equality

[Hypersniper]

A man abuses women in public after an argument lots of people stop it
a women abuses a man in public after a argument no body reacts

A man is getting abusex by a women in public so the man hits back and people blame and abuse the man

A problem in today's word is that the double standered exists please discuss

[Firebringer]

The problem is we can't hit women. I would be fine getting hit by a women, I just want to dish out the pain too.

That is true equality. The American Way.

[Brendan]

lol if ur in a situation where ur being abused u should exit that situation.

[DarknessB]

Statistically speaking, men are stronger than women in general -- i.e. physically speaking, a man is typically capable of inflicting more physical harm on a woman than a woman is capable of inflicting on a man (sans weapons, etc.). That's the discrepancy for you in a nutshell. As Brendan points out, no one, man or woman, should be tolerating abuse, but society thinks that men should be able to defend themselves more readily against women than women should be able to against men. This might be different if you start dating Ronda Rousey, but aside from such outlier, the pattern is usually man stronger than woman. Therefore, there's more concern about a woman getting abused than a man.

Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone is abusing you, you shouldn't turn around and abuse them. Self-defense is one thing, but that means restraining the other person, not slugging them back.

[Firebringer]

Statistically speaking, men are stronger than women in general -- i.e. physically speaking, a man is typically capable of inflicting more physical harm on a woman than a woman is capable of inflicting on a man (sans weapons, etc.). That's the discrepancy for you in a nutshell. As Brendan points out, no one, man or woman, should be tolerating abuse, but society thinks that men should be able to defend themselves more readily against women than women should be able to against men. This might be different if you start dating Ronda Rousey, but aside from such outlier, the pattern is usually man stronger than woman. Therefore, there's more concern about a woman getting abused than a man.

Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone is abusing you, you shouldn't turn around and abuse them. Self-defense is one thing, but that means restraining the other person, not slugging them back.

This post is so lame.

How will we survive the inevitable zombie Apocalypse if we can't defend ourselves against each other.
ITS CALLED PRACTICE!

If you gotta get knocked on the floor a few times, thats good for you. Only way you learn is through defeat.

[DarknessB]

This post is so lame.

How will we survive the inevitable zombie Apocalypse if we can't defend ourselves against each other.
ITS CALLED PRACTICE!

If you gotta get knocked on the floor a few times, thats good for you. Only way you learn is through defeat.

[deathworlds]

If someone abuses someone else, get john cena to body slam the abuser.

[DarknessB]

If someone abuses someone else, get john cena to body slam the abuser.

Well, from the perspective of the abuser, it would be like getting lifted up by an unknown force, floating in midair, and then suddenly being slammed down. Very weird if you ask me...

[deathworlds]

Wait, what about that "POW! Right in the kisser" guy?

[Darkcrusader]

The problem is we can't hit women. I would be fine getting hit by a women, I just want to dish out the pain too.

That is true equality. The American Way.

It was never about hitting a woman or not, it's a problem with violence in general, people shouldn't fucking take jabs at each other in general. That's why, even in martial arts you're taught only to use them to defend yourself.
Don't mention America about equality please when groups like feminism became a joke, complaining about patriarchy or wage gap when they've been debunked. "Oh I need feminism because AB" "We should teach men not to rape". The fact is that both genders either lack or have privileges, both is society and in let's say law or other stuff, like how women are more likely to get custody over children, or if a woman commits the same crime as a man she can get less time in jail, or men are expected to pay for the fine on a date, or how a woman is called a slut if she sleeps with a lot of men and vice versa he's a stud.
And there's also the issue in video games where it's okay to kill a man but it's a taboo to kill a woman.

[Darkcrusader]

Biology is sexist, women live longer than men. Checkmate creationists.

[deathworlds]

Almost all religions are sexist lol.

[Darkcrusader]

Almost all religions are sexist lol.

Islam is the worst atm xD, quoted from the Qur'an "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females", "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Well to be fair about it, so was the bible “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”

[Frog]

Islam is the worst atm xD, quoted from the Qur'an "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females", "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Well to be fair about it, so was the bible “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

...Bible

This proves old people are sexist.

Down with old people!

[SuperJack]

Women are evil.

[Firebringer]

Women are evil.

Wouldn't it be better if their wasn't any women? Just guys making out with guys, you know. Completely Hetero stuff.

[deathworlds]

Wouldn't it be better if their wasn't any women? Just guys making out with guys, you know. Completely Hetero stuff.

