Thread: Equality In Competiton Too?

For what it is worth most of the anabaptist groups, Mennonites, Brethren, etc.... Even the Quakers (not anabaptist, though their doctrine is similar), avoid any fields that involve competition. We typically do not support or participate in sporting events and in some cases even in pursuing music as they involve competition, or just a personal goal to "be the best". We try to look at each person as simply being equal in God's eyes, none higher, better, or more worthy that the other, none any the less than the other. We may all have different talents and gifts, our mission in life is to find them and to use them for God's glory, not our own.

Traditional Quakers would even be unlikely to address others with any honorary title, other than one that simply describes their job. Awards and medals are not the goal and would not be accepted.

One does take comfort in working hard, living right and supporting ones family. Working or competiting just to be a "winner", or the "best" is not our motivation.

Tony

Originally Posted by Tony Miller

One does take comfort in working hard, living right and supporting ones family. Working or competiting just to be a "winner", or the "best" is not our motivation.

Tony

An admirable way to be. I am not wired that way. I would have to work on the natural competitive instinct that I have. Whether it be wanting to be the best tattooer in the shop or on the bike trails. I find myself, at 61 years old trying, and usually failing, to keep up with the younger riders. I've always been competitive and maybe it is a character defect but it is not something I chose. Wired that way.

Good perspective Tony. Of course Anabaptists or quakers get offened if someone outside their community or even inside it demands their help and their resources without showing the compunction to contribute the same. I truely love to see the way there is a supportive community without the government mandating it or forcing the contibution of all memebrs. Shows what belief and dedication to God and living in his light can lead to.

They may work fine in a small community, and good on 'em, but do you really think that's going to work in a country of 300 million? Hell, even getting it to work in a fair-sized city would be quite a task.

Living in a society filled with kind, giving people tends to create more kind, giving people, regardless of whether their ethos is connected to religion or not.

But there's a limit to how far that can reach. Once it's too big for everyone to know each other, it's too big for everyone to agree.

I wonder how many of those who support "equality for all", as in equal outcomes in life, are also fans of athletics? Many here advocate a society where everyone is brought up (or some brought down?) to an equal level; given the same advantages as everyone else regardless of work ethic, ability, or merit. In fact, life itself, just being here, is all the merit that is required for some

Firstly, Tabula Rassa does not exist, it's pyschobablebubblegum for those who need to feel reassured that all is equal in the world. Sounds a lot like what God does for others, makes everything right in the end, when in-fact the world is a disparity of inequalities, unfairness, and a constant battle against nature.

The world is as Jack London wrote in his novels, and as Thomas Malthus once said "life is a battle against the indifference of fellow man, your genetic flaws, and nature" (roughly translated version)

I want the world where everyone is equal and Tiger Woods and his shenanigans dont pay off, but they sure do, he's got a gift I don't have or at the very least he has the drive to make him practice that much, that often which i dont have either.

I'm not even a golfer, I surf, but a point is a point.

I think it's great to pick yourself up by your supposed 'bootstraps" but sadly many cant, we need to accept that their are winners and losers, and that compassion from so called "winners' would be greatly appreciated for the losers out their, but that doesn't happen without compunction to do so, and who's gonna make them feel guilty and want to do so?

I mean isn't that exactly what every political election boils down to, "the haves" versus "the havenots" I mean that's how I see, despite all the political footballs and politicking that's done.

I'm very competitive, and I strive to do my best in certain areas, I'm the best but I give it my best that's for sure.

I'm very good in the water ( surfing, scuba diving, snorkelling swimming etc..) I feel comfortable in the ocean, at ease, I'm a good runner, but I suck at team sports, I'm not a team player, I've played lots of team sports only to realize this. You got to know what your good at.

When it comes to work, and what I'm good at well its confusing for me, despite what i do.
David

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

An admirable way to be. I am not wired that way. I would have to work on the natural competitive instinct that I have. Whether it be wanting to be the best tattooer in the shop or on the bike trails.

Jimmy,
There is nothing wrong with driving oneself to do the best job possible, that is different. The separation I feel, is whether one is trying to do the best job he can for himself or to do it simpy to beat the other guys in the shop. If I do the best job I can, whether I "win" or not, I have met my goal. If I did my best, "lose", AND feel unhappy with myself about that, I missed my goal.

That said, everyone needs to follow their own path. I'm just presenting one viewpoint, that which I strive to achieve but fall short of.

Tony

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

They may work fine in a small community, and good on 'em, but do you really think that's going to work in a country of 300 million? Hell, even getting it to work in a fair-sized city would be quite a task.

Living in a society filled with kind, giving people tends to create more kind, giving people, regardless of whether their ethos is connected to religion or not.

But there's a limit to how far that can reach. Once it's too big for everyone to know each other, it's too big for everyone to agree.

