I'm highly apolitical, so this is a relatively naive and loosely-formed thought. Watching this video about how to go about abolishing hate and racism. https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1182822125144173/ Education is surely to be a key factor in reducing racism on both sides the issue, but it seems to me we will come up to one unresolveable dichotomy. Some flavours of some faiths hold to a belief that women should not have equivalent rights to men. We could simply acknowlege that other cultures have the right to live their lives as they see fit, and it's not our business to "convert" them to "our" ways. But that directly contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which means that, as a people of the Earth, the rest of the world cannot stand by while these women are denied their basic Human Rights. It's easy to say "abolish religions" but that's just not likely to happen any time soon. So, when all is said and done, how is it possible - even in principle - for any peoples of the Earth to respect the views of others while having a duty to intervene when it comes to the oppression of individuals?
Therein lies the double bind. Those who would intervene will invariably do so the support their views.
Yes, their views that see all humans as having equivalent rights. And that means we are duty-bound to act where we see those rights being flouted. Which means stepping on others' toes - even if it's "for the greater good of Mankind." A tough dilemma. It's kind of the "pie sharing" scenario. Bobby wants to eat the whole pie. Billy thinks they should share the pie equally. Bobby thinks it's unfair for Billy to get his way.
One common misconception is that equal rights means equal results. People are born with different levels of ability. Equal rights means the rules are the same for all. However, when the rules are the same for all, the results will not be the same for all, since there are differences in ability. For example, we may all have the equal right to enter the 100M dash, start at the same starting line, and finish at the same finish line. However, not everyone will run the 100 meter dash in 10 seconds. If you assume equal rights means equal results, then you have to tamper with the starting and finish line for different people so everyone gets 10 seconds. But the need to tamper means everyone does not equal rights, since the rules are different for different people. Rules and rights start outside you, while ability starts inside of you. Equal results does not allow equal rights unless all the people have the same ability. Say we attempted to make this equation work, by favoring the weakest with more resources to enhance their ability. The odds are, no matter how much training we devote to 99.99% of the people they will never be able to run the 100Meter in 10 seconds flat. It is a waste of resources. The only way this unique equation of, equality equals ability, might work, is to dumb down the top end. It is easier break the legs of the top 100 fastest people, so they can no longer run 10 meters in 10 second. This will dumb down the top end to say 11 seconds flat, so more people can do it. But that still does not allow the equation in all cases. We may need to break the legs of the new top 100o, while adding even more resources to the rest to create the illusion. This is not rational. The way I resolve this is, humans are analogous to the cells of the body human. Like in our own bodies, different cell types are better at different things, with the sum of all these different skills responsible for the health and vigor of the body. Equal rights allows us all to play by the same rules, so we can find our niche in the body human. Each person should be thankful the best play the roles of the other cells, since this makes the body stronger. It is not about the kidney cell wanting to be a neuron or the neuron wanting to be a white blood cell. This will make the body weaker, even if we could transpose the cells.
How does this inform the topic of this thread? You're suggesting what ? Women should not have the right to choose certain vocations because their choice might weaken society or something?