No homo bro

[SuperJack]

No homo bro

Nothing wrong with lending a hand.

[deathworlds]

With the state humanity is in (as a whole), true equality among humans won't exist for a very long time.

[Firebringer]

Equality is one of those nice things where you support, but when you really dig deep and explore it you realize its a impossible goal. Its just a buzzword.

Also true equality (not just in legal sense), would be fucking terrible.

[Dagaen]

World is still few dozens years away from saying Women have equal rights. I'm not even going to mention Middle East and Africa. The thing is the western world is still dominated by men. How many women were US Presidents? What is the percentage of women in US government? How many women are breadwinners in famillies? How many men stay at home full time? And yes, in Poland things are pretty much the same.

So yeah, until women have really equal rights I'd say it's fine for them to hit man in public without being hit back. But as Firebringer said: true equality is not possible. There will be always differences, men will always be stronger physically. For now people should focus on cleaning up after millenia of male dominance.

[Frog]

Topic:
Equality

Premise:
Unequal strength people physically fighting

Conclusion:
Not all people are equal. To pretend otherwise is silly. Some people are better and worse than others.

[Firebringer]

Topic:
Equality

Premise:
Unequal strength people physically fighting

Conclusion:
Not all people are equal. To pretend otherwise is silly. Some people are better and worse than others.

Yeah, kind of like how I am stronger and faster than Frog. Except he is more handsome and richer.

Its the universe way of making everything balanced in its own way of "equality"

[yzb25]

Equality is one of those nice things where you support, but when you really dig deep and explore it you realize its a impossible goal. Its just a buzzword.

Also true equality (not just in legal sense), would be fucking terrible.

Why would it be terrible? Unless you're literally talking about people treated the same.

On a side note,

"Statistically speaking, men are stronger than women in general -- i.e. physically speaking, a man is typically capable of inflicting more physical harm on a woman than a woman is capable of inflicting on a man (sans weapons, etc.). That's the discrepancy for you in a nutshell. As Brendan points out, no one, man or woman, should be tolerating abuse, but society thinks that men should be able to defend themselves more readily against women than women should be able to against men. This might be different if you start dating Ronda Rousey, but aside from such outlier, the pattern is usually man stronger than woman. Therefore, there's more concern about a woman getting abused than a man." - DarknessB

That definitely does not fully explain it. There's definitely a damsel-in-distress stereotype going through our society. And there's loads of people who would trip over themselves trying to defend and protect women. What happened on the titanic, 100 years ago, is a good example of this.

Tbf, my evidence for this is mainly anecdotal. But, particularly during the "patriarchal era" or whatever, I definitely think women were seen as something to be protected / cherished, in a way that men who were small/skinny clearly weren't. And I'm sure your anecdotal experience corresponds with what I'm saying.

I've heard good theories for this. Like the fact that a society won't die out if there's a deficiency of males, because the few males can mate with many females. Though the opposite is not true. Because of that, women's lives would be valued more highly.

[Firebringer]

Think of this:
If you and I are 'equal' we both apply for a job. Who gets it? Me or You?
Well, we are equal [I am using equal as in every sense of it not just, tread X like if they are you or w/e]
It would be a boring world.

[Darkcrusader]

Think of this:
If you and I are 'equal' we both apply for a job. Who gets it? Me or You?
Well, we are equal [I am using equal as in every sense of it not just, tread X like if they are you or w/e]
It would be a boring world.

It depends on academic level and/ or work experience, it's not always about the sex. It wouldn't be a boring world if we were all equal, we're not talking about being better or not at something, it's different when you say that we all have the same rights no matter the race, ethnicity, gender than all being the same and being good at everything.

[Frog]

it's different when you say that we all have the same rights no matter the race, ethnicity, gender than all being the same and being good at everything.

We have the right to compete with each other.

The 'strong will' always beats the 'free will'.

[SuperJack]

It depends on academic level and/ or work experience, it's not always about the sex. It wouldn't be a boring world if we were all equal, we're not talking about being better or not at something, it's different when you say that we all have the same rights no matter the race, ethnicity, gender than all being the same and being good at everything.

TBH. No one is equal. Dice are always being rolled in your life that impact how successful you are. You don't need to be anything special, sometimes all you need is a big ass and a rich dad.

[Darkcrusader]

We have the right to compete with each other.

The 'strong will' always beats the 'free will'.

