Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gender, Race, and Age are meaningless.

markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 9:43:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool:

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 11:59:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Before we accept other people for who they are, we must imperatively first, accept who are. We share similar genetic composition for physical attributes, yet conversely differ in culture, societal structures, philosophies, and various other abstracts that induce perceptible disparities amongst us. I agree with what you are conveying, but unfortunately, I do not think that it will be practical to terminate discrimination.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:21:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps the solution is to realize there are differences, and that by acknowledging differences is not inherently saying one is superior to another.

Further, acknowledging that a member of any group is not beholden to the characteristics I may apply to said groups, and should be thought of as an individual.

So:
A person is not exactly like their group.
A group may be different, and thus superior in a specific instance; however, that does not mean the group is superior overall.

Just try not to generalize.
My work here is, finally, done.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:27:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Why age? I think age is distinct. It isn't simply a general, genetic physical state, it is also indicative of a given stage of development. I think that considerations must be made regarding those stages of development, but past adulthood, I agree wholeheartedly.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:35:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I can agree that gender or race make no difference, as they do not affect the intelectual capacities of people. Although age does, and thus I do not accept that people on different ages are the same.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 11:59:05 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Before we accept other people for who they are, we must imperatively first, accept who are. We share similar genetic composition for physical attributes, yet conversely differ in culture, societal structures, philosophies, and various other abstracts that induce perceptible disparities amongst us. I agree with what you are conveying, but unfortunately, I do not think that it will be practical to terminate discrimination.

Change comes slowly if it ever does. We are a society focused on things that make no difference. We are consumed by them. This distraction will never allow us to realize the full potential of people who should never have been defined by race, age, or gender.

People have a right to discriminate. I just wish they wouldn't use physical traits that are beyond another person's control.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:44:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:27:39 AM, Such wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Why age? I think age is distinct. It isn't simply a general, genetic physical state, it is also indicative of a given stage of development. I think that considerations must be made regarding those stages of development, but past adulthood, I agree wholeheartedly.

Age is a made up entity. Our system of time was created by someone for the purpose of making business run more smoothly. There is no way to determine a person's age. Therefore, age is meaningless.

People of any age are capable of anything anyone else is. Everyday now, we hear people of younger and younger ages doing incredible things. Watch America's Got Talent or read any number of news articles or even social media.

How much do we contribute to what a person does by defining specific stages of development? If we removed stages of development all together and let a person evolve at their own pace without restrictions based on age, I wonder how much more we can benefit as a society. I'd love to find out. Wouldn't you?
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:45:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 9:43:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:

<(8D)

I don't do emoticons well. You'd have to tell me what that means.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:51:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:35:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I can agree that gender or race make no difference, as they do not affect the intelectual capacities of people. Although age does, and thus I do not accept that people on different ages are the same.

I agree people of different ages are not the same. Therefore, age is meaningless. You can have people of two different ages that function completely different.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:12:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:21:40 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Perhaps the solution is to realize there are differences, and that by acknowledging differences is not inherently saying one is superior to another.


Or we could just drop the whole group concept and deal with people as individuals based on their own merit.

I am assuming you mean one group as opposed to one individual.

Further, acknowledging that a member of any group is not beholden to the characteristics I may apply to said groups, and should be thought of as an individual.

I say we just eliminate groups all together. Then we can think of people as individuals regardless.

So:
A person is not exactly like their group.
A group may be different, and thus superior in a specific instance; however, that does not mean the group is superior overall.

Then why have groups at all.

Just try not to generalize.

That's the reason we don't want groups. People tend to generalize. Why make it any easier on those that do?
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:27:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
My comment doesn't warrant a response, I see.

Sorry, of course it does. I just didn't see how it pertained to this topic. My bad.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:21:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:12:33 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:21:40 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Perhaps the solution is to realize there are differences, and that by acknowledging differences is not inherently saying one is superior to another.


Or we could just drop the whole group concept and deal with people as individuals based on their own merit.

I am assuming you mean one group as opposed to one individual.

