Greed is Good!

[Old Greg]

You still have not defined worth and nor have you explained what is meant by humanity. You clearly have your own notion of values based presumably around your own somewhat narrow existence and presumably it is this set of values that make up your definition of how equality should be benchmarked. There is however no rule or law or doctrine that says the rest of us should accept your view.

FFS. Being human means being a Homo sapiens as MTT pointed out.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

For the hard of thinking, I may have to explain myself.
DA and Lisa are arguing that there is no way you can say that people can be of equal worth.
Old Greg is arguing that the very fact that you're human makes it so, as, ironically, the Founding Fathers of the most capitalistic state yet created averred.
So I'm merely demonstrating to Lisa and DA that there are many ways to judge people and that is dangerous to do so.
For example the fact that they are poorly educated might make someone argue that they are of less worth.

HTH. Feck me, you lot are thick. Exterminate! Exterminate!.

Actually no - what I said was that social engineering would not achieve 'equality' which was an illogical concept as it was not possible for everyone to be exactly the same as everyone else. OG got in the mix and brought up the subject of 'worth' which is another concept entirely

[doodab]

You still have not defined worth and nor have you explained what is meant by humanity.

Can you define worth?

[Mich the Tester]

You still have not defined worth and nor have you explained what is meant by humanity. You clearly have your own notion of values based presumably around your own somewhat narrow existence and presumably it is this set of values that make up your definition of how equality should be benchmarked. There is however no rule or law or doctrine that says the rest of us should accept your view.

Well I tried, by pointing out that 'worth' is a context dependent matter, and it's actually impossible to choose one definition of worth that can apply to all situations, and therefore impossible to choose an all encompassing 'benchmark'of worth. I also gave some examples. You are right that no law says anyone else should accept a particular view and in fact that is one facet of the legal or democratic concept of equality; you have the same freedom to express your view as anyone else, and you have equal freedom to rubbish another's views.

[sasguru]

Actually no - what I said was that social engineering would not achieve 'equality' which was an illogical concept as it was not possible for everyone to be exactly the same as everyone else. OG got in the mix and brought up the subject of 'worth' which is another concept entirely

So you agree all people are of equal worth? An alcoholic gypsy tramp is of equal worth to you?

[Old Greg]

Actually no - what I said was that social engineering would not achieve 'equality' which was an illogical concept as it was not possible for everyone to be exactly the same as everyone else. OG got in the mix and brought up the subject of 'worth' which is another concept entirely

Lisa, do you think 'equal' and 'same' are synonyms?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Well you don't have a degree. To some, many blue-chip employers, for example, that makes you of less worth than someone with one.

1. No, you're right I don't have a degree.
2. So what?

[Mich the Tester]

So you agree all people are of equal worth? An alcoholic gypsy tramp is of equal worth to you?

In front of the law, or during the election of our representatives, or thankfully in the UK and most civilised countries, when needing emergency medical treatment, yes. In terms of the ability to carry out complex cognitive tasks or ride a bicycle at high speed, probably not. But this context dependent, multi-faceted idea of value, worth or indeed equality is perhaps too complicated for some people to grasp.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Lisa, do you think 'equal' and 'same' are synonyms?

I was trying to keep things simple for Sasguru's benefit

[DodgyAgent]

You may wish to believe that but it doesn't appear to be true. All other things being equal, more inequality = more problems. This is borne out pretty much anywhere you care to look.

.

The problems come when the poor see what others are getting. When the poor are made to believe that they are lucky to have whatever they have been given then it is easier to control them. Many of Historys (and contemporary) dicators have sought to control people by for example killing the intelligentsia (Pol Pot) or not educating segments of the population (women under Taliban rule).

This is not possible in a democratic society so those who want to control others (usually the weak and poor) do so by demonising in this case the rich (as Hitler did with the Jews). This I am afraid is how the left have kept control - by demonising the rich and killing the aspirations of the poor.

This whole debate should ignore negative concepts as manifested by weasel words such as "equality" and seek to enable everyone to achieve whatever it is they wish to do. Unfortunately this would mean human beings becoming confident and self reliant and thus not interested in the whining negativity of the left.