Sure we do, maybe we can't have equality in all areas but the basis at least should be the same. Okay, maybe you can't compete if you have a problem like being paralysed vs an athlete and sometimes having a strong will can't always help you, but it would be nice if everyone had enough rights to live decent lives.

TBH. No one is equal. Dice are always being rolled in your life that impact how successful you are. You don't need to be anything special, sometimes all you need is a big ass and a rich dad.

Yeah but you can't speak in all cases, some of those rich "dads" maybe have worked to be able to raise and take care of their children, being successful doesn't always make you any better than your everyday average normal guy, sure you maybe have more possibilities based but it's possible to achieve the same with hard work and luck, like you said, you never know how the dice can be rolled in your favour or not.

Edit: Fucking analogies.

[Cryptonic]

TBH. No one is equal. Dice are always being rolled in your life that impact how successful you are. You don't need to be anything special, sometimes all you need is a big ass and a rich dad.

First part is wrong.
Your life just isn't chance, you can easily sway odds to make things go in your favor.

But yes, if you have a rich parent, chances are you will be successful unless you were molested and become an addict.

[SuperJack]

You can influence the chances. But, they still are chance.

[Cryptonic]

You can influence the chances. But, they still are chance.

Aye, but you can't influence dice lol

[SuperJack]

Aye, but you can't influence dice lol

Yes you can.

[Frog]

it would be nice if everyone had enough rights to live decent lives.

Yes, it would be. In order for capitalism to be efficient, it requires the largest pool of competition.

In unfavourable circumstance, say where you're born, you are disadvantaged.

I'm doing my part developing infrastructure in 3rd world countries that creates efficiency for countries on a massive scale.

In doing so I'm enabling true competition, but I do not support that everyone is or should be equal.

There must be incentive and reward.

[Frog]

I do not support that everyone is or should be equal.

I know, I know
"Old grandpa Frog is spouting his nonsense again."

[DarknessB]

Yeah, kind of like how I am stronger and faster than Frog. Except he is more handsome and richer.

Its the universe way of making everything balanced in its own way of "equality"

LOL, pretty sure Frog is stronger and faster than you too, Fire. But, you are the better Sheriff Jailor, so point taken.

[DarknessB]

Why would it be terrible? Unless you're literally talking about people treated the same.

On a side note,

"Statistically speaking, men are stronger than women in general -- i.e. physically speaking, a man is typically capable of inflicting more physical harm on a woman than a woman is capable of inflicting on a man (sans weapons, etc.). That's the discrepancy for you in a nutshell. As Brendan points out, no one, man or woman, should be tolerating abuse, but society thinks that men should be able to defend themselves more readily against women than women should be able to against men. This might be different if you start dating Ronda Rousey, but aside from such outlier, the pattern is usually man stronger than woman. Therefore, there's more concern about a woman getting abused than a man." - DarknessB

That definitely does not fully explain it. There's definitely a damsel-in-distress stereotype going through our society. And there's loads of people who would trip over themselves trying to defend and protect women. What happened on the titanic, 100 years ago, is a good example of this.

Tbf, my evidence for this is mainly anecdotal. But, particularly during the "patriarchal era" or whatever, I definitely think women were seen as something to be protected / cherished, in a way that men who were small/skinny clearly weren't. And I'm sure your anecdotal experience corresponds with what I'm saying.

I've heard good theories for this. Like the fact that a society won't die out if there's a deficiency of males, because the few males can mate with many females. Though the opposite is not true. Because of that, women's lives would be valued more highly.

Yeah, it's part physical biology, part social conditiioning as a result of physical biology. Damsel in distress is largely a function of women being physically weaker on the whole and being the child-bearing sex. Important to protect the ones who can carry on the species. Men are far more fungible than women in that department. As you point out, no one is keen on protecting smaller men, either in terms of humanity or in terms of nature, lol.

[DarknessB]

Yes you can.

Rigged dice, slanted table, etc. The analogy is more to say that you can try to make things better for the worst off in our society. That's basically many laws in terms of social services, taxes, etc. Someone is always going to be at the bottom of the abilties / economics totem pole. People are born to unfortunate circumstances like physical and mental disabilities. It's just doing the best we can for everyone as a society, while recognizing that we should reward people for merit as well.

[DarknessB]

I know, I know
"Old grandpa Frog is spouting his nonsense again."

If everyone is forced to be equal by the government in terms of say forced income redistribution or government ownership of industry, what's the point of bettering yourself. There has to be some personal gain component to encourage innovation and advancement in our society. If I can get by doing nothing, what's my motivation to be a productive member of society? Nothing, other than the government threatening me probably.

