Any equealist in house?

Post Reply New Topic

Are there any equealist in the forums?

You feel that theres a need for equality and equal rights in all
Regardless of:
Gender
Race
Orientation
Etc.

No, but also yes.

I certainly believe in equality regardless of those things, but rather than identifying as equalist I identify as a feminist.

I have a few reasons that I choose the title of one over the other, but the main reason is that I think equalist, or egalitarianism, has had a history of bad faith actors that mostly want to derail positive change. Not saying everyone, but enough that I don't think it does anything that feminism cannot.

I'm an Egalitarian and I believe in equal human rights for everyone. No exceptions.

Criminals lose their rights.
Handicapped people have extra rights.
Low IQ people have special rights.
Sex Offenders are put on a list forever (lose their right to privacy).

Equalizing everyone would seem problematic.

They're here, but I'm not one. I believe in the inherent dignity of humanity. If you have equality then you can't have diversity, and there are just too many different people for me to believe in a fiction that everybody must be "fed from the same spoon."

I don't believe equality of "human rights" precludes diversity. All cultures and all people should have the same inalienable basic rights under the law, with no discrimination against any group's freedom of expression or lifestyle. Criminals choose to waive those rights, so they are excluded by choice.

John Rawls is among my favourite philosophers: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

I believe that everyone is created equal. Where they go from there is up to them.

That is assuming that everyone marked a criminal actually made a choice to do something wrong. The obvious examples are people who are innocent of crimes but have been wrongly convicted, and have found themselves locked out of representation. Perhaps their group such as race has been targeted on higher rates, meaning that black people could be criminalised for using drugs at higher rates, despite black and white people using at the same rates. Go back a few decades and you have all gay people marked as criminals for debauchery, so now they are marked at criminals.

And then you have private prisons donating to politicians to do things like get people sent to jail more, and regardless of how bad conditions are they get no representations. Let alone an incentive that certain political parties have at keeping people marked as criminals from being able to vote.

I think you mean 'Egalitarian'.

She was talking about people who are actually criminals. Who actually DID THE DEED.....

'HE', Kortie ... I was referring to the OP.

I was responding to, and agreeing with, Isabella's statement about criminals....being denied "equal rights"---by virtue of being criminals.

Perhaps, I should have inserted a ^^ at the start of my post.

How would you know the difference? A lot of police are notorious for bullying suspects into confessing as to receive lighter sentences, regardless of if they actually did anything wrong. And as I said, certain groups get targeted unfairly. Such as a young woman could be forced into illegal prostitution because she is desperate for money, while a rich guy that defrauded a bunch of poorer people of money could get away because he hired a good lawyer.

It's obvious that I "don't know the difference." I work in the courts. There are some people who are innocent of what they are being accused of.

I was talking about the people who actually DID THE DEED. If they DID THE DEED, they are criminals---if not, they are not criminals.

Ideally, only to the extent that their behaviour makes their rights conflict with those of others, for example by being a danger to those others. You still have a point.


Those are both debatable. If I were in a wheelchair, and asked for a wheelchair ramp and a toilet I can use in a public building, you could call that an extra right, or a privilege. Or you could call it the right to the same access to a public building as someone who can walk. The same goes for low IQ, or acommodations for autism. I would see them as trying to give the same rights of access to everyone. The means by which those equal rights can be achieved just happen not to be the same for everyone.

I don't know.

Anyone who is qualified for something shouldn't be overlooked for a job, a scholarship or a school, etc.

I don't think that athletes whose sports do not generate the same revenue should be paid the same as athletes who generate huge revenue. For instance, the female soccer players vs the male soccer players. They don't draw the same crowds, they can't demand the same pay.

I am for the new 'female parking' closer to entrances, to help combat violence against women in dark parking garages, parking lots, etc.

There are just too many variables. So, I don't know what that makes me.