I do believe it would work in any sized population. In any city or small town there are smaller groups or social units based on common interests religion etc. You don't need the support of 300 million just of a few good friends who are willing help you over a rough patch. You don't even need to be a kind giving person in general you just need to be willing to support the group you identify with. If you want an example of how this kind of generosity works in a larger group just look at the way this community helps our newcomers, we find them bargains, keep them away from dangers and instruct them in proper practices to keep them from hurting themselves, even providing personal individual instruction. It work you just have to have faith in it.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I do believe it would work in any sized population. In any city or small town there are smaller groups or social units based on common interests religion etc. You don't need the support of 300 million just of a few good friends who are willing help you over a rough patch. You don't even need to be a kind giving person in general you just need to be willing to support the group you identify with. If you want an example of how this kind of generosity works in a larger group just look at the way this community helps our newcomers, we find them bargains, keep them away from dangers and instruct them in proper practices to keep them from hurting themselves, even providing personal individual instruction. It work you just have to have faith in it.

The thing is, that model is not compatible with a highly advanced and constantly advancing society. And no similar model that anyone has ever attempted in that context has been successful.

That's the reason the world is getting more global. Our understanding of our world and our potential is getting complex enough that we need a bigger pool to draw from.

Also, we have to consider the reality of intellectual freedom. There are as many ways to live life on this planet as there are people in it, and when you try to force people into certain religions or social structures, you inevitably wind up with an unhappy populace. It simply doesn't work on a large scale unless you want to be dictatorial about it.

Our community may work splendidly, but

A. Compared to a nation, it's a tiny community

B. You can leave whenever you want, and

C. It only tries to excel in one area - straight razor shaving.

If the members of this community were trying to run a country, I think we would lose our cohesiveness very quickly. As you can tell from these discussions, we have radically different ideas on what an ideal country is.

I can tell you for sure that I would disagree with some member's ideas on how to run a country so vehemently that if they were running it, I'd probably go somewhere else if at all possible.

I do not want to have my religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, dictated to me. I do not want to have the ceiling of my own achievement dictated to me. I do not want to have the scope of my global involvement to be dictated to me.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I do believe it would work in any sized population. In any city or small town there are smaller groups or social units based on common interests religion etc. You don't need the support of 300 million just of a few good friends who are willing help you over a rough patch. You don't even need to be a kind giving person in general you just need to be willing to support the group you identify with. If you want an example of how this kind of generosity works in a larger group just look at the way this community helps our newcomers, we find them bargains, keep them away from dangers and instruct them in proper practices to keep them from hurting themselves, even providing personal individual instruction. It work you just have to have faith in it.

I see what you mean about this particular online community, but I think Mistress Nomad has a point about problems of scale in the real world. To take it to an extreme, things may work swimmingly in a commune-sized group of 20-100 people, but once you don't have any idea what the others are doing, people tend to feel more isolated (and therefore develop a "me and mine first" attitude).

After living abroad, I've noticed that this is even more true in extremely mobile societies like the US. The job opportunities we have and the resulting "freedom" of movement also means that many people don't know if the guy they spot walking down the street is some ne'er do well vagabond or the family man from two doors down who moved in a month ago. This may seem alien to those of you lucky enough to live in relatively stable communities, but it's becoming almost the norm in many parts of the country.

In other words -- and sadly -- even the smaller groups or social units you mentioned are much less prevalent and relevant than they used to be. As jobs become less secure and we move around more, we're becoming a society of strangers, and the less we can rely on informal social groups or innate social instincts *alone* to a) encourage good behavior, or b) provide for the helpless.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

The thing is, that model is not compatible with a highly advanced and constantly advancing society. And no similar model that anyone has ever attempted in that context has been successful.

That's the reason the world is getting more global. Our understanding of our world and our potential is getting complex enough that we need a bigger pool to draw from.

Also, we have to consider the reality of intellectual freedom. There are as many ways to live life on this planet as there are people in it, and when you try to force people into certain religions or social structures, you inevitably wind up with an unhappy populace. It simply doesn't work on a large scale unless you want to be dictatorial about it.

Our community may work splendidly, but

A. Compared to a nation, it's a tiny community

B. You can leave whenever you want, and

C. It only tries to excel in one area - straight razor shaving.

If the members of this community were trying to run a country, I think we would lose our cohesiveness very quickly. As you can tell from these discussions, we have radically different ideas on what an ideal country is.

I can tell you for sure that I would disagree with some member's ideas on how to run a country so vehemently that if they were running it, I'd probably go somewhere else if at all possible.

I do not want to have my religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, dictated to me. I do not want to have the ceiling of my own achievement dictated to me. I do not want to have the scope of my global involvement to be dictated to me.

Where did I say anything about running a country.

Why do you persist in believing that it is a the governments job to take care of people.

It is not.

It is the community you belong to's job to take care of you.

It is the governments job to stay out of the way and protect the community and individuals right to exist, no more.