Oh, the example with the language was interesting, also that you admitted you assumed a male surgeon. I'm not sure if it has something to do with a real prejudice or superficiality. To come to the right solution, I think it involves trying to put yourself in the situation like an actor who prepares for his role authentically. Possibly this would lead to a different solution to the puzzle than listening purely to a theoretically abstract story without any real emotional involvement. Incidentally, I " was fooled " just as much as you were.
However, I see equality as a questionable installation, something artificially created that you simply cannot create artificially, but which can develop slowly and organically. So I am for equality, but not for quotas. I am in favour of people who are disabled being treated equally, but not that they should sue for official preferential treatment. Those who treat people equally only when they have to seek a quota or a law will not get it right, even after the law has been enforced, but will simply bow to the arm of the law. In my life experience, those who get most upset about inequality and demand laws or quotas are those who have a conscious or unconscious agenda in doing so: For example, to be the hero who bails out the weak and needy and elevates themselves narcissistically, someone who doesn't believe in negotiating every single situation individually without immediately taking legal action or making a big PR campaign out of it because it is also economically interesting.
Women need not be seen as victims and need not see themselves as such. Where a victim mentality spreads, dignity is no longer in good shape.
Thanks for your well thought out responses; I really appreciate them! :-)
So, I feel I need to explain something about how I look at all this... You seem to juxtapose a moral argument with a legal one. What I mean is that it seems you're alright with "equality" when it comes natural, but not when it's coded into law. About that I would say that "law" is exactly "coded morality". We, humans, come from tribal past, and in the tribe we were "equal"; studies of the tribal people that had survived until the last century showed that. In the tribe, that had a maximum of 500 people and were typically 50 - 200 people, we knew everyone and the moral behavior came naturally. That doesn't work in tribes the size of a nation, which is why we make official rules, laws.
When you think in these terms, there are no "victims" and there also is no "equality" in the sense of "sameness". Lastly you explain the motivation for what we call "virtue signalling", something I despise. But... There's nothing wrong with helping people or fighting for coded morality to make oneself feel good about oneself; I, like most people I believe, get a good feeling when I help someone; I hope you do too.
Then I express myself more clearly and use this metaphor:
“kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
That is the type of "helping" I was talking about.
Companies or Charity-Organizations, which want to "do good" and to "feel good" by abusing what they see as "to be fixed" in the world (poor Africans and other so called third world countries)
To give you the whole quote:
“The reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren’t, shall I put it like that? We aren’t better because we want to be. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Because all the do-gooders in the world whether they’re doing good for others or doing it for themselves are troublemakers: on the basis of “kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. Sometimes doing good to others and even doing good to oneself is amazingly destructive because it’s full of conceit. How do you know what’s good for other people? How do you know what’s good for you? If you say you want to improve then you ought to know what’s good for you, but obviously you don’t because if you did then you would be improved. So, we don’t know. We do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is.” —Alan Watts
Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. Is that a good enough reason to abandon good intentions? I think not. Does that mean there's nothing "to be fixed"? Again: I think not. There are institutions, like corporations and so called Charity Organizations whose intentions weren't good to begin with; you can blame capitalism for that. Not just human greed, but the human greed on steroids that is the result of a system that values profits and "the bottom-line" above anything else. Lastly; "democracy" is also artificial...
Without cheating or looking anywhere, I'd say he stays for three days and four nights, which makes a whole week again, so he stays in the place from Friday to Friday.
But then I read at the end that the cowboy's horse is called "Friday" and the matter is all too easy. He rides Friday, the horse, so he can only have come and gone on that horse. HaHa!
So actually it's all about attentive reading, or reading a puzzle through to the end. LOL
Thanks for the amusement. :)
I will read the rest of the text on the next occasion and will probably give you feedback.
There is no such thing as equality - it is an abstract concept.
Biases are inherent in every decision that we make, and has nothing to do with the subject in question. Bias is essential for survival.
...And virtue signalling is intellectually weak.
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You distributed more than 27000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 28000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the wordSTOP
Oh, the example with the language was interesting, also that you admitted you assumed a male surgeon. I'm not sure if it has something to do with a real prejudice or superficiality. To come to the right solution, I think it involves trying to put yourself in the situation like an actor who prepares for his role authentically. Possibly this would lead to a different solution to the puzzle than listening purely to a theoretically abstract story without any real emotional involvement. Incidentally, I " was fooled " just as much as you were.
However, I see equality as a questionable installation, something artificially created that you simply cannot create artificially, but which can develop slowly and organically. So I am for equality, but not for quotas. I am in favour of people who are disabled being treated equally, but not that they should sue for official preferential treatment. Those who treat people equally only when they have to seek a quota or a law will not get it right, even after the law has been enforced, but will simply bow to the arm of the law. In my life experience, those who get most upset about inequality and demand laws or quotas are those who have a conscious or unconscious agenda in doing so: For example, to be the hero who bails out the weak and needy and elevates themselves narcissistically, someone who doesn't believe in negotiating every single situation individually without immediately taking legal action or making a big PR campaign out of it because it is also economically interesting.
Women need not be seen as victims and need not see themselves as such. Where a victim mentality spreads, dignity is no longer in good shape.
Thanks for your well thought out responses; I really appreciate them! :-)
So, I feel I need to explain something about how I look at all this... You seem to juxtapose a moral argument with a legal one. What I mean is that it seems you're alright with "equality" when it comes natural, but not when it's coded into law. About that I would say that "law" is exactly "coded morality". We, humans, come from tribal past, and in the tribe we were "equal"; studies of the tribal people that had survived until the last century showed that. In the tribe, that had a maximum of 500 people and were typically 50 - 200 people, we knew everyone and the moral behavior came naturally. That doesn't work in tribes the size of a nation, which is why we make official rules, laws.
When you think in these terms, there are no "victims" and there also is no "equality" in the sense of "sameness". Lastly you explain the motivation for what we call "virtue signalling", something I despise. But... There's nothing wrong with helping people or fighting for coded morality to make oneself feel good about oneself; I, like most people I believe, get a good feeling when I help someone; I hope you do too.
Then I express myself more clearly and use this metaphor:
That is the type of "helping" I was talking about.
Companies or Charity-Organizations, which want to "do good" and to "feel good" by abusing what they see as "to be fixed" in the world (poor Africans and other so called third world countries)
To give you the whole quote:
Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. Is that a good enough reason to abandon good intentions? I think not. Does that mean there's nothing "to be fixed"? Again: I think not. There are institutions, like corporations and so called Charity Organizations whose intentions weren't good to begin with; you can blame capitalism for that. Not just human greed, but the human greed on steroids that is the result of a system that values profits and "the bottom-line" above anything else. Lastly; "democracy" is also artificial...
Without cheating or looking anywhere, I'd say he stays for three days and four nights, which makes a whole week again, so he stays in the place from Friday to Friday.
But then I read at the end that the cowboy's horse is called "Friday" and the matter is all too easy. He rides Friday, the horse, so he can only have come and gone on that horse. HaHa!
So actually it's all about attentive reading, or reading a puzzle through to the end. LOL
Thanks for the amusement. :)
I will read the rest of the text on the next occasion and will probably give you feedback.
Thanks for responding @erh.germany :-)
There is no such thing as equality - it is an abstract concept.
Biases are inherent in every decision that we make, and has nothing to do with the subject in question. Bias is essential for survival.
...And virtue signalling is intellectually weak.
Is telling people you don't "virtue signal" just another type of "virtue signal"?
Indeed it is.
The post reblogged and upvoted by me
Thank you @zyx066
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 28000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP