TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

View Poll Results: Choose: "diversity" or "equality"?
Diversity 11 78.57%
Equality 1 7.14%
Fish 2 14.29%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 22nd 2017, 03:34 PM

If you had to chose, which would you chose:

EQUALITY

or

DIVERSITY

I ask this, because "equality" and "diversity" are pretty much opposed to each other in their definitions. You can't pursue both at once, without appearing self-contradictory or even hypocritical.

For me the choice is easy: diversity.

Reasons: diversity in an environment ensures competition in that environment. Often people will see competition as "hostile", but in the bigger scheme of things, it's competition that drives people to try and out-perform others by lifting their own game. "Equality" on the other hand just completely stifles competition. What's the point in competing and out-performing another person, if your gains will just be redistributed to the "loser"?

Diversity is natural. Species evolved over time, largely owing to diversity in their environments and competition for resources. In the context of human social sciences this is usually called "pluralism".

Of course, choosing between these two options does not make a person an "extremist". It doesn't make anyone a "communist" or a "Darwinist". In reality, most people probably lie somewhere in the middle between the two options, as with most things. The choice for me was easy because I've already done some thinking about this before.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
Users of TeenHelp have rated post 1277568 as the most helpful or liked. Click here to skip right to it!
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 22nd 2017, 05:10 PM

It depends on what kind of diversity you're referring to. For example, diversity in work ethic should not yield equal pay. That doesnt mean you should just kick lazy people to the curb, but in an actual meritocracy, a hard worker should receive more compensation than a bad worker.
Im supposed to be studying for an exam...
But I chose fish. No clue why.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
FallonRose Offline
Mind Mischief
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
FallonRose's Avatar
 
Name: Fallon
Age: 20
Gender: Female
Location: Wichita, KS

Posts: 289
Join Date: March 16th 2017

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 22nd 2017, 07:08 PM

Paradox much? I guess I would choose diversity but I also want equality. I could go into further detail but I don't really feel like it.




Live Help Mentor 4/29/2017
Message me if you need anything.
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Noire Offline
When is the future?
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
Noire's Avatar
 
Name: Jordan
Age: 28
Gender: Female

Posts: 5,217
Blog Entries: 443
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 22nd 2017, 07:42 PM

I chose diversity, with some caveats.

There's actually a great short story that illustrates the point of diversity, called "Harrison Bergeron," By Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. It starts with the following:

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.

The story basically depicts a dystopian future in which everyone is equal (as stated above) and shows what that would really mean. Everyone is instilled with "handicaps," per the Handicapper General, that will ensure equality. You can read the rest of the story if you want; it's quite good, at least in my opinion.

True "equality" wouldn't be a good thing, and to enforce it you'd have to go to impossible lengths. We are different by nature. Our diversity is what makes us unique, and what's lead to so many great events and great ideas in the course of history, events and ideas that have shaped the world to be what it is today.

However, there's a difference between "equality" as you are describing it and equality in regards to human rights. No, everyone should not necessarily be as smart, strong, beautiful, or talented as one another, but everyone deserves the right to have their basic needs met and to be treated with respect and dignity. There is so much inequality in our world because those who are more powerful fear giving rights to people who aren't as privileged will somehow take away theirs, when that is simply not the case. They fear what is different than their (often) white, male, Christian, straight, and wealthy selves, so they try to suppress equality for all other groups that don't fit into their idea of what "should" be.

So THAT kind of equality is equality I believe in. Not everyone has to be as good or capable as everyone else at xyz, but they do deserve the right to live their lives freely as long as they do no harm to others' belongings or property or to other people themselves. It's not so black and white: diversity is important, but so is the right to have rights, equal rights, respected.


Love joins
Love unites
Love breaks us apart
The power to conquer here in our hearts
Enduring and sacred
Eternal as time
For love, love alone will conquer all


"A Million," by VNV Nation
  Send a message via Yahoo to Noire  
4 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
fallingstargirl Offline
Member
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
fallingstargirl's Avatar
 
Name: Estelle
Age: 18
Gender: Female (she/her)
Location: Virginia, USA

Posts: 542
Join Date: December 19th 2014

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 23rd 2017, 12:35 AM

I guess I'd choose diversity, but I don't think the two things are actually completely exclusive of each other. Maybe they're mutually exclusive in their most complete forms, but in reality, I think we could have both. When I think of equality (and when it's used in politics and in the news) it usually means the equal treatment of people regardless of their differences, not the complete Harrison Bergeron (great story btw) kind of equality. So if we're talking pure dictionary definitions, I'd say diversity is more important, but realistically, both are important and possible.



The opposite of war isn't peace - it's creation
~Jonathan Larson

   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 23rd 2017, 01:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceCommander View Post
So THAT kind of equality is equality I believe in. Not everyone has to be as good or capable as everyone else at xyz, but they do deserve the right to live their lives freely as long as they do no harm to others' belongings or property or to other people themselves. It's not so black and white: diversity is important, but so is the right to have rights, equal rights, respected.
It's impossible for me to disagree with anything that you have said, when I interpret it at face value.

If I were to delve deeper into what you're saying however, by invoking today's political climate, I'd argue that today's movements on the left have pushed their social agenda too far in several areas, and certainly far enough to sway votes to the right.

It's a different topic really, but what ought to be said is this much: if an injustice or the motives behind it cannot be distinctly proven, then they shouldn't by default be assumed to exist.