[DarknessB]

First part is wrong.
Your life just isn't chance, you can easily sway odds to make things go in your favor.

But yes, if you have a rich parent, chances are you will be successful unless you were molested and become an addict.

I dunno about easily, but you can definitely sway odds. It's basically the equivalent of getting a shitty poker hand and playing strategically enough to win the pot. The dude with pocket aces is like the rich kid who is going to get handed a trust fund -- he's probably going to win in life regardless of what he does, in terms of having a much higher percent chance of winning the pot.

In contrast, the poor / more disadvantaged kid is going to have to bust his ass in terms of doing super well in school with bad influences all around him (gangs, lack of emphasis on academics, bad schools), and then work extra hard to get used to a world that he's not familiar with. In contrast, the rich kid probably has all sorts of powerful family connections in different businesses / industries so he's going to get a leg up.

Totally agree that your life isn't chance and you can control your fate, but you also are somewhat constrained by the cards you're dealt. Most of us probably weren't going to be NBA players given lack of physique and height, but there have been guys as short as 5'3" in the NBA, who overcompensated with drive and ability in every other department.

[DarknessB]

Sure we do, maybe we can't have equality in all areas but the basis at least should be the same. Okay, maybe you can't compete if you have a problem like being paralysed vs an athlete and sometimes having a strong will can't always help you, but it would be nice if everyone had enough rights to live decent lives.

Yeah but you can't speak in all cases, some of those rich "dads" maybe have worked to be able to raise and take care of their children, being successful doesn't always make you any better than your everyday average normal guy, sure you maybe have more possibilities based but it's possible to achieve the same with hard work and luck, like you said, you never know how the dice can be rolled in your favour or not.

Edit: Fucking analogies.

Sure, there are self-made rich people who care about improving the world and who had similarly minded kids who do the most with their advantages. There are also spoiled trust fund kids whose parents inherited their money from their grandparents and the entire family tree is spoiled now. Can't judge the person on their financial situation, but the type of person they are. From what I've seen interacting with rich kids, it tends to be much tougher to avoid throwing it in the rest of our faces, even if inadvertently. For example, I know someone whose parents bought him a posh $3 million condo upon graduation whereas most of the rest of us struggle with rent. Unless that guy basically doesn't talk about where he lives ever, it's bound to piss other people off, lol.

[DarknessB]

Topic:
Equality

Premise:
Unequal strength people physically fighting

Conclusion:
Not all people are equal. To pretend otherwise is silly. Some people are better and worse than others.

The corrollary of this is what you learn in econ. Yes, there are people who are better than others in most areas. However everyone has a limited amount of time to work per day, so even if someone could do a better job at you in two different things, odds are that person can't do Job A, Job B, and Job C at the same time. Therefore, we have a need for people with good relative skills to take on all sorts of jobs.

I realize I've done a horrible job at explaining this, but in econ, it's why we don't grow as much produce in the US as is grown in other countries. We have more economically efficient use of that land now for more expensive activities. I'm sure if we tried, we could do a better job than other countries do, but it wouldn't make sense. Likewise, it might not make sense for the aircraft engineer to be an electrician in terms of efficency. We still need someone to be the electrian though.

[DarknessB]

Think of this:
If you and I are 'equal' we both apply for a job. Who gets it? Me or You?
Well, we are equal [I am using equal as in every sense of it not just, tread X like if they are you or w/e]
It would be a boring world.

LOL, as you point out, people are never truly equal. The person who gets that job is going to be the person they like more for whatever reason. The guy with a connection at the company, with a fancier educational background, who has more relevant job experience, who seems like he'd fit in better at the company, who is a legacy at the company / racial minority, etc. Absolute equality is impossible. At best, I think equality of opportunity can be boosted a bit -- ideally, everyone should have a more or less equal chance to succeed, but even that's a lofty goal given income disparities.

[Yukitaka Oni]

No homo bro

All the homo.gif

[Yukitaka Oni]

The best answer is Communism, poor equality with me and no woman will argue with that (laugh)

[Frog]

The best answer is Communism, poor equality with me and no woman will argue with that (laugh)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And just days after Vietnam celebrated their independence!

Darkness explained the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage and still this commie comment?!

JKs, different strokes for different folks.

I just haven't seen a functioning example of true communism yet.

Maybe like the concept of true Democracy, the concept of true Communism can't exist on a large scale.

