IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: Alpha on December 06, 2010, 09:41:55 am
-
Or if you believe it can, how?
P.S. All forms of inequality.
-
Because each sect of people has different capabilities compared to others.
-
Because each sect of people has different capabilities compared to others.
Oh hello Bill. ;)
And what about equality before the law?
-
Oh hello Bill. ;)
And what about equality before the law?
That depends on the country. In countries like Bangladesh, no, they are not equal. Bribing the judge to divert the result of a case is pretty common. Money wins.
Countries where law and order is supposedly perfect, like Switzerland, may offer equality in terms of judgment. Then again, who knows. ::) :P
-
Or if you believe it can, how?
P.S. All forms of inequality.
Because of religion, colors, how we perceive those with different colors, because of politics, because of mis-conceptions etc etc
too many to list.
Like in Saudi Arabia and UAE majority of the cleaners and low class people are from Bangladesh and i have gotten this misconception that Bengalis are all poor short height-ed people.
-
Because of religion, colors, how we perceive those with different colors, because of politics, because of mis-conceptions etc etc
too many to list.
Like in Saudi Arabia and UAE all the cleaners and low class people are from Bangladesh and i have gotten this misconception that Bengalis are all poor short height-ed people.
Ooops.
-
Or if you believe it can, how?
P.S. All forms of inequality.
It's not impossible but highly improbable in this cruel world of ours. ;)
It really depends on situation and like the others said the location as well.
Nowadays our environment and society is so corrupted that we can't expect everyone to be equal. But there is a reason for such blatant difference and that's upto us to discover why. :)
-
Because of religion, colors, how we perceive those with different colors, because of politics, because of mis-conceptions etc etc
too many to list.
Like in Saudi Arabia and UAE all the cleaners and low class people are from Bangladesh and i have gotten this misconception that Bengalis are all poor short height-ed people.
Generalisations. There are very rich Bangladeshis, as well as very poor ones. There are very rich Saudis and there are very poor ones as well. ;)
In our school, there are some Saudis. One characteristic we, Bangladeshi students, notice in all of them (guys only) is that they don't seem to brush their teeth in the morning. Their mouth, and body, always smell so bad. Believe me or not, we think that they never brush their teeth! Anyway, these are all generalisations. ;)
-
some saudis compared to many of your country men here.
But you are right.
I should visit once in a while to Dakha :P
Anyway i dont have slightest concern for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is where my heart lies.
PS:Saudis always use the perfume in morning and they are very clean..thats a news to me ::)
-
poor saudis get a benefit of 1000 riyal each month from the gov., calculate that in TAKKA
-
some saudis compared to millions of your country men here ;)
Prince Al waleed can buy your country right now mate.
Official estimates his wealth at 16 billion dollars but his real wealth in Saudi alone adds up to 74 Billion which is divided among his family members.I have not even touched other royal members.
Anyway i dont have slightest concern for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is where my heart lies.
PS:Saudis always use the perfume in morning and they are very clean..thats a news to me ::)
Pakistan. I see. ;)
Heaven for terrorists. (NOT discrimination, proven fact. ;) )
Need I say anything more? :D
PS. I have reported your previous post to other moderators because of discrimination against the Bangladeshis.
-
LOL.
I wasn't discriminating against Bengalis yo, they are our muslim brothers and in fact that Amelia girl is a Perfection.
I was merely stating my misconception
and Pakistanis dont bomb man :D, it's our Sweet neighbors from Afghanistan who do this.
-
« Last Edit: Today at 04:14:25 PM by Requiem »
- Included the word 'misconception' to defend yourself.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:33:43 PM by Requiem »
- 'Decorated' your post?
Playing hide and seek, bro? ::)
Those were discriminatory comments before editing.
-
Fine ::)
I admit.
I am sorry
I get experience of different nationalities in Saudi Arabia first hand. Like in my school I have turkish, egyptians, syrians, Lebanese Jordanians, Pakistanis, Indians, Bengalis , Malaysians etc etc
I am just full of mis conceptions yo.
Believe me :P
-
Fine ::)
I admit.
I get experience of different nationalities in Saudi Arabia first hand. Like in my school I have turkish, egyptians, syrians, Lebanese Jordanians, Pakistanis, Indians, Bengalis , Malaysians etc etc
I am just full of mis conceptions yo.
Believe me :P
I am both Malaysian, by birth, and Bangladeshi. You'll have a multi-cultural experience with me then. :P
-
LOL.
