Thread: Equality In Competiton Too?

Wildtim, I don't think you're being honest. This is my post, which you were responding to.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

But not every person will be willing or able to take part in it. That's the nature of human diversity. Eventually, you will have people who need more care than what they are able to give, for a variety of reasons - laziness is not the only reason.

So for people like that, what would you do? Kick them out of the community?

So in your response, one of two things has happened. You either didn't fully read my post, which I find doubtful, considering you directly answered my question at the end...

Or you're backpedaling, because you realized how bad and, dare I say, "extermination"-like what you just said is.

That means you either haven't thought this through, and didn't realize how bad it was, or you have thought it through but you don't want to look bad. I really hope it's the former.

So no, we haven't missed the point. You've tried to dodge a bullet.

And besides, who makes the decision of who is "worth it" and whose not? A bunch of random townspeople with no education in human psychology, or in anything for that matter, since your model doesn't allow for competent advanced education?

Human psychology and physiology is a complicated thing, and things aren't always as they appear. Even if someone is lazy, that doesn't address why, nor does it address whether that gives you the right to ruin their lives. What gives you the right to harm another?

So you want to let a bunch of uneducated tribal people decide the true worth of other human beings.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

You don't have to make it the law you just have to let it happen, good people take care of their friends and neighbors.

I'm assuming this tribe it completely self-sustaining, because if it weren't, well, that would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

We already did. And you know what? People got sick of being uneducated, limited, subject to famine and tribal warfare, getting sick, trying to find the right god to beg for their lives when they're dying in labor...

We tried that. But there is only so far you can advance in a small closed system, and no, people don't always take care of their neighbors. Sometimes they kill them instead, and if you think you can change that, if think you can control the minds and actions of every single person on earth, then I'm sorry, but that is wishful thinking at best and delusion at worst.

Humans, by their very nature, want to advance. And at this point in time, we can only advance together.

If you want to start the tribe, go ahead. Sure you'll find people to join you. But I hope the UN keeps a close eye on you, and I doubt you'll make too many converts.

Also, have fun without the internet, clean water, proper schools, medicine, etc etc etc...

Because anything less than total self-sustenance, and you're being a parasite on the government that's supporting your static tribe, from whom it, and its members, gain nothing.

Wow, I'm like seriously late to this, but without wanting to get into the side issues, I wanted to jot down a few thoughts about honedright's original post.

On several levels, I think we do see equality applied to competition. Taking sports as an example:

- handicap in golf: the concept tries to even things out a bit between players, but the term used to describe that concept... 'handicap'... kind of says it all.
- leagues: in the UK there is a hierarchy of leagues in soccer, from the purely amateur to the top flight. It ensures that teams are not mismatched when playing in competitions. A massive discrepancy between sides in a competition is of no interest to anyone. So we apply a little structure to the sport in order to balance things up a bit.
- the phrase "a level playing field" when applied to fair competition.
- seeding in tennis. Again, to avoid unequal or undesirable matches in a tournament (like no. 1 vs. no.2 in the first round).
- etc.

And in business, another voraciously competitive environment, we see tax breaks for certain organisations, chapter 11 (another bite at the apple to even things up), protectionism in all guises, etc.

It just seems to me that the concept of equality is no stranger in competition, be it sports or commerce. That doesn't mean we're all communists or soccer players though.

P.S. I am seriously impressed at how everyone has been SUPER careful not to invoke Godwin's. Coulda happened about halfway down the first page from what I've read.

Originally Posted by majurey

P.S. I am seriously impressed at how everyone has been SUPER careful not to invoke Godwin's. Coulda happened about halfway down the first page from what I've read.

You've made some good points with your sports analogies. As for Godwin's,...... I hadn't heard of it but TG for google.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by majurey

P.S. I am seriously impressed at how everyone has been SUPER careful not to invoke Godwin's. Coulda happened about halfway down the first page from what I've read.

Hadn't heard about the Godwin's Law either, but seen people use this card:

Let's not forget Reductio ad Hitlerum, the friendly association fallacy!

Or ad absurdum arguments, like those thrown at wildtim, for the last few pages of this thread.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Or ad absurdum arguments, like those thrown at wildtim, for the last few pages of this thread.

I hardly see how it's absurd to evaluate the consequences of a system that has been tried time and time again with predictable results.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

I hardly see how it's absurd to evaluate the consequences of a system that has been tried time and time again with predictable results.

I was speaking more to the perceived consequences of his ideas, each of those answering him assigned to his POV, then went off on tirades against said consequences, without him ever saying what was said he meant by what he said.

Unfortunately, imo, he fell for the trolling and replied with a heated response or two, which made matters worse, since still even more absurdities were added to his POV.

As far as a system that has been tried time and time again and shown to fail, the all powerful, centralized government is it.

All this is far from the OP so I will stop there at just one guys opinion.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

I was speaking more to the perceived consequences of his ideas, each of those answering him assigned to his POV, then went off on tirades against said consequences, without him ever saying what was said he meant by what he said.

Unfortunately, imo, he fell for the trolling and replied with an emotional response or two, which made matters worse, since still even more absurdities were added to his POV.

As far as a system that has been tried time and time again and shown to fail, the all powerful, centralized government is it.

All this is far from the OP so I will stop there at just one guys opinion.

They aren't perceived, unless you think dozens of nearly identical historical outcomes qualifies as subject to perception.

Yes, the slippery slope of mass extermination is one (albeit uncommon) outcome, but it doesn't need to go that far to wind up being inviable for an advancing civilization. Any civilization which discourages communication and acceptance will naturally halt, or even reverse, progress.

And if such a civilization is to escape the clutches of hypocrisy, they must also stand alone - which not only halts progress but throws said civilization back into the Bronze age over the course of a decade or two.

Otherwise, they're no better than people on welfare (whom people of this mindset seem to hate). They contribute nothing to the larger society that is supporting them with a modern way of life.

Centralized government may not be a raging success, but it's nowhere near as abysmal of a failure as what Wildtim was proposing.