Intergalactic Summit

You... Have just solved SO many problems!

You are funny one. In general, as I already told: "As long you are happy with my first point, you are the person which does not understand the Federation. And I have not seen any criticism from you about that point." A caldari would not have a problem with inequality, but a Fed-citizen should. That a caldari roles with unequality is not surprising, as they only between see equality in their entity-castes, but not towards the non-entity-caste and foreigners. I would even go so far to say, that they do not help those people (which have not choose to be there, unlike some would claim) because the caldari are working with my old point 3. As well as truefully with point 1 and 2. They only would give it a different name and would do add some exceptions for those which are still a entity-caste, but the core is the same. They justify it with other words, but the end product is the same: Social selection. Where a whole caste can not enjoy public institutions. As I said to Leopold Caine those people are maybe individually selected, but this does not change the nature of their doing. It just means that they do a individually based natural selection and call it: Meritocracy.

So maybe you should also focus your childish rage towards those people which do not respect the ideals of the Federation. Or are one of those which belive that humans are unqual? In the end saying that humans are unqual is the base for their actions.

There are always things on high shelves. And the taller you get, the higher they build 'em.

I shall fetch you one of our finest boxes to stand on, suuolo.

Fredfredbug4 just take Pieter Tuulinen. For him that his daily live is ruled by the "strongest"; or how he would put it: The person which is most fitted for a position. This fact would never be a problem for him. I would even so far go and say, that he belives that strongest should see their wealth and power increase while the weak (or how he would say, the unfit ones.) should see their wealth and power decrease. This concept is quiet easy: If your fit for a position your a good, even seen as "strong". If you are not fit for a postion you are "weak". The more you are fit for a postion which is deeply needed, the more you increase your wealth and power. The other side would be: The less you are fit for a postion and needed overall, the less wealth and power you have. Which is all fine, but the State takes this principle to a maximum as can be seen in the none-entity-caste. And they can do this actions, or lets say inactions, because for them humans are unequal. Thats why it is easy and legit for State to exclude people of public goods .

Moreover, that the non-entity-caste can not enjoy public institutions (and their public goods), which they ones helped to provide. Fredfredbug4 you can call what you like, but in the end it is my point 3. That they focus this action on the non-entity-caste does not change the nature of this action.
Now to go back to my old point 2: "That we all subject of evolution and natural selection." I believe when Pieter Tuulinen is saying that his entity-caste friend Saya Ishikari is equal for him (in a Ferderation sense: A human with rights, can consum public goods, etc...), or as he phrase it: Person with a purpose. But this is not the interesting question. The interesting question is what does he sees in her when she is no longer part of a entity-caste? When she is member of the non-entity-caste. Do you think, that a caladri would still see a purpose in her? Would they see her as a person which deserves public goods (security, etc) and rights (legal representation, etc)? If yes? Why do not see such action taken from individuals or state institutions? If no, what does this fact say about the State? I reword my old point 3 for this point: All public institutions which are working for individuals of the non-entity-caste, working in truth againts the self-interest of the State. I would argue that this point is the true nature what some person think, and true nature how they legitimize their in actions and inactions towards certain individuals.

You are funny. By the way you still have not answer my question. Do you really think, that I take your "It's up to God to make those decisions" cop out as an answer. So again: Why are people unequal for you? In which why they are unequal for you? Do all people deserve rights for you? If the latter question is answer with: "Dude, listen man.... for me people have equal rights." then you should understand that for you humans are equal. And your criticism was point 1-3, but you were to stupid to see it.

Go back and re-read because I answered your question. People are unequal. Why? Because it's how it is. The universe is unequal in it's design. You're saying nothing noteable with that kind of comment.

I believe most people should have equal rights until they do something that would merit removal of rights. Criminals deserve less rights because of their history. Beyond that, rights should be equal. Just because someone has inequalities doesn't mean they should be restricted of their rights. There's simply no sound reasoning for that, but provide some if you can. My criticisms, as you stated earlier, were points 2, 3, & 4: not 1.

Mainly, my issue was with your notion that institutions who help people are a bad thing. I made examples of why this is a rediculous notion; examples you never addressed.

So then, how would you suggest care for infants, the sick, and the elderly, who could all be considered biologically unequal?

-Eran

You are really funny. So I shorten your lines: "people have equal rights, but some dont".... as for the point, why some people (ciminals, non-entiy-caste, etc...) should not have equal rights, I let you here with some other empyearns.... And you people can fight over it, who should have rights and who does/should not. Sadly I really have to go.


- P.S. Do not forget to donate some ISK on my account.

Ah, alright. Fair enough.

What your pathetic reading comprehension is failing to pick up is that I don't care about your points. What Im concerned with right now is the fact your identity is a complete fake.

If a man doesn't have any self respect about who he is, why should I respect him?