Equality?!

[pinstrike]

OK, so I'm kinda tired of people thinking everyone's equal. That everyone deserves an equal chance at everything, that people all have the same value in existence.

This is, quite honestly, bullshit.

There are "people" in this world (unfortunatley the majority of them) that bear no more significance than algae. Simply a collection of functioning mollecules and cells.

Then there are those that contribute to existence.

Then there are the strong people, and then there are higher lifeforms.

This is the way things are. Give me some feedback. I'd like to know how many of you are like-minded and otherwise.

[Dja Majista]

pinstrike said:

OK, so I'm kinda tired of people thinking everyone's equal. That everyone deserves an equal chance at everything, that people all have the same value in existence.

This is, quite honestly, bullshit.

There are "people" in this world (unfortunatley the majority of them) that bear no more significance than algae. Simply a collection of functioning mollecules and cells.

Then there are those that contribute to existence.

Then there are the strong people, and then there are higher lifeforms.

This is the way things are. Give me some feedback. I'd like to know how many of you are like-minded and otherwise.

What exactly merits any human value in this world?

[pinstrike]

Strength and creation and cruelty. A strong human being recognizes that the majority of the world is expendible and worthless because they meander through some hollow existence they were bred to believe in. A strong human being uses their weakness to his own aid, and, as they are expendible, uses them to better himself, and, thus, the world. A Higher Lifeform is a human being who has both the energy and the willpower and the malice and capacity for cruelty to change or create something in the world that will be remembered or revered or feared or revolted.

Weak human beings are barely alive. They are the homo sapien equivalent to insects or protozoans. They live entirely off of emotion and base all decisions around them.

A strong/higher person is able, in most cases at least, to create AND sever emotional ties when it respectively benefits him. The only true relationship he can ever genuinely enjoy is with himself and his own desires. In the highest of beings, emotions are not present at all.

An example of an EXCEPTIONAL human being would be the fellow smiling from my avatar...Mr. Theodore Robert Bundy.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

pinstrike said:

OK, so I'm kinda tired of people thinking everyone's equal. That everyone deserves an equal chance at everything, that people all have the same value in existence.

This is, quite honestly, bullshit.

There are "people" in this world (unfortunatley the majority of them) that bear no more significance than algae. Simply a collection of functioning mollecules and cells.

Then there are those that contribute to existence.

Then there are the strong people, and then there are higher lifeforms.

This is the way things are. Give me some feedback. I'd like to know how many of you are like-minded and otherwise.

So are you basing the quality of people on what they do and their character, or just some other combination of assumptions that qualify them as better?

[warmunger]

Everyone is equal, imo. In the end we all just live and die. No one has the power to do anything unhuman or something another human can't accomplish. I'm not saying that all humans are capable of the same things but there is always at least someone that can do what the other man can, may not be as good, may be better.

When a man becomes a God, that's when I'll say equality isn't existent any more. As long as you can bleed and your bones can be broken, I see no need to see you higher then I see myself.

[Dja Majista]

pinstrike said:

Strength and creation and cruelty. A strong human being recognizes that the majority of the world is expendible and worthless because they meander through some hollow existence they were bred to believe in. A strong human being uses their weakness to his own aid, and, as they are expendible, uses them to better himself, and, thus, the world. A Higher Lifeform is a human being who has both the energy and the willpower and the malice and capacity for cruelty to change or create something in the world that will be remembered or revered or feared or revolted.

Weak human beings are barely alive. They are the homo sapien equivalent to insects or protozoans. They live entirely off of emotion and base all decisions around them.

A strong/higher person is able, in most cases at least, to create AND sever emotional ties when it respectively benefits him. The only true relationship he can ever genuinely enjoy is with himself and his own desires. In the highest of beings, emotions are not present at all.