Further, acknowledging that a member of any group is not beholden to the characteristics I may apply to said groups, and should be thought of as an individual.

I say we just eliminate groups all together. Then we can think of people as individuals regardless.

So:
A person is not exactly like their group.
A group may be different, and thus superior in a specific instance; however, that does not mean the group is superior overall.

Then why have groups at all.

Just try not to generalize.

That's the reason we don't want groups. People tend to generalize. Why make it any easier on those that do?

Why are labels bad?
Women can produce children. Men cannot. That is a pretty important label if one wants to have a child.
Are all labels bad then? Should we seriously interview a ten year old for a CEO position? What about someone who has no business experience?

Labels are part of human nature. It is how we categorize and interpret information.
Think of advertisements.
Imagine a billboard that is trying to depict a family.
Imagine if it was two white dudes and two black dudes all about the same age.
How are we to interpret that as a family as opposed to a group of friends?

The smaller the group, the better, and we can debate on what is a valid assessment of any group, but to say they are meaningless is just silly.
My work here is, finally, done.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:26:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 10:51:30 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:35:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I can agree that gender or race make no difference, as they do not affect the intelectual capacities of people. Although age does, and thus I do not accept that people on different ages are the same.

I agree people of different ages are not the same. Therefore, age is meaningless. You can have people of two different ages that function completely different.

I don't think I understand you. So age is a definitory trait of someone's capacities, but it is somehow meaningless? How is that?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:42:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

We are indeed all human. However, I think that gender, race, and age all have meaning. That meaning doesn't have to lead to discrimination; in fact, in my opinion an important part of tolerance is understanding and appreciating these differences.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:42:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

We are indeed all human. However, I think that gender, race, and age all have meaning. That meaning doesn't have to lead to discrimination; in fact, in my opinion an important part of tolerance is understanding and appreciating these differences.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 10:44:41 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:27:39 AM, Such wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Why age? I think age is distinct. It isn't simply a general, genetic physical state, it is also indicative of a given stage of development. I think that considerations must be made regarding those stages of development, but past adulthood, I agree wholeheartedly.

Age is a made up entity. Our system of time was created by someone for the purpose of making business run more smoothly. There is no way to determine a person's age. Therefore, age is meaningless.

As I indicated initially, age is indicative of a given stage of development, which is not made up, and instead observed. It has nothing to do with business, and instead the mental, physical, and emotional capacities of people. It is possible to determine a person's stage of development, and it almost always coincides with a given age range. Therefore, as it pertains to development, age is not at all meaningless.

People of any age are capable of anything anyone else is.

This certainly isn't true. I think the most obvious example is that an adult can physically destroy any five year old, without exception.

Everyday now, we hear people of younger and younger ages doing incredible things. Watch America's Got Talent or read any number of news articles or even social media.

How much do we contribute to what a person does by defining specific stages of development? If we removed stages of development all together and let a person evolve at their own pace without restrictions based on age, I wonder how much more we can benefit as a society. I'd love to find out. Wouldn't you?

We contribute quite a bit, mostly in regard to preventing the exploitation and abuse of young people. There's also a great deal applied to helping facilitate healthy development.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:21:40 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Perhaps the solution is to realize there are differences, and that by acknowledging differences is not inherently saying one is superior to another.

Further, acknowledging that a member of any group is not beholden to the characteristics I may apply to said groups, and should be thought of as an individual.

So:
A person is not exactly like their group.
A group may be different, and thus superior in a specific instance; however, that does not mean the group is superior overall.

Just try not to generalize.

Agreed.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:08:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:26:05 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 10:51:30 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:35:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I can agree that gender or race make no difference, as they do not affect the intelectual capacities of people. Although age does, and thus I do not accept that people on different ages are the same.

I agree people of different ages are not the same. Therefore, age is meaningless. You can have people of two different ages that function completely different.

I don't think I understand you. So age is a definitory trait of someone's capacities, but it is somehow meaningless? How is that?

I never said age defines a person or their capacities. I don't believe it does. So that's why it's meaningless.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:34:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why are labels bad?