Okay
Cheers :D
-
Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at us in every waking moment of our lives to remind us that the lie of our inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating us.
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King Jr. ;)
-
Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at us in every waking moment of our lives to remind us that the lie of our inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating us.
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King Jr. ;)
There have been wars since the beginning of human dominated world.
What do you really mean?
It's in our blood to eat, hate, to get racist, to murder if called upon, to mock and to feel superior.
Now it would be very easy to state i do not do those stuff yet some where in your past, believe me, you did some of those i mentioned if not all.
Did you know the human lust for power and greed resulted in killing of the grandson of our Holy Prophet ,Imaam Hussein ?
Yes that's right. By our own muslim Brothers.
-
There have been wars since the beginning of human dominated world.
What do you really mean?
Am not saying wars should be abolished but it should neither take place for petty reasons. ;)
It's in our blood to eat, hate, to get racist, to murder if called upon, to mock and to feel superior.
Now it would be very easy to state i do not do those stuff yet some where in your past, believe me, you did some of those i mentioned if not all.
Am no perfect man. But we can always try to stay away from such things as far as possible.
Did you know the human lust for power and greed resulted in killing of the grandson of our Holy Prophet ,Imaam Hussein ?
Yes that's right. By our own muslim Brothers.
Lust for power and greed are two things which I consider evil. :)
-
Lust for power and greed are two things which I consider evil. :)
Lust for power and greed, expressed in the correct way (ie, not competing directly for the resources of others), is what I consider to be one of the greatest virtues of human beings. It is the root for all progress of mankind.
If someone achieved a very good result, its because he/she had a lust for achievement. If someone is rich and prosperous, it is because he had a strong lust/greed for money and has worked for it. If Malaysia is so developed compared to what it was 15 years ago, it is because of the lust and greed of Mahathir Mohammad for a prosperous economy.
Contrary to what everyone believes, the fact is that the lack of money/power is the root of all evil.
-
Lust for power and greed, expressed in the correct way (ie, not competing directly for the resources of others), is what I consider to be one of the greatest virtues of human beings. It is the root for all progress of mankind.
If someone achieved a very good result, its because he/she had a lust for achievement. If someone is rich and prosperous, it is because he had a strong lust/greed for money and has worked for it. If Malaysia is so developed compared to what it was 15 years ago, it is because of the lust and greed of Mahathir Mohammad for a prosperous economy.
Contrary to what everyone believes, the fact is that the lack of money/power is the root of all evil.
I understand what you mean but I don't fully agree with you. It's indeed the fact of not having money or power that creates evil. But if someone takes everything for himself, he's condemning others which will revolt. ;)
Am not saying you should not have money or prosper in life. Rather you should always earn the maximum but you need not be greedy. This can always be detrimental to your pocket.
Definition of greed :
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
In other words, it's earning in excess which is not good. You need to leave some for your neighbours or colleagues as well. You cannot take all for yourself despite the fact that you may be hard-working and deserve all the money you actually earn.
If you have time, do read this (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/07/Greed-The-Mother-Of-All-Sins.aspx).
-
^ Well-argued, DK. (:
-
I am both Malaysian, by birth, and Bangladeshi. You'll have a multi-cultural experience with me then. :P
Good one. :D
I understand what you mean but I don't fully agree with you. It's indeed the fact of not having money or power that creates evil. But if someone takes everything for himself, he's condemning others which will revolt. ;) Am not saying you should not have money or prosper in life. Rather you should always earn the maximum but you need not be greedy. This can always be detrimental to your pocket. Definition of greed : An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. In other words, it's earning in excess which is not good. You need to leave some for your neighbours or colleagues as well. You cannot take all for yourself despite the fact that you may be hard-working and deserve all the money you actually earn. If you have time, do read this (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/07/Greed-The-Mother-Of-All-Sins.aspx).
If you think well, inequality isn't bad. Everybody cannot be equal if man has to move on in life.
I don't imagine myself living in a world where everybody is poor, everybody illiterate, and everybody, a criminal. It can be in this sense too, nah. ;)
-
I understand what you mean but I don't fully agree with you. It's indeed the fact of not having money or power that creates evil. But if someone takes everything for himself, he's condemning others which will revolt. ;)
Am not saying you should not have money or prosper in life. Rather you should always earn the maximum but you need not be greedy. This can always be detrimental to your pocket.
