Equality vs. Entitlement: Is there a difference?

If they just implemented some kind of "tough guy test," you can bet he wouldn't complain a single bit... Unless, of course, he failed that one too. 😛 😛 😛

Matthew Doyle73 said:They’d probably roll out some ridiculous "manliness test" and wouldn't complain a bit... unless they failed that too. 😛 😛 😛

You need a woman there to testify for you!😁

Otherwise, the test isn't even valid...

And you didn't actually answer the question?🙄

Do you mean the thread title? 😳

Of course not. Everyone has certain rights—even death row inmates—but nobody is truly equal.

The point I’m making here is that equality should be measured by how much someone abuses it to infringe upon my own rights and standing, rather than being dictated by the circumstances of their birth, their religion, their socioeconomic status, their mental health, or their gender.

What a total joke. You can take that nonsense somewhere else!

Why are you getting so defensive and worked up? But honestly, let's just move past that.

Shouldn't the rights "granted" by society be—well, natural?*

So, based on the entirety of natural laws?

I'll figure out how to format a quote properly one of these days!!!

Based on the entirety of natural laws? Probably. Though, I wouldn't really focus on women's equality right now. But, obviously, I have to. And I’m going to be incredibly trivial about it. Forgive me, but this all feels a bit silly to me. It’s actually quite uncomfortable to argue over things like bloodletting (which I would never weigh in on) or stories about male physical strength or their supposed survival instincts in the wild. What is even the point of those arguments? When discussing women's equality, I could talk about my mother, myself, my friends... or things I've read. As for everyone else, I don't know; they can speak for themselves (if they think they have the right 😁—you didn't specify that this topic was exclusively for men). I don't have an issue with it, nor do I find myself questioning my own equality compared to men. I don't see where the problem lies. If someone is struggling with their status, I’d suggest they voice it so we can all try to help. No one has ever complained to me that I was pushing myself into places I don't belong. Perhaps because I haven't asked for it. If I didn't ask, I didn't want it. So, goodbye. There's a director at my office who constantly complains that she’s being targeted just because she’s a woman. Truthfully, she’s being targeted because she’s incompetent, rude, and a complete nightmare of a person! One of the people giving her a hard time is my direct supervisor and, believe it or not, he doesn't give me any trouble at all. But the two of us have equal rights (and I'm still several rungs lower than her on the corporate ladder). The thing is, I am equal, and she isn't. Is that a flaw in the entire system, or is it just her? And why should I even bother thinking about it? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm just a submissive idiot. What kind of categories are those for a serious discussion?
Regardless, I still think the existence of extreme feminist groups and similar organizations is necessary, if only to serve as an example to the rest of us. Because rights and rules are defined by society, and if you're looking for a provocation—I think it smells terribly, absolutely terribly, of a decaying society fueled by sick, malicious individuals.

I hope I haven't agreed with you too much, because if I do, it gets boring—and you can't have a real debate when it's boring.

Rebecca Miller2 said:Besides, the test itself isn't even valid...

Which one? There are plenty of them, and if I actually decided to tackle them, most would just tear you apart. It’s pretty obvious to everyone here that some things are just too clear-cut when they're coming from minds that aren't yours.😛 😢

My whole point here is basically that equality should be measured by how much people abuse it—because when they do, it ends up chipping away at my own equal standing and my own rights—rather than being defined by things like where someone happened to be born, their religion, their circumstances, their mental state, or their gender.

Honestly, aren't we essentially saying the same thing? In principle, if someone abuses their rights to the point where they start infringing on yours, it’s pretty much the same situation as someone with rights stepping on someone who doesn't have any. Your rights are clearly laid out; there's a line between what you can do and what you shouldn't do, whether it's just plain unwise or simply isn't the right thing to do. And look, we don't always have to agree with everything that's been established. Why would we? I don't personally agree with every single right granted to people these days; I don't think it's always in their best interest. Now, when it comes to those who are truly disenfranchised, the way you described them, we should always lend a hand. BUT: what happens when people start grabbing rights for themselves whenever they feel like it? Just deciding on a whim: "I want this now," or "I want what you have." What then? Do we just hand over every single right because it wouldn't be "civilized" to deny them?

Well... I definitely agree that we should all start on equal footing with the same set of rights—and if we can push for even more of them, then even better—but those are really just minor details at this stage. 😳

Fair enough. But if those massive rights aren't structured in a way that actually protects everyone from being exploited by those very same powers, then we’ve basically just handed them the keys to the kingdom and called it progress.

Rebecca Miller2 said:Spot on: possessing rights is essentially a social construct! And equality? That’s just the fundamental nature of how things are!

True equality would mean the total absence of inequality.

But once you completely strip away inequality, the concept of equality itself vanishes as a distinct category. It’s like trying to define left without right, or up without down—it doesn't work.

In the wild, equality doesn't exist as a standalone category because there is no inequality to measure it against. So, one could argue that nature is perfectly equal by default—meaning equality is baked into the very fabric of existence—but in reality, it isn't. Because if there's no contrast, the term becomes meaningless.😉

Ultimately, clinging to the whole category of "rights" is just an unnecessary complication that has nothing to do with the way the world actually functions.

I believe the question misses the mark slightly. Equality—for instance, between men and women—implies that both parties possess identical rights. Therefore, being equal and having rights are essentially one and the same.

The issue arises from the fact that equality, or "possessing" a right, does not automatically guarantee that one can actually exercise it.

