Equality vs. Entitlement: Is there a difference?

someone said:Listen, this is vital for SolarCity!
If men and women are truly equal in capability, then what was the point of God creating them both? To have both men and women perform the exact same jobs?

No, it’s not because of sex—and clearly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about here.😛

I.L. said:Alright, calling all you self-proclaimed "philosophers"—let's see what you've got. Are these two things actually the same thing?

I've been having a few "deep conversations" lately... and now I'm looking for a solid definition.

Take the whole concept of women's "equality," for instance. Is "having rights" truly synonymous with "equality"? Based on my understanding of language and logic—it absolutely isn't!

"Equality" is not the same thing as "having rights"

Having rights is strictly a social construct, whereas equality can be biological... like physical equality, for example. We can all agree we aren't equal in that sense. Some women and men can have children while others can't... so there's an inequality there. Some people can handle much more physical strain due to their body type, while others can't... we're clearly not equal in that regard either.

But that’s a different story: how much should those biological realities actually impact the framework of human rights egalitarianism?

znanac said:I won't even get started, but if we look strictly at the physical side of things—where those differences lie... well, hey now...

Trust me, you really don't want to dive into the physical differences, because if we went by that logic, every woman would be running for Congress and every man would be working deep in a coal mine.😛

-me! said:It isn't about sex, and it is clearly something you have absolutely no clue about.😛

And what could you possibly know?
Please, just don't start...

I have read your posts in the 'Religion' section...!

Regardless, you certainly enjoy hearing yourself talk.🙂 😁

-me! said:Trust me when I say you don't want to look at the physical differences. If we went by those standards, every woman would be running for office and every man would be working in a coal mine.😛

And just like that, the country falls apart.
😢

Look, this is what happens when you decide someone’s career path is set in stone just because it’s supposedly "natural." Give everyone a fair shot. If you're secretly terrified that a woman might actually outperform you, that’s your own insecurity to deal with—it's not my fault if you aren't "man enough" to handle a job instead of handing it off to her. 😛

The expert said:Listen, Oracle, this is crucial!
But your whole premise is flawed from the jump.

Capable, sure... but capable compared to what?

If men and women are equally capable, then why did God bother creating both? To have them doing the exact same jobs?

And don't even get me started on looking at it strictly from a physical standpoint, where the differences are... well, you know...

Maybe we should stop calling it "equality" and just call it "sameness" instead.???

And look what happens when we do...

-we lose everything that actually matters. 😛

It's pretty obvious you aren't reading these posts all the way through.

Nobody claimed that X and Y have identical skill sets; the point is they need the same starting line to prove themselves.

If you truly believe men are superior in every single way, then why are you even complaining? Whoever is better will prove it on their own merit.

If we’re going to frame the question in such broad strokes, then I suppose we ought to keep the conversation just as general. It seems like the discussion got a bit narrow because the original prompt focused specifically on women, and now everyone’s just circling that one point instead of looking at the bigger picture.

There is a massive distinction between simply having rights and actually being treated as an equal. You can dream up all the rights you want, but if you lack the ability, the desire, or the actual permission to exercise them, then equality remains a fantasy. We're talking about two entirely different realms here—the first is a matter of legal code, while the second is a social reality that depends on a whole mess of cultural factors long before any lawyer ever gets involved.

Blaise said:If we’re talking about this on a broad level, then our discussion should stay broad too. Maybe the mistake was focusing solely on women during the deep dive, which is why everyone seems stuck on that one specific angle now.

There's a massive difference between having rights and actually being equal. You can dream up all the rights you want, but if you don't have the ability, the desire, or the permission to actually exercise them, then you aren't truly equal. Those are two totally different beasts—one is a legal matter, while the other is a social reality that depends on a whole host of factors beyond just what’s written in the law.

Blaise, how would you define the gap between a legal right and social equality?

Glam said:It's just not

Thanks!🙂

Apple said:"Equality" isn't quite the same thing as "having rights."

Having rights is just a social construct, whereas equality can be something more natural... like physical equality, for instance. We’d all agree we aren't equal there... some women and men can have children while others can't... so there's an inequality there. Or one person might handle intense physical labor better due to their build, while someone else struggles... we aren't equal in that sense either.

But that’s a separate issue from how much that should impact the concept of human rights egalitarianism...

This is the answer to the core of it!

AAAAAAA!!!

Look at that—a philosopher emerged from the dark shadows... 🙂

Exactly: Having rights is a social category! But equality is the very essence of nature itself. If we look through the lens of consciousness, everything eventually... settles into a single formula... the existence of all beings under the stars. Some call it fate, others call it metaphysics!

And some might just call it—well—philosophy!

Everything serves a purpose... even equality, which becomes the weight that balances our obligations!

Yeah, okay—I guess I phrased that a little clumsily. I won't keep rambling on about it since you probably caught my drift immediately anyway. What I was really trying to get at is that just because the law guarantees you certain rights doesn't mean you actually have the capacity or even the opportunity to exercise them. Things like your level of education, your bank balance, or even where you sit in the social hierarchy—not to mention some inherent traits people are just born with—can act as these invisible barriers to using the rights you technically hold, and honestly, they can also open doors to certain advantages that aren't even formally yours on paper.