An example of an EXCEPTIONAL human being would be the fellow smiling from my avatar...Mr. Theodore Robert Bundy.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

But what even merits these people any worth?
Self worth certainly. Probably a greater self worth than most. However the self that they appeal to is mortal. They live and die, as Remulous said.
In my opinion, true worth belongs to those who can contribute to something immortal, timeless, eternal. Not a perishable being.
But seeing as how we as humans do not have an eternal perspective on the world, it's not really even our place to say who has worth and who doesn't. This is because a) we don't know what ramifications a historic or minor event will bring to our future and b) nothing can really be attributed to just one person.
For example Adolph Hitler had millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust. But we will never know if this peace of history will serve to keep an atrocity like this from happening again. So to say whether it was good or bad that it happened is not our choice. Additionally, though Hitler may have served the role of master mind, but the holocaust would not have happened if it weren't for the behavior of a certain soldier in WWI:
You may have heard this story, but in WWI there was a soldier who had something against shooting wounded enemies. It was just his moral code. Our beloved Hitler came into his sights, but he did not shoot because the soon-to-be mass-murdering soldier was wounded. Hitler escaped with his life, and because of that, millions of Jews lost theirs'.
No matter how small this contribution may seem to our eyes, this minor event was a deciding factor to whether or not the Holocaust would actually take place.
Ultimately, people, no matter how strong and superior they may be, can only work off of their environments. And environments are intrinsically variables because everyone can have an effect on them. Hitler was still a pawn of his environment, it merely had mercy on him at a most crucial time.

[pinstrike]

No, Romulous. People exist, and people die, then there are people who LIVE and people who die. There are no gods, there is only us and the world we deal with. There is nothing eternal, Da Masta, nothing beyond our perception that has any affect or concern for us. This being so, the only thing that merits any worth is HOW we live. A weak human being exists, a strong one LIVES. A weak human being passes through life led and brays it up with the rest of the sheep. A Strong human being is intelligent enough to see the disgusting waste of time in this and the willpower to make their lives, and hopefully someone else's life different. The only changes that can be made are to our lives and our world. God isn't there, and if he is, he has no concern for us down here. So whatever we do or think or decide happens entirely independent of whatever we would like to call the nonexistent man in the sky.

The depth and gravity of a person's character, decisions, and willpower are what define him as great or weak.

And, in the real world, people can claim neither the equal amount of depth or the comparable amount of gravity ascribed to their being than others. In this, people are not equal.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Everyone is equal, imo. In the end we all just live and die. No one has the power to do anything unhuman or something another human can't accomplish. I'm not saying that all humans are capable of the same things but there is always at least someone that can do what the other man can, may not be as good, may be better.

When a man becomes a God, that's when I'll say equality isn't existent any more. As long as you can bleed and your bones can be broken, I see no need to see you higher then I see myself.

That is true, we all live and die in the end. Who determines who truly contributes or not? That depends on the person in the end. Someone can be a "mere" school teacher and feel they have accomplished much, a person can be a tycoon and feel empty inside.

[Dja Majista]

pinstrike said:

No, Romulous. People exist, and people die, then there are people who LIVE and people who die.

I'm not arguing with you there. There are people who go there lives without tapping into the potential of their minds, without truly living. I would also say however that everyone who possesses rational capacity has this potential regardless of their intelligence.

There are no gods, there is only us and the world we deal with. There is nothing eternal, Da Masta, nothing beyond our perception that has any affect or concern for us.

This is a very disputable list of premises. They are bold words to say there is nothing beyond our perception that can threaten or concern us. After all, over the centuries, our perception on the world and the universe as we know it has only grown in depth (and for the better I might add). Did viruses and bacteria have a direct effect on people long ago? Of course. But they couldn't see them either; they didn't know these things existed. Can you earnestly say there is nothing we can't see that is of concern to us?
And you know I can't leave the whole God thing untouched. Honestly I could argue this all day. But for the purpose of the discussion --and the doubt that we will ever come to agreement in the near future-- I advise we settle the premise at a nuetral ground based on the fact that the presence of God is not a proof but neither is his absense. This is more on your playing field anyway, if I am correct.
So to resolve this "eternal" thing, consider "eternal" as the next closest thing: The entirety of human civilization, the beginning and end of things that concern us.