So, the real question is whether simply holding a right means you have the ability to utilize it? The answer is a definitive "NO."

CASE CLOSED !!!

Frank Lee6 said:I think the question here is slightly off base. Equality—for example, between men and women—presumes that both sides hold equal rights. Therefore, logically speaking, being "equal" and "having rights" are one and the same.

The real issue is the fact that having equality (or "possessing" a right) doesn't automatically mean you can actually exercise it in practice.

So, the actual question should be whether possessing a right implies the ability to use it, and the answer there would be a hard "NO."

CASE CLOSED!!!

Frank Lee6, how on earth do you think that’s the RIGHT QUESTION?
Frank Lee6, you can't just force a rephrasing of someone else's question just to be politically correct! The question Rebecca Miller2 asked was perfectly valid... your version might be a great question for its own separate thread... but from the perspective of the philosophy of language, it has absolutely nothing to do with what Rebecca Miller2 originally asked.

To me, there’s a distinction between "having rights" and being "equal"—one is what’s written in the law books, while the other is how things actually play out in reality. When people talk about equality between men and women in society, they aren't just talking about legal status—even though, let's be honest, that was a massive hurdle not that long ago. For instance, in the most developed parts of America, women didn't even have the right to vote or access higher education until the early 20th century.

Once you set aside those legalities—which we've already covered thanks to the first wave of feminism and the suffragette movement fighting for those specific rights—you're left with the whole messy world of social equality. We're talking about morality, customs, religion, all that stuff. It's pretty well known that in less progressive circles, you see this "double standard" where the yardstick for behavior changes depending on gender. For example, a guy might be celebrated as some kind of "macho" icon just for having multiple partners—it's practically a badge of honor in certain circles. Meanwhile, a woman doing the exact same thing gets judged harshly and slapped with nasty labels. There are plenty of other cultural or religious nuances too, but that's way too big a rabbit hole for this thread.

...but more broadly, it encompasses every single facet of social interaction, which includes

Equality can be defined as =
The phrase having the right essentially requires the addition of "to"

There is a right TO life
A right to education, a right to vote (the right TO voting)

Having a right to perform a certain activity can be heteronomous for various individuals and different social structures alike.

In this specific sense, one subject, S1, might possess a right to an activity x
While a second subject, S2, does not necessarily have to—and sometimes cannot even be—equal to S1

For example:
The President or the Secretary of State has the right to represent the nation and present its official stance on...

Commoners are not equal to the President.

Quinn:

I.L. says: Alright, calling all you self-proclaimed 'philosophers' out there—let's see what you've got. Is this actually the same thing? I've been having a few little 'discussions' lately... so now I'm hunting for a definition. Take the whole idea of female "equality," for example. Does "having rights" mean the exact same thing as "equality"? Based on my understanding of linguistics and logic—it absolutely does not! Nowadays, women are practically threatening the biological survival of men... so what kind of "equality" are we talking about when they haven't even finished abstracting away all those demanded SUPERIOR RIGHTS over men? Where's the glitch here? Is it in the linguistics or... /B]

It's linguistics.😛

Actually, it's semantics. And if I really sit down and think about it, it’s probably semiotics.
Most of these conceptual terms are used primarily by men; for women, it's just pure manipulation.😛

We don't take any of this to heart quite as much as you do, I.L.

To put it bluntly—we tend to view things through a purely primal lens, completely ignoring the "science of language."
You go ahead and worry about the linguistic side of things and keep us posted.

😉

Quinn:

Nathaniel: We don't even take this stuff to heart nearly as much as you do, IL.

And why on earth would you? It’s certainly not your responsibility to worry about it! 😛

Seriously though, if we're being completely honest here...
When it comes to gender equality: that isn't actually something women are seeking or even desiring.
Rather, it's a strategic maneuver in the war against the male sex. It's orchestrated by certain types of men—real characters, let me tell you.

A woman is essentially a passive entity regarding masculine affairs, and she has no inherent desire for equality. Unless, of course, she is taught to be so. And who has been dominating science and education for the last century or so?

Thomas Ramirez2 said:Commoners don't have the same standing as the Prime Minister.

I mean, why would any Prime Minister be more prone to committing crimes than anyone else? 😢

Thomas Ramirez2 said:Women tend to be passive when it comes to male-dominated fields, and they aren't exactly out there demanding equality. Unless, of course, they are taught otherwise. But let’s look at who has been driving progress in science and education over the last century.

It’s the exact same story as the hundred years before that: Scientists 😛

Blaise said:Fair enough. But if those powerful rights aren't structured to protect everyone from their own potential abuse, then we've completely missed the point.

And how does that actually relate to the equality of those rights? Who exactly would need to have fewer rights just so we could shield ourselves from them abusing theirs?

Matthew Doyle73 said:It is the exact same pattern we saw a century ago: researchers 😛

And certainly not Watashi... because when women are involved, they aren't researchers, they're just thieves stealing from their husbands 😲 ..as Thomas Ramirez2 would say, and he claims to have his sources

Blue Eyes,

sorry, I didn't apply any force, nor am I interested in politics or political correctness. I simply noticed that the question posed doesn't make much sense, and assumed the poster actually intended to ask something else.

The following results from that.

EQUALITY = HAVING the same RIGHTS as someone else (or everyone else)

Therefore, the answer is: 'To be equal is to have rights.'