Labels are the worse possible thing you can do to a person. You've now taken away their identity and falsely lumped them in with many others who share a common trait or a supposed common trait.

You allow yourself the easy way out. Label someone and you don't need to get to know them. Use a physical trait as a label and you can dismiss a person that through no fault of their own, has that same physical trait.

Labeling is lazy, stupid, and wrong. Getting to know someone takes work. But it's well worth the effort when they connect with you on an individual basis.

Women can produce children. Men cannot. That is a pretty important label if one wants to have a child.

Here's an idea. Just ask. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she can have a child. So why lump them all into that category based on their gender?

Are all labels bad then? Should we seriously interview a ten year old for a CEO position? What about someone who has no business experience?

All labels are bad. No one should be labeled.

Yes. If the person offering the position wants a 10 year old CEO, then yes. That's a decision for an employer to make. Do we not have royalty that is younger in age? I seem to recall some countries will install very young leaders to be the head of their countries.

People are hired to positions all the time without experience. They are called trainee's.

Labels are part of human nature. It is how we categorize and interpret information.

Just because something is part of human nature, doesn't make it right. I seem to recall women and blacks not allowed to vote and that changed. I seem to recall slavery was the norm in certain states and that changed. Through education. Things can change.

People can categorize and interpret information in many ways. Labeling is not necessary to do that. It might be easier, but it's not necessary. And what information are we talking about?

Think of advertisements.
Imagine a billboard that is trying to depict a family.
Imagine if it was two white dudes and two black dudes all about the same age.
How are we to interpret that as a family as opposed to a group of friends?

A family is any group of people that love each other. That's how I define family. How do you define family? That way I can answer your question better.

Does anyone even care how a family is defined anymore?

I hate advertisements. So whatever an advertiser is trying to accomplish with their unwanted intrusions into my life, I could care less.

The smaller the group, the better, and we can debate on what is a valid assessment of any group, but to say they are meaningless is just silly.

If a person wants to define themselves based on a group they belong to, then so be it. But to take someone and place them into a group based on race, age, or gender is morally wrong. Ask them first if they want to be defined by a physical characteristic. I'm sure you'd want someone to ask you before they place you into some group based on race, age, or gender.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:42:12 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

We are indeed all human. However, I think that gender, race, and age all have meaning. That meaning doesn't have to lead to discrimination; in fact, in my opinion an important part of tolerance is understanding and appreciating these differences.

Explain to me why those three things have meaning to you personally.

There would be no discrimination associated with race, age, and gender if we eliminated everything based on those three physical traits. Why take a chance when we can eliminate it entirely.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:40:06 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:42:12 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

We are indeed all human. However, I think that gender, race, and age all have meaning. That meaning doesn't have to lead to discrimination; in fact, in my opinion an important part of tolerance is understanding and appreciating these differences.

Explain to me why those three things have meaning to you personally.

There would be no discrimination associated with race, age, and gender if we eliminated everything based on those three physical traits. Why take a chance when we can eliminate it entirely.

Because you'd be also eliminating what is special about those groups!
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:10:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:47:28 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/15/2014 10:44:41 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:27:39 AM, Such wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

Why age? I think age is distinct. It isn't simply a general, genetic physical state, it is also indicative of a given stage of development. I think that considerations must be made regarding those stages of development, but past adulthood, I agree wholeheartedly.

Age is a made up entity. Our system of time was created by someone for the purpose of making business run more smoothly. There is no way to determine a person's age. Therefore, age is meaningless.

As I indicated initially, age is indicative of a given stage of development, which is not made up, and instead observed. It has nothing to do with business, and instead the mental, physical, and emotional capacities of people. It is possible to determine a person's stage of development, and it almost always coincides with a given age range. Therefore, as it pertains to development, age is not at all meaningless.

Thank you for your opinion on this. We'll just agree to disagree. To add anything else, I'd just be repeating myself.

I will add just this.

I'd prefer to have the individual tell me what their stage of development is and not go by some generalized chart. I think that shows more respect for them.

