The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

[Al B. Sure!]

WTF does this even mean?

He means things like affirmative action.

[DriXnaK]

I think Japanese women are ok. I'd be wary of starting any relationships with them though. My main reason for wanting to work there is because I love their language and I want to become fluent in it. I also want the experience in living outside the US and working outside the US. There's a lot of things that interest me about Japan. I also have a strong desire for some reason to escape the US. I can't say it will be any better working in Japan, but at least it will be different. I don't want to develop too many opinions about the place until I've actually been there.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think Japanese women are ok. I'd be wary of starting any relationships with them though. My main reason for wanting to work there is because I love their language and I want to become fluent in it. I also want the experience in living outside the US and working outside the US. There's a lot of things that interest me about Japan. I also have a strong desire for some reason to escape the US. I can't say it will be any better working in Japan, but at least it will be different. I don't want to develop too many opinions about the place until I've actually been there.

You would fetishize Asia, wouldn't you? You are the type. And probably ugly, too

[Heraclitus]

WTF does this even mean?

Its a phrase often misattributed to Aristotle.

* The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
o This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle's politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as "Aristotle's Axiom" in Peter's People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

[Heraclitus]

WTF does this even mean?

Its a phrase often misattributed to Aristotle.

* The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
o This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle's politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as "Aristotle's Axiom" in Peter's People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

[KrazyHorse]

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Utterly ridiculous. Witness:

x = 5;
y = 6;
Print( x = y );

output:
TRUE

[KrazyHorse]

In fact, I'd say that the following is the worst kind of inequality:

x = 5
y = "foo"

If( x < y )
{
    Print( "x < y" );
}
:
{
    Print( "!( x < y )" );
};

[NoodleNaught]

What the hell does that saying even mean?

[curtis290]

To KrazyHorse and NoodleNaught: OK, you made your point, of course there is no way to rationally prove exactly what the worst form of inequality is. It's obviously an abstract idea, not a quantifiable concept. But I'm pretty sure the OP knows that. It's just a statement to start a discussion, to which you contributed absolutely nothing useful.

To the OP: I definitely agree with your statement "radical egalitarianism is a monster value that once adopted by a individual or society eventually consumes all others." It is a value that, once embraced by the populace, is taken to great extremes that can destroy the fabric of a society. This is why socialism is the greatest evil ever known to man. I do believe that extreme inequality is bad for a society in that it lays the seeds for a socialist revolution. If the working class is squeezed too hard, it will revolt, out of survival. Also, an extremely unequal society is unjust, there are people who work 60 hours a week in a hellhole to make 30,000 a year, while there are people who work 60 hours a week in an office and make 300,000 a year just pushing papers and playing aroun with other peoples' money. I don't think that is fair.

"I in fact value the ability of a individual or society to tower over the rest while they do so on their own strenght. If they do not embrace this because of slave moralitiy they are a very aesthetically displeasing to my eye. However in a odd way I also find activley harming others even for one's own benefit to be equally displeasing."

I too value the ability of a society or nation to tower of the rest, that is what they are meant to do. The same goes for individuals, but this must be watched closely. Often times individuals benefit from something that is bad for the society as a whole, and in this case, the individual's freedom must be curtailed for the good of the society. Additionally, we worship the freedom for individuals to do whatever they want, but this inevitably leads to the crumbling of the society. I believe that society is more important than the individual, and it is much more than simply the sum of a group of individuals. It is an organic whole that has an immeasurable influence on every individual ever brought up in it, past, present, and future. So if the ethos of individualism, and trying to get what's best for yourself, is too strong, it will lead to the disintegration of the society.

"I suscribe somewhat to a "morality as aesthetics" philosophy, and feel no need to change my values or tastes since picking values is arbitrary, so none are really better than others unless judged in a subjective framework. Anyway my own gut advises me against bending my knee to those who think they know what values others should have. "

I disagree with this. I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism. Clearly it's based on more than 'taste,' as people have a lot in common when it comes to morality. And most people in the US are Christians, who would all disagree with such an athestic statement. Additionally, the idea that 'morality is based on taste' is a moral statement itself, with an implied value system. You state that there is no intrinsic morality, but you do so with a moral statement. You make a moral claim, but do not back it up. Also, I believe that such moral relativism is extremely corrosive to a society. People need a set of morals and beliefs that they use to interpret the world around them and live their own lives. We all do to a certain extent, no one has no values, but the lack of ideological homogeneity is destroying the fabric of our society. Community and the church do not have nearly as an important role as they used to, and it is very difficult and confusing to grow up in a society without a true morality. Your gut may not like being told what to believe in, but that's only because you grew up in a very liberal, individualistic society (a very, very recent development in history). People need a set of morals, they always have and always will. Too much freedom and a lack of morality leads to a lack of purpose in life. That's why despite all of the comforts and freedoms provided to us by liberal society (which should make our lives infinitely better than those of the generations before us, according to liberal theory), the rate of depression and suicide is very high in liberal societies today.

"I am convinced that what might seem like radical inegalitarianism to most is the only way any humans can hope to impart any other values upon the transhumans who will succed us and thus I agree with the OP statment."

Please elaborate. It sounds interesting, I'd like to hear more.

[Kuciwalker]

Guys, obviously I understand that what Hera is trying to say is that inequality of opportunity is worse than inequality of outcome, and specifically that it's a bad idea to give benefits to dark people - being Hera, he couldn't mean anything else - but that doesn't excuse the awfulness of the thread title. Nor does the fact that someone else said it before him.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm angry you didn't respond to my posts...

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know what language you're using, but it's automatically awful for overloading the assignment operator.

[NoodleNaught]

The worst kind of inequality is to make black people white.

[C0ckney]

you mean like MJ?

[NoodleNaught]

Your right on the money so to speak. Damn your good.