is permissive and dismissive. the law works in accordance to a totalitarianism of rights and at the same time on dismissal of many others. freedom is its flag. it waves it when it rags and lowers it when it sags. either way it needs it to brag.


Now, as a constitution, the US Bill of Rights has a nice idea that it allows through law, rather than limits. These sorts of laws are not allowing something, but rather taking away someone else's ability to violate things. So do not kill is in a sense a violation of one's right to kill somebody. If the law says then that the state must not execute people, it has limited the state as a whole's right to execute people, as a judgment in favor of the executed person's right to live.
on a one hand the law says don't kill and on the other it goes death penalty rampage when it loses restraint.
in order to preach you must reach out and in. the law conflicts as well as clips. it is like a puppet that tells a story and then hits itself on the head with it. the law's concentration is non existent because it runs on fluid and it needs the masses to pump it up for it. disperse the crowd and it will piss on itself because it does not know how to sit.
the law 's own legacy is to strip itself out of its own right eventually. may be it is about time it got the cold shower. it looks like it is begging for it from the sound of it.


Now, some times the law can be one sided. So if the law says it is illegal for women to drive, then it means that her right is taken away. Now if the law says men can drive, then it is affirming that the station of the two are completely different legally. If the law allows a parent to hit their child, but does not allow the child to not be hit by the parent, the law is making a judgment call, as it is when it does not allow the child to hit his or her parent.
the law is falsified in this context. we all now how to drive whether we can or not is irrelevant. to say we can or we can't is an idiocy spat out by a law that does not know how to control itself and so it tries and control you.
subsequence flakiness from its part means it will impose bans and one day it will eventually ban itself out. it is bound to happen.
that is the law it knows no other but its own demise.

[Whosis]

I don't see how this is going to be true in an area such as where to sit on the bus--with true freedom, the only further restriction that pops up is age old formalities like first come first served, I believe. Any person can sit anywhere on the bus if the seat is not previously occupied. Keep in mind that though Americans considered themselves "free," this was not necessarily the case until recently.

There is the argument, though, that we are not like communism, where everyone would likely be earning the same paycheck, despite how much one person might be bringing in over another. However, without free market competition, neither would there be much impetus to do more than another person, the stimulus being to earn a bigger paycheck.