People of any age are capable of anything anyone else is.

This certainly isn't true. I think the most obvious example is that an adult can physically destroy any five year old, without exception.

This is why we don't want generalizations based on age. What you've stated is simply not true? What you've stated you don't have to prove. You've put that on the person that disagrees with you. Is that really how you prove your points? If it is, then I'll make the same comment and let someone else prove me wrong.

A 5 year old can physically destroy an adult. Wouldn't take much for a 5 year old to pull the plug on a person in a coma on a respirator they require for life support.

Everyday now, we hear people of younger and younger ages doing incredible things. Watch America's Got Talent or read any number of news articles or even social media.

How much do we contribute to what a person does by defining specific stages of development? If we removed stages of development all together and let a person evolve at their own pace without restrictions based on age, I wonder how much more we can benefit as a society. I'd love to find out. Wouldn't you?

We contribute quite a bit, mostly in regard to preventing the exploitation and abuse of young people. There's also a great deal applied to helping facilitate healthy development.

People of all ages are abused. That is not age specific.

A person who believes they have the same rights as anyone else has a better chance of avoiding abuse than someone who has been told they are not capable of taking care of themselves based on their age. Abuse problems are created by the very point you're trying to make. You have yet to state any issue that is based on age alone. Everything you've said can be applied to anyone of any age in our society.

Healthy development is being able to live your life as you see fit at any age as opposed to being told how to live by someone who isn't living your life.

Here's some additional points:

You were young. Did you feel you could do things that older people said you couldn't because they told you you were too young?

Have you ever said to a younger person that they couldn't do something based on their age even though you never asked if they could or even let them try?

How does letting someone of any age do something effect you personally? You are not the parent to every younger person out there. Why so unwilling to drop this whole development thing? I take it you're not a child. It's of no use to you anymore. Or are you raising every person in the world that happens to fall within your development theory?

Can we be honest? You, like me, really have nothing to lose by giving people that are not our age the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we enjoy for ourselves.

How would you feel if I said to you that you couldn't possibly be having this conversation with me because I don't feel you are capable of doing so based on your age?

It's easy to feel others are incapable of doing something when we don't fall into the category of the person we are trying to say can't do something. Am I right? Or are you a 5 year old telling me you fall into some development chart and I am wrong for wanting to treat you like a person and not an age?
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:11:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:34:16 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
Why are labels bad?

Labels are the worse possible thing you can do to a person. You've now taken away their identity and falsely lumped them in with many others who share a common trait or a supposed common trait.
Why is an identity wholly dependent upon one or two aspects?
If I say a 90 year old man is too feeble to employ at my business, I am concerned with only one aspect: his hire-ability.

Is it wrong to label you are a Republican because you vote for one?
Is it wrong to label you one, even if you don't identify as one, if your views are in line with them?
Is it wrong to assume that, as a republican, you believe in X, Y, and Z?
No, none of that is wrong.

Is it wrong to assume you are an evil republican bastard like Sean Hannity or a moron like Sarah Palin or crazy like Michelle Bachmann? Yes, but that is a RESULT of the label, not in the labeling itself.

You allow yourself the easy way out. Label someone and you don't need to get to know them. Use a physical trait as a label and you can dismiss a person that through no fault of their own, has that same physical trait.
Or, I am maximizing my efforts by eliminating time wasted pursuing leads that are likely to go no where.

Labeling is lazy, stupid, and wrong. Getting to know someone takes work. But it's well worth the effort when they connect with you on an individual basis.
And work takes time.
Why do you label me with the luxury of having time to waste to get to know everyone?

Women can produce children. Men cannot. That is a pretty important label if one wants to have a child.

Here's an idea. Just ask. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she can have a child. So why lump them all into that category based on their gender?
Can you have a child?
Now, wasn't that a silly thing to ask? I'll go over to the boys club and waste my time trying to convince them to bear me a child, now.

Did I say every woman could?
If one wants to have a child (and is a man), they must find a woman. Pure and simple.
Further, a pubescent and pre-menopausal woman (age).