Definition of greed
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
In other words, it's earning in excess which is not good. You need to leave some for your neighbours or colleagues as well. You cannot take all for yourself despite the fact that you may be hard-working and deserve all the money you actually earn.
If you have time, do read this (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/07/Greed-The-Mother-Of-All-Sins.aspx).
There is some contradiction here. In the previous part, you said that we do have a right to prosper and earn the maximum. While in the latter part you said that greed is not good ie. possessing more than one needs/deserves. How can one prosper and earn the maximum and at the same time, possess not more than one needs/deserves?
Also, the word need and deserve was used as the synonym. I don't think this is the case. In my opinion, whether someone deserves something is determined by whether he has it or not. You deserve it, so you have it. You don't, so you don't have it. Its pretty simple.
To be realistic, one needs very less. I need very less wealth to cover my basic needs (eg. shelter, food, security etc). Talking in that respect, I do not need to study in a good expensive school which offers Cambridge syllabuses. I can get my basic education in a local, feeble one. That would cover my needs well. While at the same time, I'm sure, this is something everyone including you would disapprove of.
The desire to acquire excessive wealth and materialistic possessions has been the root of all progress of mankind. It is a virtue and everyone should practice it, in my opinion. Everyone should have the excessive desire to acquire excessive wealth and they should work for it. This system will ensure our (the mankind, as a whole)'s progress.
It is only harmful when someone directly competes for the resources of others. What I mean to say is, take the example of a person. He has a friend who has more wealth than him. He becomes greedy of his friend's wealth.
Now, this can be expressed in two ways. First: Due to this desire, he can set his mind to be more wealthy than his friend. By doing so, he will have to do better in business and/or his job. Or he will have to look for other better opportunities which may feed his desire. Second: He becomes jealous of his friend and makes a plot to grab his wealth by some means.
The first one is a virtue, is good, and is something which has caused the human race to progress this far. The second one is not good and often backfires.
I hope I'm clear.
-
Good one. :D
Thanks! :)
If you think well, inequality isn't bad. Everybody cannot be equal if man has to move on in life.
I don't imagine myself living in a world where everybody is poor, everybody illiterate, and everybody, a criminal. It can be in this sense too, nah. ;)
Nice! :D
Its so good to see you hate being poor, illerate etc. A break from "poverty is good" kind of assumption. :P ;D
-
There is some contradiction here. In the previous part, you said that we do have a right to prosper and earn the maximum. While in the latter part you said that greed is not good ie. possessing more than one needs/deserves. How can one prosper and earn the maximum and at the same time, possess not more than one needs/deserves?
Also, the word need and deserve was used as the synonym. I don't think this is the case. In my opinion, whether someone deserves something is determined by whether he has it or not. You deserve it, so you have it. You don't, so you don't have it. Its pretty simple.
To be realistic, one needs very less. I need very less wealth to cover my basic needs (eg. shelter, food, security etc). Talking in that respect, I do not need to study in a good expensive school which offers Cambridge syllabuses. I can get my basic education in a local, feeble one. That would cover my needs well. While at the same time, I'm sure, this is something everyone including you would disapprove of.
The desire to acquire excessive wealth and materialistic possessions has been the root of all progress of mankind. It is a virtue and everyone should practice it, in my opinion. Everyone should have the excessive desire to acquire excessive wealth and they should work for it. This system will ensure our (the mankind, as a whole)'s progress.
It is only harmful when someone directly competes for the resources of others. What I mean to say is, take the example of a person. He has a friend who has more wealth than him. He becomes greedy of his friend's wealth.
Now, this can be expressed in two ways. First: Due to this desire, he can set his mind to be more wealthy than his friend. By doing so, he will have to do better in business and/or his job. Or he will have to look for other better opportunities which may feed his desire. Second: He becomes jealous of his friend and makes a plot to grab his wealth by some means.
The first one is a virtue, is good, and is something which has caused the human race to progress this far. The second one is not good and often backfires.
I hope I'm clear.
Waiting to see what King replies. The debate is getting interesting with you two. :D
By the way, if you did not notice it, this is turning all philosophical. :P
In my opinion, whether someone deserves something is determined by whether he has it or not. You deserve it, so you have it. You don't, so you don't have it. Its pretty simple.
Nah, there are many things people deserve but they don't have. Merit and achievement may be closely related, but the relationship they share might not always be positive or proportionate.