IL:
If you could just stop trying to claim that "nature" intended for some people to have fewer rights than others simply because of how they were born, we’d be in much better shape. I’m honestly sick of reading this kind of stuff; if you'd just drop it, everything would be fine. 🙂

Solaris said:It seems you aren't reading the full posts.

No one claimed that X and Y possess equal abilities; rather, they should have an equal starting line to prove themselves.

If you truly believe men are superior in everything, why complain? Those who are actually better will prove it.

And who gets to decide the rules for "proving oneself"?

If those rules follow something like "soulless psychology," then the only ones succeeding are misanthropes and feminized Talmudists!

Just look at today's various so-called "psychological tests."

They're designed for a "Planet of the Apes" scenario, not for normal people. It's a swamp where favored, feminized minds thrive—people who only see the surface. Depth is a foreign concept to them!

Then they look at those who don't "meet" these tests and label them "lesser"! It's classic Jewish and female cynicism... ego from a lower consciousness...

Intelligence isn't just frog legs on wires in Dr. Madman's laboratory... intelligence is ADAPTING TO NATURAL, NEW CIRCUMSTANCES!

I've already written about this!

Who would fare better if dropped into the middle of a vast, dark forest in the dead of night... total unknown... just some guy... a regular man... or... a highly educated professor... full of "emancipation" and "knowledge"! Who survives in that wilderness...?

Why didn't I say in the middle of a big city? Because professors can use "illegal" tools there... like using sexuality... to deceive and climb the career ladder. So, a forest... without other humans... but filled with... beasts... and natural dangers... let's see... what happens when a woman has no one left to "sell" her "beauty" or exposed legs to!

Except maybe Me... if Me were thrown in there... like a genetic experiment... tied up... surrounded by... bears!😳 😛

Nature didn't necessarily dictate everything, you know. In the wild, things just sort of land where they belong, but society? Society goes and decides things too. It seems to me that the legal rights and the actual equality—if we can even call it that—that our society has carved out don't really align at all. And that leads us down a rabbit hole: why do we have these rights, who are they actually for, and what kind of rights are we even talking about? Honestly, I wonder if we should even be allowed to have this conversation in the first place.

Roger Hall15 said:Nature doesn't necessarily dictate everything. In the natural world, things just fall into place. But society plays a role too. In my view, legal rights and social equality—as defined by society at large—don't always align. So, the real question is: why, to whom, and what kind of rights? Should we even be discussing this?

But shouldn't the rights granted by society actually be... natural?

Meaning, based on the laws of nature?

That way, we wouldn't be placing such "heavy burdens" on anyone!

Not even on "poor" women!

Isn't naturalness the ultimate standard?

Why deviate from that when it comes to feminism? Is it just a product of political maneuvering by the establishment?

Rebecca Miller2 said:Just look at today's so-called "psychological evaluations."

They’re clearly designed for a planet full of primates, not actual human beings.

Who would actually fare better if you dropped them in the middle of a massive, dark forest in the dead of night? Everything is unknown... just some guy off the street... or maybe a highly educated professor who prides herself on being all "empowered" and "intellectual"! Who survives in that kind of wilderness?

Why didn't I say in the middle of a big city like New York? Because professors here can rely on "unconventional" methods—like using their sexuality—to manipulate people and climb the career ladder. But out in the woods... away from other people... surrounded by nothing but beasts and raw danger... let's see how things go when a woman has no one left to "sell" her looks or charm to!

😁 😁 I'm talking about trucks and cars, and you're stuck on psych tests! 😁 😁

Aha, now I get why you're making such a big deal out of this.
But what about the women who aren't conventionally attractive and can't rely on their sexuality?

Who do you think actually stands a chance if you just drop them in the middle of a massive, pitch-black forest in the dead of night... totally lost... just some random guy off the street... versus... some highly educated professoress... all that "empowerment" and "academic knowledge" put to the test!

The reason I didn't say in the middle of a major city like New York is because professors there can always lean on those 'unofficial' assets... you know, using their sexuality... to manipulate people and climb the career ladder. But a forest... where there isn't a soul in sight... just animals... and raw nature... let's see how things go... when a woman has nobody left to "sell" her charm or her looks to!

Alright then, what kind of fantasies are you spinning here and who exactly are you playing these mental games with?

Roger Hall15 said:😁 😁 I’m over here talking about trucks and cars, while you're stuck on psych tests! 😁 😁

Oh, I see where you're coming from now.
But what about those unattractive women who just can't leverage their sexuality?

They... along with Watashi...😛 😁

Blaise said:Alright then, what exactly are you dreaming about and who do you think you're settling scores with?

"Settling scores" with the very question I posed in the title! You all just dodged it.

And...

So, regarding "equality"—what's the actual difference between that word and simply "having rights"?

And more importantly, who gets to DEFINE that meaning?

Is that any clearer now?

If not... well, enjoy your trip to Vegas!🙂 😁