Are all labels bad then? Should we seriously interview a ten year old for a CEO position? What about someone who has no business experience?

All labels are bad. No one should be labeled.
Isn't this, itself, a label?

Yes. If the person offering the position wants a 10 year old CEO, then yes. That's a decision for an employer to make. Do we not have royalty that is younger in age? I seem to recall some countries will install very young leaders to be the head of their countries.
Misses the entire point of my question.

People are hired to positions all the time without experience. They are called trainee's.
Given the context, this was asking if someone with no business experience should be seriously considered to be CEO, not hired for any job.


Labels are part of human nature. It is how we categorize and interpret information.

Just because something is part of human nature, doesn't make it right.
True.
I seem to recall women and blacks not allowed to vote and that changed.
Voting isn't an issue of human nature.
I seem to recall slavery was the norm in certain states and that changed. Through education. Things can change.
How is slavery human nature?

Are you seriously comparing slavery to human nature?
Yes, slavery was rationalized via human nature, but you seemed to miss that step.

People can categorize and interpret information in many ways.
All of which are labels, aren't they?
Name one other way to categorize information that doesn't label.
Labeling is not necessary to do that. It might be easier, but it's not necessary. And what information are we talking about?
Whatever is being addressed and prudent.
How about focusing time and energy on women if I want a child?
How about looking at not a child for a CEO position?


Think of advertisements.
Imagine a billboard that is trying to depict a family.
Imagine if it was two white dudes and two black dudes all about the same age.
How are we to interpret that as a family as opposed to a group of friends?

A family is any group of people that love each other. That's how I define family. How do you define family? That way I can answer your question better.
No, I'm asking you how an advertiser is to represent a family.

Does anyone even care how a family is defined anymore?
They do when they are trying to advertise to them.
Seeing a man chase after a kid on a bicycle has a different meaning if the man is a father, neighbor, or stranger, after all.

I hate advertisements. So whatever an advertiser is trying to accomplish with their unwanted intrusions into my life, I could care less.
I could care less about your label of advertisements.
I could also care less about you avoiding the spirit of the question.

The smaller the group, the better, and we can debate on what is a valid assessment of any group, but to say they are meaningless is just silly.

If a person wants to define themselves based on a group they belong to, then so be it.
No, you said this was wrong, since they are labeling not only themselves, but others in their group.
But to take someone and place them into a group based on race, age, or gender is morally wrong.
I think your logic is missing a step here.
Ask them first if they want to be defined by a physical characteristic.
It's irrelevant, since you said it was morally wrong to do so.
I'm sure you'd want someone to ask you before they place you into some group based on race, age, or gender.
No, I wouldn't want that. Why would I?
I am a man. I don't need to be asked if I am.
Does that mean that all I care about is sex, as men are prone to do? No.
But, the issue there is not in the labeling me as a man, it is assigning a characteristic to me based on nothing more than the fact I am a man, and then acting on said assumption.

Some characteristics are not wrong. Others are debatable. Others are wrong.
Labels are a tool.
My work here is, finally, done.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:41:52 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:40:06 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:42:12 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

We are indeed all human. However, I think that gender, race, and age all have meaning. That meaning doesn't have to lead to discrimination; in fact, in my opinion an important part of tolerance is understanding and appreciating these differences.

Explain to me why those three things have meaning to you personally.

There would be no discrimination associated with race, age, and gender if we eliminated everything based on those three physical traits. Why take a chance when we can eliminate it entirely.

Because you'd be also eliminating what is special about those groups!

Give me an example of a group you fall into and what's so special about it.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:26:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I agree that humans are the same when compared to other species, but I don't think we are all the same just because we are all human. It is because we are human that we are able to be different. I think ignoring everyones differences is a mistake. We shouldn't have to be the same to get over our issues. We should just learn to get over them. Now if other non-human sentient beings show up and start causing troubling, recognizing we are all the same because we are human might become more relevant. But now that trait isn't enough to matter because well, everyone already knows.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:32:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:08:24 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:26:05 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 10:51:30 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:35:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:53:53 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
This will be one of the toughest topics for people to accept.