E.g. Bin Laden deserves to be locked, he isn't. :P
The desire to acquire excessive wealth and materialistic possessions has been the root of all progress of mankind. It is a virtue and everyone should practice it, in my opinion. Everyone should have the excessive desire to acquire excessive wealth and they should work for it. This system will ensure our (the mankind, as a whole)'s progress.
It is only harmful when someone directly competes for the resources of others. What I mean to say is, take the example of a person. He has a friend who has more wealth than him. He becomes greedy of his friend's wealth.
Now, this can be expressed in two ways. First: Due to this desire, he can set his mind to be more wealthy than his friend. By doing so, he will have to do better in business and/or his job. Or he will have to look for other better opportunities which may feed his desire. Second: He becomes jealous of his friend and makes a plot to grab his wealth by some means.
I think what he meant was that excessive desire leads to greed, which ultimately leads to resentment and hatred, that is, the second situation you described.
The first you described is achievement; for some people, happiness is achievement, in whatever form it might be. And far from being greed (which is detrimental to the doer and non-doer), the need to achieve increases as one moves on. :)
Thanks! :)
Nice! :D
Its so good to see you hate being poor, illerate etc. A break from "poverty is good" kind of assumption. :P ;D
Poverty is natural. I never claimed it to be "good". ;)
-
Waiting to see what King replies. The debate is getting interesting with you two. :D
A pleasure to see that it interests you. :P
By the way, if you did not notice it, this is turning all philosophical.
Exactly. But I did not forget to add a practical touch by making real-life comparisons. ;)
Nah, there are many things people deserve but they don't have. Merit and achievement may be closely related, but the relationship they share might not always be positive or proportionate.
E.g. Bin Laden deserves to be locked, he isn't.
Bin Laden isn't locked because he is very skillful at avoiding his capture by NATO personnels. In other words, his remarkable skills of avoiding to get captured means that he does not, ultimately, deserve to get caught. ;)
Hope that clears it. ;)
Poverty is natural. I never claimed it to be "good".
Poverty is never natural. Wealth and prosperity is a natural thing, but one has to achieve it. ;)
-
A pleasure to see that it interests you. :P
It's my topic, after all. ::)
Exactly. But I did not forget to add a practical touch by making real-life comparisons. ;)
A concept in philosophy is called realism. :)
Bin Laden isn't locked because he is very skillful at avoiding his capture by NATO personnels. In other words, his remarkable skills of avoiding to get captured means that he does not, ultimately, deserve to get caught. ;)
That was a good reply. :D
But what if I say, you do not deserve to die, but ultimately, will have to? :P
Poverty is never natural. Wealth and prosperity is a natural thing, but one has to achieve it. ;)
Maybe absolute poverty can be eradicated, but relative, can never be. And in the long term, this relative poverty will ultimately lead to absolute poverty. Poverty is a natural consequence of division of labour. Because people do not all perform the same, they are not all rewarded the same.
I hope I'm clear. :P ;D
-
It's my topic, after all. ::)
At least, we're not diverting from the topic. ::)
A concept in philosophy is called realism.
Fine. Then, we're being realistic. ;D
That was a good reply.
But what if I say, you do not deserve to die, but ultimately, will have to?
I will die because of some problem (eg. heart failure because of atherosclerosis, kidney failure, or maybe road accident because I drove carelessly) Therefore, I, ultimately, deserve to die because of what I've done. ;)
Hope its clear ::)
Maybe absolute poverty can be eradicated, but relative, can never be. And in the long term, this relative poverty will ultimately lead to absolute poverty. Poverty is a natural consequence of division of labour. Because people do not all perform the same, they are not all rewarded the same.
I hope I'm clear.
I agree that relative poverty cannot be eradicated. But absolute can.
You can see that well in Mauritius I think. Aren't you and your family leading a much better life/are much more wealthy than you were 10 years ago? I'm sure you are. Every family is with a few exceptions. We are too.
The trend indicates that absolute poverty is being rapidly eradicated, regardless of any argument. ( :P )
-
At least, we're not diverting from the topic. ::)
Fine. Then, we're being realistic. ;D
He admits. :D
I will die because of some problem (eg. heart failure because of atherosclerosis, kidney failure, or maybe road accident because I drove carelessly) Therefore, I, ultimately, deserve to die because of what I've done. ;)
Hope its clear ::)
Is there not something called "natural death"? :P
I agree that relative poverty cannot be eradicated. But absolute can.