E.g. Rousseau, while spending time in a small self-governed town in Switzerland, speculated that as population samples increase, so do the volume of people left at the ends of the approval bell curve. As it grows, he correctly speculated polarity will occur ending the total conceptual agreement on governance. He speculated conceptual governance that requires total population approval is capped ~22,000 people (weird number).

What I'm saying is, communistic equality won't be efficient on a massive scale because growing portions of the population will disagree and not adhere to the principles. True communism requires everyone truly participate.

[DarknessB]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And just days after Vietnam celebrated their independence!

Darkness explained the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage and still this commie comment?!

JKs, different strokes for different folks.

I just haven't seen a functioning example of true communism yet.

Maybe like the concept of true Democracy, the concept of true Communism can't exist on a large scale.

E.g. Rousseau, while spending time in a small self-governed town in Switzerland, speculated that as population samples increase, so do the volume of people left at the ends of the approval bell curve. As it grows, he correctly speculated polarity will occur ending the total conceptual agreement on governance. He speculated conceptual governance that requires total population approval is capped ~22,000 people (weird number).

What I'm saying is, communistic equality won't be efficient on a massive scale because growing portions of the population will disagree and not adhere to the principles. True communism requires everyone truly participate.

Also, true Communism is impossible because someone has to run the system and enforce the rules. Those people are inherently going to be "more equal" than everyone else in terms of their power and the privileges afford to them as the decision-makers for their country. Thus, you've created a class system just by virtue of having a ruling / government class enforcing the rules of Communism to the rest of the populace. Human nature is such that the ruling class is going to be subject to excess themselves -- this has been true with practically every Communist state throughout history. If you're in charge, I doubt you're going to be limiting yourself to what everyone else has, especially if your country isn't doing particularly well.

Going along with what Frog is saying, the larger the country is, the more of a ruling / government class there will be -- i.e. the larger a country is, the more government bureaucrats are required to keep everything functioning smoothly. Thus, very large Communist countries often have issues with government corruption given the large amount of power that the state has in peoples' lives and the ability of government workers to bludgeon people with that power, often in arbitrary or abusive ways.

TLDR: Someone needs to enforce all of the rules needed to make a country Communist -- that's going to be the government. Good luck ensuring that government workers aren't going to make life better for themselves vs. the rest of the population by virtue of having such power though. And then, we're right back to having classes -- just powerful government workers vs. everyone else.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Also, true Communism is impossible because someone has to run the system and enforce the rules. Those people are inherently going to be "more equal" than everyone else in terms of their power and the privileges afford to them as the decision-makers for their country. Thus, you've created a class system just by virtue of having a ruling / government class enforcing the rules of Communism to the rest of the populace. Human nature is such that the ruling class is going to be subject to excess themselves -- this has been true with practically every Communist state throughout history. If you're in charge, I doubt you're going to be limiting yourself to what everyone else has, especially if your country isn't doing particularly well.

Going along with what Frog is saying, the larger the country is, the more of a ruling / government class there will be -- i.e. the larger a country is, the more government bureaucrats are required to keep everything functioning smoothly. Thus, very large Communist countries often have issues with government corruption given the large amount of power that the state has in peoples' lives and the ability of government workers to bludgeon people with that power, often in arbitrary or abusive ways.

TLDR: Someone needs to enforce all of the rules needed to make a country Communist -- that's going to be the government. Good luck ensuring that government workers aren't going to make life better for themselves vs. the rest of the population by virtue of having such power though. And then, we're right back to having classes -- just powerful government workers vs. everyone else.

Have faith in Stalin and go to the gulag (evil laugh)

[Yukitaka Oni]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And just days after Vietnam celebrated their independence!

Darkness explained the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage and still this commie comment?!

JKs, different strokes for different folks.

I just haven't seen a functioning example of true communism yet.

Maybe like the concept of true Democracy, the concept of true Communism can't exist on a large scale.

E.g. Rousseau, while spending time in a small self-governed town in Switzerland, speculated that as population samples increase, so do the volume of people left at the ends of the approval bell curve. As it grows, he correctly speculated polarity will occur ending the total conceptual agreement on governance. He speculated conceptual governance that requires total population approval is capped ~22,000 people (weird number).

What I'm saying is, communistic equality won't be efficient on a massive scale because growing portions of the population will disagree and not adhere to the principles. True communism requires everyone truly participate.

How dis you know am visit Viet-commies ? Holy shet, are you spy on me? CIA sucm? Who da puck are you ????