Essentially we are the same regardless of race, age, or gender.

Physical traits do not make us who we are. We are humans. We are living, breathing creatures that share the same basic genetic make-up.

Any perceived differences were created by people from the beginning of time and are meaningless. We use physical characteristics because we are incapable of earning our status in society. I prefer to have my labels reflect my actions and not based on something I was born with. We should refer to people by their actions and not how they look. You should be treated differently based on your accomplishments. Work for your status in our society. Don't be lazy and accept one based on physical traits.

We look different and that is the test. Can we overcome obvious physical characteristics to recognize the essential humanity in all of us? How many problems can be resolved by simply seeing another person as human?

The sooner we accept that no one is better or worse than anyone else based on race, gender, or age. The further we can evolve as a species.

Do you agree or disagree? I'm curious.

I can agree that gender or race make no difference, as they do not affect the intelectual capacities of people. Although age does, and thus I do not accept that people on different ages are the same.

I agree people of different ages are not the same. Therefore, age is meaningless. You can have people of two different ages that function completely different.

I don't think I understand you. So age is a definitory trait of someone's capacities, but it is somehow meaningless? How is that?

I never said age defines a person or their capacities. I don't believe it does. So that's why it's meaningless.

But what the studies of developmental psychology show, is that children are effectively incapable of the same thought processes as teenargers, and that teenagers are also incapable of the same thought processes as adults, etc. So age is definitory of someone's capacities.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:11:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 1:34:16 PM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
Why are labels bad?

Labels are the worse possible thing you can do to a person. You've now taken away their identity and falsely lumped them in with many others who share a common trait or a supposed common trait.
Why is an identity wholly dependent upon one or two aspects?
If I say a 90 year old man is too feeble to employ at my business, I am concerned with only one aspect: his hire-ability.

I know older people that are in better physical condition than I am. Why even use the label at all? Just say this man is too feeble to employ at my business. What difference does it make if he's 9 or 90?

Is it wrong to label you are a Republican because you vote for one?

Yes, what difference does it make who you voted for? Do you want to assume this person will vote Republican again because they did before? Now if a person tells you they are a Republican and accepts that label then it is what it is.

Is it wrong to label you one, even if you don't identify as one, if your views are in line with them?

Yes. Because viewpoints are not specifically Republican or Democrat. They can apply to either side. Unless, you want to give me an example of a viewpoint that only a Republican will have.

Is it wrong to assume that, as a republican, you believe in X, Y, and Z?

Yes. Not every Republican believes the same as every other Republican. Assuming all people in a group think alike is a bit crazy don't you think? Isn't it more likely they agree with a majority of what the Republican party stands for?

No, none of that is wrong.

I disagree. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Is it wrong to assume you are an evil republican bastard like Sean Hannity or a moron like Sarah Palin or crazy like Michelle Bachmann? Yes, but that is a RESULT of the label, not in the labeling itself.

You've taken complex individuals and summed them up with one label. I bet they appreciate that. And why did you do it? Because it's easier than getting to know more about them. We live in a world of labels and sound bites. Long, live, America!

In order for someone to get a label someone had to do the labeling. A label and labeling someone are not mutually exclusive. You can't have one without the other.

You allow yourself the easy way out. Label someone and you don't need to get to know them. Use a physical trait as a label and you can dismiss a person that through no fault of their own, has that same physical trait.
Or, I am maximizing my efforts by eliminating time wasted pursuing leads that are likely to go no where.

I can see you prefer to save time by accepting a potentially wrong label then doing any actual work. That's fine. You are not alone. I do it myself.

Labeling is lazy, stupid, and wrong. Getting to know someone takes work. But it's well worth the effort when they connect with you on an individual basis.
And work takes time.
Why do you label me with the luxury of having time to waste to get to know everyone?

How did I label you? That statement is about labeling in general. If you feel it applies to you, then there's not much I can do about it.

Ok, I ran out of space. Let me continue this in another post.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:28:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Women can produce children. Men cannot. That is a pretty important label if one wants to have a child.