You can see that well in Mauritius I think. Aren't you and your family leading a much better life/are much more wealthy than you were 10 years ago?
The trend indicates that absolute poverty is being rapidly eradicated, regardless of any argument. ( :P )
You use a decade to compare, and are talking about "rapidly"... ::)
Absolute poverty... not relative. Therefore, poverty exists. ;)
-
*ahem*
And therefore, I can conclude:
Poverty is because Bill Gates is. 8)
-
He admits. :D
Yes. :P
Is there not something called "natural death"?
Still, it must be because of something. Some disease or accident or something like that. Therefore, my previous argument would hold true in case of natural death too.
You use a decade to compare, and are talking about "rapidly"...
Absolute poverty... not relative. Therefore, poverty exists.
Yes I used a decade. But you can compare with the previous year too. You'll see that, unless you suffered a substantial business failure (God forbid), you are better off than you were. I used a decade just because I wanted to illustrate a sample timeframe. ;)
I do not deny that poverty exists. I just claim that it is decreasing rapidly.
*ahem*
And therefore, I can conclude:
Poverty is because Bill Gates is
I just invalidated :P your previous arguments. Therefore, you cannot claim that. :P ::)
-
The Matrix. Imagine if everything in the world, includding consciousness and self awarness, could be represented by a constant function f(x) = something.
-
If you think well, inequality isn't bad. Everybody cannot be equal if man has to move on in life.
I don't imagine myself living in a world where everybody is poor, everybody illiterate, and everybody, a criminal. It can be in this sense too, nah. ;)
Inequality is essential for human kind. GOD has created us different from each other for a reason. ;)
Else everyone would have been clones of each other with the same wants. ;D
But you can't also imagine yourself living in a world where everyone is rich, educated but lazy and waste a lot.
-
There is some contradiction here. In the previous part, you said that we do have a right to prosper and earn the maximum. While in the latter part you said that greed is not good ie. possessing more than one needs/deserves. How can one prosper and earn the maximum and at the same time, possess not more than one needs/deserves?
I said you have a right. This does not mean that we must do it. ;)
You should work just enough, not in excess and not less either. There's no doubt that the whole society will prosper in this way. :)
Also, the word need and deserve was used as the synonym. I don't think this is the case. In my opinion, whether someone deserves something is determined by whether he has it or not. You deserve it, so you have it. You don't, so you don't have it. Its pretty simple.
You have a point here. :D
But unfortunately in our cruel world some persons who rightfully deserve it do not have it while those who don't deserve it, have it. This is why according to me, it's better that only people who need it, have it and not those who deserve it.
To be realistic, one needs very less. I need very less wealth to cover my basic needs (eg. shelter, food, security etc). Talking in that respect, I do not need to study in a good expensive school which offers Cambridge syllabuses. I can get my basic education in a local, feeble one. That would cover my needs well. While at the same time, I'm sure, this is something everyone including you would disapprove of.
The desire to acquire excessive wealth and materialistic possessions has been the root of all progress of mankind. It is a virtue and everyone should practice it, in my opinion. Everyone should have the excessive desire to acquire excessive wealth and they should work for it. This system will ensure our (the mankind, as a whole)'s progress.
It is only harmful when someone directly competes for the resources of others. What I mean to say is, take the example of a person. He has a friend who has more wealth than him. He becomes greedy of his friend's wealth.
Now, this can be expressed in two ways. First: Due to this desire, he can set his mind to be more wealthy than his friend. By doing so, he will have to do better in business and/or his job. Or he will have to look for other better opportunities which may feed his desire. Second: He becomes jealous of his friend and makes a plot to grab his wealth by some means.
The first one is a virtue, is good, and is something which has caused the human race to progress this far. The second one is not good and often backfires.
I hope I'm clear.
Well, my dear friend, our resources on Earth are limited and inter-related. We cannot progress without being the prime reason of our colleague's failure. Even if we're not at all jealous of our colleague and are in no case competing against each other. ;)
I understand that we should acquire wealth for our own progress but if we limit ourselves to a specific height and personally take the resolution of not exceeding, even if we have the chance to do so, this will ensure the progress of the whole human kind. Not only the rich ones. ;D
Our personal benefit should be preceded by the advantage of the human race. :)
-
Yes. :P
Still, it must be because of something. Some disease or accident or something like that. Therefore, my previous argument would hold true in case of natural death too.