What this leads to is people correlating two variables with each other (such as "race" and "socioeconomic status"), immediately inferring causality (which would be "racism" in this example), and therefore going on a wild goose chase falsely accusing broad swaths of the population of "racism" when it can't be distinctly proven in the first place. This causes more problems than it solves, by for example inspiring policies which overcompensate in the wrong direction that then cause the kind of backlash that contributed to getting Trump elected. The most recent and relevant real example I've got is briefly described in the introduction of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioX9EmTnQI

__________________________________

That said, I believe in equal rights, and equal opportunity (up to a point, but I won't elaborate now). But I also think another point is important here: that the democratically elected government of a country, is first of all responsible towards the citizens of the country who elected it. It's not the American government's job to enforce or secure "equal rights" for citizens of other countries. The legal system of any country, applies to it's own citizens.

And I say this with regard to every country, not just our countries in the West. I say this, because history has proven how ineffective and/or harmful any other type of government is under normal circumstances during peacetime. Peacetime doesn't last very long when you try to enforce your own laws on foreign land.

Frankly, this is not something that I'm prepared to compromise on, regardless of what terrible things happen in other countries. It pays well to remember that things could always be worse, and that you shouldn't rely on the "inherent good" and "humanity" of any leaders in positions of power who preach altruistic values, who are at the same time thought to display general psychopathic personality traits at a 5x greater rate than the average population. Psychopaths aren't known for their altruism, but they are very capable of faking it if they judge it to be to their own personal benefit. I would be very reluctant to hand over any more power to these people, regardless of what beautifully sounding promises they make to "save the world from itself".

If there is a way of helping other countries, without compromising our own security, values, freedoms, etc. then I'm all for it. If this is possible, without potentially causing domestic anarchy, or alternatively totalitarianism, then I support it. It probably is possible, but it requires more people to approach these problems with a pragmatic mindset, instead of ideological bias (which by itself isn't easy) and without political slogans which reduce complex issues to 3 words on a cardboard sign.

Finally, I want to repeat that I believe that the government of a country should be held accountable towards it's own citizens. I strongly dislike the idea of the American government somehow being held more responsible for uplifting people's standard of living 6000 miles away, than the governments in those regions are held responsible. I don't like the idea of this applying to any government. It's a complex issue that would take me longer to explain in depth than I feel like right now (it's past midnight), but in summary, almost any sort of "intervention" like this comes with strings attached, bargains made under the table at other people's expense, corruption, and all sorts of nasty long-term side-effects. Why? Because the government is effectively acting outside of it's jurisdiction. Because the government that undertakes such action on foreign soil, is not being held accountable by the people living there, because it's not their government. It's foolish to expect the American government to act by default in the interests of other countries (even if they say they are), as it is foolish to expect other countries to act in the interests of America, unless there are specific tangible agreements and treaties in place, and even then there will still be plenty of shady business going on.

Basically, there currently isn't any working democratic framework that ensures this sort of international cooperation. The European Union is the closest attempt, and it's a pretty lousy attempt at that. Comparatively, the UN (United Nations) was founded on values such as "democracy", but again, it appears largely unanswerable to any average citizen (though I'll admit that I've taken relatively little interest in the activities of the UN).

And for such a democratic framework to work in the fist place, certain conditions also need to be satisfied, such as a certain minimum level of education (among others).

It's an entire clusterfuck of problems that generally seems best avoided.

.



"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Jess~ Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Jess~'s Avatar
 
Name: jess
Age: 20
Gender: chick with an imaginary dick
Location: hell

Posts: 908
Blog Entries: 10
Join Date: November 26th 2012

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 25th 2017, 06:18 PM

Diversity, with mutual respect of each other as equals. Why is that so hard for people to do?


i don't know what i'm supposed to do
haunted by the ghost of you
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
CanadaCraig Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
CanadaCraig's Avatar
 
Age: 55
Gender: Male

Posts: 854
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 25th 2017, 06:29 PM

Hello!

I think the 'diversity' is reality and 'equality' is fantasy.

We need to celebrate what IS and stop allowing ourselves to be shamed for what can never be.

GBH - Craig
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
ThisWillDestroyYou's Avatar
 
Name: Michael
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,050
Join Date: July 5th 2011

Re: Choose: "Equality" or "Diversity" - March 26th 2017, 08:45 PM

Can you define what you're presuming to be equality and diversity? And in what context? I don't see them being diametrically opposed.

For example, in the work place, if people are to be given equal rights, and equal opportunity in naturally leads to a diverse workplace.

Or in voting, if everyone is given the equal right to vote (e.g. women in the 1920s in the U.S.) it naturally leads to more diverse politics (arguably in this case, divorce and birth control).

Or in hiring, you might say you want "diversity" for more competition, but unless people are given equal grounds as their competition, they can't compete (take the presidency in the U.S. for example, its typically rich minorities who are white-- how can someone who makes 16K a year compete with this when they can't even run a standard ad campaign? Are they losers simply because they weren't born into a rich family?).

Lastly, in your original post you seem to assume that competition is good, which is another ethical question entirely. In fact, it's simply the logical fallacy of begging the question as you've currently worded it. And you're entire post seems to propose social darwinism. There are no "winners" and "losers" in society. Societies either succeed or fail as a whole. This would suggest in my former example of women's rights that prior to 1920 they were "losers." Which is a complete crock of shit.


"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
- Carl Sagan
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
choose, diversity, equality

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright 1998-2018, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.