This being so, the only thing that merits any worth is HOW we live. A weak human being exists, a strong one LIVES. A weak human being passes through life led and brays it up with the rest of the sheep. A Strong human being is intelligent enough to see the disgusting waste of time in this and the willpower to make their lives, and hopefully someone else's life different. The only changes that can be made are to our lives and our world. God isn't there, and if he is, he has no concern for us down here. So whatever we do or think or decide happens entirely independent of whatever we would like to call the nonexistent man in the sky.

The depth and gravity of a person's character, decisions, and willpower are what define him as great or weak.

But worth is determined completely from perspective. A human is worth something to himself by his very nature. Arguing this is pointless and meaningless; it's like saying "I'm worth more to me than you are worth to you."
But a single person means nothing to the world (a much greater entity) unless they contribute something to it. I can honestly say that true worth should be determined from the perspective of the greatest, most timeless entity known to man. For the sake of our neutral premise about God I will say mankind is the next closest thing as I have explained above.
In every age, there is an outlet to contribute to our great civilization of mankind's memory: through history. Now historical events don't turn out from people exclusive of their environments as I have illustrated with Hitler. In order to really make a memory for mankind, there must be a person reacting to their environment, a human environment.
I'm sure your idea of a truly great human might be a thinker who possesses valuable insights and thus lives life at its peak. But this person means nothing to the higher being which is mankind until they can share their insights. What good is some one who finds Nirvana and is too selfish to tell anyone about it? A great mind must have the power of communication, or else it is worthless to the civilization in which it otherwise is a leech to.

And, in the real world, people can claim neither the equal amount of depth or the comparable amount of gravity ascribed to their being than others. In this, people are not equal.

At the same, we are limited by our perception of time and the small window we must rely on to reveal to us the gravity of each person's decisions. Knowing this, can we truly say one person has more worth than another?
I'm sorry but I wasn't clear on this. To say that all people have equal worth is indeed fallacy. Personally, my point is simply that we as humans don't have the authority to say if anyone has more worth than anyone else.

[pinstrike]

Ah, but I believe that we do, since we are the most intelligent and cognizent being known to us, we have the power to judge ourselves. But, at the same time, men are individuals and should be judged as such. So, the contribution to or the destruction of anything in society or civilization is obsolete compared to a person's personal development.

See, you view worth in relation to its effect on those around them. This is true in that the weak exist to justify and fortify the strong. The weak can rarely, if ever, become strong. The strong can only progress. I see strength in an INDIVIDUAL'S personal growth and hardening, be it relevent to any other creatures or not.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

pinstrike said:

Ah, but I believe that we do, since we are the most intelligent and cognizent being known to us, we have the power to judge ourselves. But, at the same time, men are individuals and should be judged as such.

Sure we can do this, but it is always a very subjective result. Does a person's level of achievement come from inside to themselves, or how they impact the world, because no matter how much you do people will always find something wrong.

[EsteemedLeader©]

I think there are indeed people with more worth than others. People like Napoleon, whose ambitions were limited only by the incompetence of his subjects. People like Geronimo, for when his people said "We must give our land to the white man.", Geronimo said "Or we could just kill the white man." (Not actual quotes). People like Theodore Robert Bundy, who never gave up, who fought tooth and nail until the very end.

[Dja Majista]

Ah, but I believe that we do, since we are the most intelligent and cognizent being known to us, we have the power to judge ourselves. But, at the same time, men are individuals and should be judged as such. So, the contribution to or the destruction of anything in society or civilization is obsolete compared to a person's personal development.

See, you view worth in relation to its effect on those around them. This is true in that the weak exist to justify and fortify the strong. The weak can rarely, if ever, become strong. The strong can only progress. I see strength in an INDIVIDUAL'S personal growth and hardening, be it relevent to any other creatures or not.