People die because they have to. It isn't necessary for a third element like a disease or accident to come in between you and death. ;)
Yes I used a decade. But you can compare with the previous year too. You'll see that, unless you suffered a substantial business failure (God forbid), you are better off than you were. I used a decade just because I wanted to illustrate a sample timeframe. ;)
I do not deny that poverty exists. I just claim that it is decreasing rapidly.
I didn't deny either. We're turning round. ::)
I just invalidated :P your previous arguments. Therefore, you cannot claim that. :P ::)
How? I am not convinced. :P
The Matrix. Imagine if everything in the world, includding consciousness and self awarness, could be represented by a constant function f(x) = something.
Can you explain further, please? :)
Inequality is essential for human kind. GOD has created us different from each other for a reason. ;)
Else everyone would have been clones of each other with the same wants. ;D
Agreed. My stand. ;)
But you can't also imagine yourself living in a world where everyone is rich, educated but lazy and waste a lot.
Lol. ;D
What I meant was to illustrate the Yin-Yang Chinese concept: without inequality, equality doesn't exist.
Well, my dear friend, our resources on Earth are limited and inter-related. We cannot progress without being the prime reason of our colleague's failure. Even if we're not at all jealous of our colleague and are in no case competing against each other. ;)
Pareto optimality.*
-
*ahem*
And therefore, I can conclude:
Poverty is because Bill Gates is. 8)
By the way... ::)
The original quote is:
Poverty is because humankind is.
Poor Bill. ;D
-
The Matrix.
In certain part of the movie Agent Smith tells that the first version of the matrix failed because the machines thought that a perfect virtual world would make all humans happy. The third version included some kind of evil vs hero variable into play, but at the same time, the whatever f(x) that should have kept the virtual world balanced, couldn't predict that at some point, the evil vs hero battle would destabilize that f(x).
Source: http://matrix.wikia.com/wiki/Matrix_betas
-
I said you have a right. This does not mean that we must do it. ;)
You should work just enough, not in excess and not less either. There's no doubt that the whole society will prosper in this way. :)
I understand that we should acquire wealth for our own progress but if we limit ourselves to a specific height and personally take the resolution of not exceeding, even if we have the chance to do so, this will ensure the progress of the whole human kind. Not only the rich ones.
That is definitely not a good idea. This is all I can say. ;)
-
Agreed. My stand. ;)
Yupz........same point of view, I guess. ::)
Lol. ;D
What I meant was to illustrate the Yin-Yang Chinese concept: without inequality, equality doesn't exist.
Yeah................that's certainly impossible. But it's upto us to maintain the balance. ;)
Pareto optimality.*
I love that though I doubt it occurs in life nowadays. It has become very rare these days. :-\
But this would surely prove to be the best solution. :D
That is definitely not a good idea. This is all I can say. ;)
Hmm..............that's your point of view. ;)
I would love to have more details about it though. :P
-
I would love to have more details about it though. :P
Tired of repeating. :P
You have your own responsibility, not anyone else's. Neither would anybody else bear your responsibility. ;)
-
In certain part of the movie Agent Smith tells that the first version of the matrix failed because the machines thought that a perfect virtual world would make all humans happy. The third version included some kind of evil vs hero variable into play, but at the same time, the whatever f(x) that should have kept the virtual world balanced, couldn't predict that at some point, the evil vs hero battle would destabilize that f(x).
Source: http://matrix.wikia.com/wiki/Matrix_betas
Is that a concept of equality? :P
Yupz........same point of view, I guess. ::)
Yeah................that's certainly impossible. But it's upto us to maintain the balance. ;)
First, to define this balance.
I love that though I doubt it occurs in life nowadays. It has become very rare these days. :-\
But this would surely prove to be the best solution. :D
It's just an economic concept... pure theory. ;)
Tired of repeating. :P
You have your own responsibility, not anyone else's. Neither would anybody else bear your responsibility. ;)
Harsh, but true.
Utterly true.
-
Harsh, but true.
Utterly true.
Thanks! :D
At least, you agree on something. :P
Yes, its true. We all should abide by it. ;)
-
its 21st century ! n its big time that equality should prevail ! all v need is a change in every individuals perception
-
My opinion is that as long as religions exist, there will be no equality. I for one respect all religions, unlike religious people. The thing is, religion is what separates the world apart. Most Christians think of Muslims as terrorists, and vice versa. I know this is touchy, so please don't feel offended and I apologize if you do.