Search the Community

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/melbourne-university-opens-up-jobs-to-women-applicants-only/7426704 Hmmm "Equal opportunity act allows for positive discrimination" ...anyone else see something OFF with that... lol

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM&persist_app=1&app=m

I made a second video. This time about gender equality. I don't think it's such the great thing that people love to say that it is, and here's my thinking on that: I'd love to hear what you think!

Being in real estate, I'm always reading industry news and I came across an article that really stood out to me and after researching more.. it turns out this isn't a novel idea. Apparently this is a growing trend in big cities like London and NYC. With prices in large cities climbing higher and higher, new housing developments are being required to include a certain percentage of 'affordable housing' options in order to get final 'planning permission.' So these upscale developers are addressing this 'problem' by adding 'alternative' side entrances for the building's lower-income residents. Often, it's not just a side alley entrance for 'poor people' but entirely separate common elements like mailboxes, garbage disposal facilities, and staircases. So this literally creates a separation of the 'affordable' housing condos from the rest of the luxury development.. so the rich people never have to accidentally run into the 'lower class' condo owners while living in the same building. My initial reaction was that this is pretty crazy and I couldn't believe these 'poor doors' were being approved by the housing authorities in these cities, but then those same authorities were the ones mandating these 'affordable' units before approving the whole project in the first place! I get that they want a diverse mix of residents in very expensive cities but this is just an example of how screwed up the Fed's inflation policies are... the rich spend their money like it's water because otherwise that money looses value through inflation, so they don't care about paying more and more for the condo units, but how do we, as a general society deal with this new 'class segregation?' Here's the article about the new condo building in NYC: http://www.newsweek.com/new-york-city-approves-poor-door-luxury-apartment-building-260218

I am not the first to raise this question, without a doubt. Still, I find it more curious than ever, to wonder maybe human society - naturally - is supposed to propagate only few serious Thinkers in each group / tribe. Could it be that nature designed us, as animals, to have a very limited amount of people capable of deep strategic and logical thinking? Maybe replace that with 'people who see it as their duty and profession to think deeply, strategically and logically.' And if so, does that mean that - in order to not be fascists, it is the role of the Thinkers, to convince the general population of possible future strategies, for the entire society? And, yet, if so, could it possibly mean that a big chunk of what the Thinkers should focus on, is their skill in convincing the general population? Maybe even excluding the other Thinkers from that part of the process? And, finally, if so, could the "human problem" originate in the fact that in modern society, most people don't have a specific Thinker, or group of Thinkers, that they personally know and trust? Just like people have their trusted doctor, or cook, or even plumber. What do you think?

Equality is an idea that seems to be universally spoken about as if it is desirable, and that desiring equality is a good thing. I am starting to think that it is not, and that desiring equality is actually an evil (for lack of a better word) desire. I will argue this by focusing on wealth equality, although the principles apply to all forms of equality. If someone desires wealth equality, then they desire poor people to be richer and, importantly, they desire rich people to be poorer. Both desires are necessary since both desires will achieve a greater level of wealth equality. If a person wants poor people to be richer but does not want rich people to be poorer, then it is inaccurate to say that they desire equality, even though making poor people richer will result in a greater level of equality (equality is not the desire, it is an unintended consequence of achieving the desire, the desire is to make poor people richer). I think we all accept that being richer is better, and a richer person will have a better life than a poor one. 4 things result from this belief: 1. Desiring a poor person to be richer is good 2. Desiring a poor person to be poorer is evil 3. Desiring a rich person to be richer is good 4. Desiring a rich person to be poorer is evil Since a person who desires equality wants rich people to have a life that is less good than it currently is, it must be true that a desire for equality is an evil desire. A person who only desires good, desires both rich and poor people to be richer, and does not desire equality. Your thoughts?