But in that sense, everyone matters to themselves. Anyone can judge themselves however they please. A mind bent on arrogance sees itself to be great regardless of it's true status. In effect, it grows slowly if at all.
A mind bent on modesty grows faster, but at the same time is susceptible to giving up on itself. There is no mind in this world that sees itself exactly the way it is; human subjectivity is unfortunate but inevitable.

Now there is no such thing as a mind that begins it's journey as strong. All minds were weak to begin with. Only through mental discipline can a mind push past its carnal boundaries and truly become strong. And at the same time, this life of mental discipline is to be charted and kept as a memory so the mind can remember why it went from weak to strong. This is the only way it can stay strong.
Because growth is the determining factor of mental strength, it would be foolish to regard any mind as weak AND unworthy by its current status. After all, every mind possesses potential. To merely regard these weaker minds as expendable is like a strong-minded man who makes a stairway out of babies. He gets as high as he can crushing the life and potential out of each mind with each and every step. Instead, it would be more effective for this stronger mind to invest some of his efforts in nourishing these weaker minds to become strong the way he has.

[pinstrike]

Why? If a greater man were to literally make a stairway of babies, I would like to shake his hand! The potential in each one of those babies is a threat to his greatness and even those with such a potential would be very few in number. Consequently, the weak babies are used before they become an obstacle or another component of mass stupidity and overpopulation.

Honestly, we need to have one of three things. Or all three of them:

1. A caste system.
2. An anarchist social system.
3. A "stupid" holocaust.

The first one would assess people based on intelligence and capapbility and would be entirely voluntary. However, the subsequent failures of the weak to keep up with the tasks requiring the strong would only further prove my point.
The second one is the only social system that allows true and unadulterated personal development and is the closest semblence to natural selection human beings have. The third would clear up the population like insect repellent. The unintelligent are not to be tolerated. They are to be punished and enslaved and utilized for the betterment of the great. And, when their purpose is served, I'm sure by then we'll have something much more humane than the gas chambers. :-)

[Dja Majista]

pinstrike said:

Why? If a greater man were to literally make a stairway of babies, I would like to shake his hand! The potential in each one of those babies is a threat to his greatness and even those with such a potential would be very few in number. Consequently, the weak babies are used before they become an obstacle or another component of mass stupidity and overpopulation.

Honestly, we need to have one of three things. Or all three of them:

1. A caste system.
2. An anarchist social system.
3. A "stupid" holocaust.

The first one would assess people based on intelligence and capapbility and would be entirely voluntary. However, the subsequent failures of the weak to keep up with the tasks requiring the strong would only further prove my point.
The second one is the only social system that allows true and unadulterated personal development and is the closest semblence to natural selection human beings have. The third would clear up the population like insect repellent. The unintelligent are not to be tolerated. They are to be punished and enslaved and utilized for the betterment of the great. And, when their purpose is served, I'm sure by then we'll have something much more humane than the gas chambers. :-)

What purpose does "greatness" hold? What's the point? Why be "great?" So everyone can look at me and say I'm great? So people like you can come up and shake my hand? What happened to the pursuit of knowledge. Would Mr. Bundy have been any greater, had all the murders gone unknown? He'd be doing the same things, but no one would no about it.

A classroom is the ideal place to gain knowledge, a forum perhaps. Why is this? Because in a classroom, forum, dinner table, or whatever, there are people. People that can reflect ideas back and forth. There is no better way to build your knowledge of the world than to listen to someone. Don't get me wrong though. I value taking time to myself in order to think a lot more than most people. I think to myself so much, I'm surprised I'm not insane yet. But things like this, a discussion, can give someone a bit of reality therapy. It's a vital nutrient to our minds.

I guess my ultimate question would be, "Would you prefer a world possessing only a small number of intellects, or a world with tremendous numbers of great minds." It sounds to me like just a craving for the spotlight as opposed to a craving for knowledge.

