I was typing out my mind in windows notepad a second ago, and felt the need to share this. "The ability to make choices does not resonate within only the genome, as the genome is inhabited by consciousness, and in no way does consciousness restrict the genome. Consciousness is what makes all of mankind equal, not skin color to their own. If a person is the least bit conscious he is even equal to the Buddha. Racism and sexism are the words made to describe a relative idea that is really just a double edge sword that cuts not only the enemy but also the wielder of such. Such words do not belong in our library." Discuss?
What is equality? What extent would you consider equal treatment to truely be equal? Does a larger person need more food? Does an athlete need more than the average person? Do sick people need extra care? Who should care for them? Should more productive people get more? Should unproductive people be entitled to a share? What is equality? I don't understand this idea. Equal opportunity? Equal treatment under the law? Equality covers such a wide range, and many equalities cause inequality. Wouldn't it be nice to be born handicapped so people will take care of you? -Yuri
No such thing as equality, especially when it comes to cognition. People aren't numbers. "Such words do not belong in our library". Throwing thought crime into a discussion about equality? Typical. "If a person is the least bit conscious he is even equal to the Buddha". Absolutely not. That is also dragging down the Buddha.
Equality, to me, is the acting of perceiving no distinction between your stream of consciousness and the rest of everyone else'. Whether or not a person needs to eat a portion, is a matter of choice, we may not be equal in terms of bodily requirements, but by consciousness we are equal. As said before whether or not a sick person needs to be treated and to be cared for is a matter of choice, and the portion as well. Productive and unproductive people should only attain to what they earn, if they cannot produce then they don't reap. The matter or manner of production is a choice to see what to produce. If you cannot do manual labor, do mental, vice-versa, either way, things can be done. As for the mentally or even bodily estranged, even these may take part in some form of labor, as long as handicaps are made. Equality is the ability to perceive that we all have a choice, and to respect everyone's choice as long as it does not impede on everyone else choice without their say-so. That is a matter of choice. Equal opportunity, is the idea that everyone is allowed to do what they must. If they are unrealistic about their choices, then evidently, they will not become the King of England. But they can attain to things at hand, uninhibited by determined forces that inhibit choice. Equal treatment under law, is defined that everyone has a right to a speedy trial, but that the manner of the crime either perpetrated or accused is discretely heard, and decided with unbiased regard to the ends of proper justice. I agree, but let us presume, that many equalities must be acknowledged as well as many differences. As the saying goes, "Different strokes for different folks." I'd like to think that I'd rather be born efficient in life, rather than handicapped, but if I were born handicapped, I would prefer help when I need it. And finally, I'd like to say, we are all human, we make mistakes, no one is perfect. I do not put myself on a pedestal, and I'd rather not be placed there by others. If it were my choice, I'd rather be seen as a brother than an opponent.
I did indeed refrain from over-exaggerations to exist in such arguments. But since disclosure has been produced, I will speaketh the mind. "Such words do not belong in our library." In the context spoken, was not induced to bring forth turmoil but rather clarity. Any action even thought can be increased or reduced by additions and subtractions. For every single perspective holds the ability to realize capacity, and whether or not to add or take away from it. It's not like I support 1984, and purposefully allow government to control our languages. But rather, I say for myself, but not for everybody, that we ourselves controlling our own language, helps us to define in what way we are willing to regard things as. People talk about racism and sexism, as if they were important things. But when called to mind, injustice perpetrated with such distinctions provide a imbalance of causation. If it indeed were an issue, then the solution would be to become in-distinctive in perception with inclusive identity disclosure. Are you saying the Buddha wasn't a man before he awoke?
you placed this in the politics section so I presumed we were to talk about political equality, not simply the idea of consciousness. That being said. If a sentient person is born without the ability to contribute to society, should they be able to life a fulfilling life? I believe they should but only voluntarily. I can choose to helped who I want, bit shouldn't be expected to sacrifice for the millions of handicapped babies born every year. On the issue of equal opportunity: should every able bodied person be allowed to work? If you are willing and capable, should your survival be guaranteed? No. This goes along again with the idea of limited resources. Your options are competition, or population control. I strongly believe population control is barbaric and amoral. No one has the right to tell you not to raise a family. -Yuri
Yes God was Female to otherwise there would be no point in allowing them to breathe other then an orgasm.
I agree with you for the most part, but I do not believe in absolute choice, but rather free-will. Competition or population control, is not just a choice for me, but I choose to see beyond it personally. If I were to choose between the two, I'd choose neither and both. How? Each idea conceptually has its benefits, but to make one opposite than the other, takes away from absolute volition. And I'd like to think of myself being capable personally, of becoming and producing to the needs of the general pursuit of true happiness. That's your choice.
It's really not about choice when you look at things objectively. People have different abilities, skills, handicaps, privileges. To say we're all equal is quite arbitrary. I find thing you're being needlessly prose in your writing, it's hard to follow. Not because your ideas but how you're writing.
Fractals God is a ground opposite of a positive that when connected create a spark of electricity between both that creates an ethereal internet connection between both. Meaning male and female if god wasn't both individually aswell as singularity ie the emotional side of the brain and consciousness which is why there is 2 hemispheres of the brain and ofcourse the pineal gland is Taven Fenix.
in free market societies where the average person is well.off and lives a comfortable life, you typically see a decline in population.voluntarily. Is this what you mean? We choose population control voluntarily because we value standard of living over breeding like rabbits. All consciousness being equal, freedom iis an important value -Yuri
I see what you mean, but here is a question. If freedom was absolute, then what is produced by absolute freedom? If government was responsible to only keep freedom secured, then how may freedom be defined? What is today's style of government, and how is it inclusive toward military, media, and corporate societies?
And what do you feel from this concept? And please, do not be pressured to give away all, but lead me to the answer myself.
Hehe, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But here is another deeper perspective. What is infinite, is nothing, what is nothing is infinite. If infinite is objectivity, and nothing is subjective but is existent still, what is objectivity and subjectivity? Contrast defines personality, and we are what we wanted to be, whether aware or not aware. But here is enlightened awakening, letting go. Become nothing, and you will without fear, become everything you were meant to be.