And, when their purpose is served, I'm sure by then we'll have something much more humane than the gas chambers. :-)

ha! "Humane". what does this word mean? I see it used so liberally I wonder if it possesses any semblance with it's root word "humanity" whatsoever. Why is it that a mousetrap with a serrated edge is less humane than rat poison. Rat poison seems more agonizing and painful, just makes for a prettier death. A mousetrap with a serrated edge may make for an uglier death, but honestly I'd imagine it's a lot less painful, and if by chance the poor bastard isn't killed instantly, it will certainly be rendered lifeless over the subsequent few seconds. This opposed to who-knows-how-long rat poison takes
Calling a wrong humane is just a way of washing your hands. Saying "I murdered them softly" doesn't make you any better of a person. You still killed them.
btw I know this isn't really your point I just wanted to throw this random little piece of insight in here. take it or leave it ya know?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

esteemedleader said:

I think there are indeed people with more worth than others. People like Napoleon, whose ambitions were limited only by the incompetence of his subjects. People like Geronimo, for when his people said "We must give our land to the white man.", Geronimo said "Or we could just kill the white man." (Not actual quotes). People like Theodore Robert Bundy, who never gave up, who fought tooth and nail until the very end.

I can see what you mean about people who "contribute" more to the current world, but that doesn't make their "value" as a person any better, because no amount of deeds can make you better than another person.

What about the people who can't make as big a difference because they don't have the opportunity or the resources to? That is also another thing overlooked in this argument.

[pinstrike]

Why can't the quality and quantity of one's actions define their place in relation to others? What else do we have to best measure the worth of a creature?

[Dja Majista]

pinstrike said:

Why can't the quality and quantity of one's actions define their place in relation to others? What else do we have to best measure the worth of a creature?

Perhaps we can't measure the worth of an entity without being inevitably wrong to a degree. It's possible that we as humans do not hold the privilege of being able to accurately judge a fellow humans true worth. Why is worth important anyway if everyone dies?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

pinstrike said:

Why can't the quality and quantity of one's actions define their place in relation to others? What else do we have to best measure the worth of a creature?

Perhaps we can't measure the worth of an entity without being inevitably wrong to a degree. It's possible that we as humans do not hold the privilege of being able to accurately judge a fellow humans true worth. Why is worth important anyway if everyone dies?

Well life itself is strength, you live, you affect those around you? This can't be denied nor argued. However it doesn't last forever and the point of judging others when we can work on ourselves is an exercise in futility that many practice.

[Dja Majista]

admin said:

damasta said:

Perhaps we can't measure the worth of an entity without being inevitably wrong to a degree. It's possible that we as humans do not hold the privilege of being able to accurately judge a fellow humans true worth. Why is worth important anyway if everyone dies?

Well life itself is strength, you live, you affect those around you? This can't be denied nor argued.

True. And even if the degree to which someone has an effect can be measured as a form of worth, it wouldn't matter. Mortals are incapable of making that measurement accurately.

However it doesn't last forever and the point of judging others when we can work on ourselves is an exercise in futility that many practice.

I concur.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

admin said:

Well life itself is strength, you live, you affect those around you? This can't be denied nor argued.

True. And even if the degree to which someone has an effect can be measured as a form of worth, it wouldn't matter. Mortals are incapable of making that measurement accurately.

However it doesn't last forever and the point of judging others when we can work on ourselves is an exercise in futility that many practice.

I concur.

Instead of saying mortals, you could simply say anyone but God lol.

[Dja Majista]

same thing. mortals is shorter.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

same thing. mortals is shorter.

Well mortal is less specific, because it could be another creature. "Anyone" at least specifies it's human. Better yet, human.

[Dja Majista]

actually the term "mortal" is typically used synonymously with human.
look it oop!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

actually the term "mortal" is typically used synonymously with human.
look it oop!

But it still isn't quite the same, human is more specific. Hell car is used in place of many vehicles when it isn't even a car.

And trucks too, I technically just drive a utility vehicle.

[Dja Majista]

This topic has been lost to the arbitrary just like everything else.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

This topic has been lost to the arbitrary just like everything else.

They have a tendency to do that.