Here's an idea. Just ask. Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean she can have a child. So why lump them all into that category based on their gender?
Can you have a child?
Now, wasn't that a silly thing to ask? I'll go over to the boys club and waste my time trying to convince them to bear me a child, now.

There are people for which gender is not apparent. There are transgender, women who dress like men, people who look like both genders, and so on. So yes, you have to ask. And yes, gender is meaningless.

Now do you see how labeling makes you look like a fool if you walk up to a woman who is actually a man and ask, "Can you have my baby?"

Did I say every woman could?
If one wants to have a child (and is a man), they must find a woman. Pure and simple.
Further, a pubescent and pre-menopausal woman (age).

Once again, not true. Adoption.

Can you feel your gender labeling argument falling down around you?


Are all labels bad then? Should we seriously interview a ten year old for a CEO position? What about someone who has no business experience?

All labels are bad. No one should be labeled.
Isn't this, itself, a label?

No. Explain why you think it is.

Yes. If the person offering the position wants a 10 year old CEO, then yes. That's a decision for an employer to make. Do we not have royalty that is younger in age? I seem to recall some countries will install very young leaders to be the head of their countries.
Misses the entire point of my question.

Actually, it fully answers your question. Maybe explain to me why it doesn't. Or have you labeled me a mind reader? Or is this another way you expedite your life? I could use smaller words or limit my responses to one sentence.

People are hired to positions all the time without experience. They are called trainee's.
Given the context, this was asking if someone with no business experience should be seriously considered to be CEO, not hired for any job.

Anyone can be considered for any job based on the employer. Or do you think all employers think alike?

Labels are part of human nature. It is how we categorize and interpret information.

Just because something is part of human nature, doesn't make it right.
True.
I seem to recall women and blacks not allowed to vote and that changed.
Voting isn't an issue of human nature.

Discriminating based on race and gender is. That was my point. And I used voting only because it happened and is a part of American history. I was trying to relate to something you could grasp.

I seem to recall slavery was the norm in certain states and that changed. Through education. Things can change.
How is slavery human nature?

It's human nature to control other people through force, manipulation, or any other means. Certain people get off on it. I was using slavery because it was the most recognizable use of labeling gone bad. You seem to be arguing there is nothing wrong with labels. If I'm wrong let me know. I'm simply pointing out we'd be better off without them.

Are you seriously comparing slavery to human nature?

I clarified this above.

Yes, slavery was rationalized via human nature, but you seemed to miss that step.

Since you are the one that believes this is a step I missed. How am I to know about it unless you tell me? And I don't agree it had anything to do with my comment above.

People can categorize and interpret information in many ways.
All of which are labels, aren't they?
Name one other way to categorize information that doesn't label.

Why categorize at all?

Labeling is not necessary to do that. It might be easier, but it's not necessary. And what information are we talking about?
Whatever is being addressed and prudent.

That's kind of subjective isn't it? What is addressed and prudent in your life?

How about focusing time and energy on women if I want a child?

You can use labels and make assumptions, but you don't know if a person is a woman or a man unless you ask.

And I'll have you know. Not everyone wants to go about having a child the way you do. Or the hypothetical person you are referring to.

How about looking at not a child for a CEO position?

We've beaten this horse to death. We'll agree to disagree.

Think of advertisements.
Imagine a billboard that is trying to depict a family.
Imagine if it was two white dudes and two black dudes all about the same age.
How are we to interpret that as a family as opposed to a group of friends?

A family is any group of people that love each other. That's how I define family. How do you define family? That way I can answer your question better.
No, I'm asking you how an advertiser is to represent a family.

However they want. I can't possibly know what some hypothetical advertiser thinks.

Does anyone even care how a family is defined anymore?
They do when they are trying to advertise to them.

Are you an advertiser? If not, how do you know anything about this?

Seeing a man chase after a kid on a bicycle has a different meaning if the man is a father, neighbor, or stranger, after all.

I really don't see how this pertains to our conversation in this thread.

I hate advertisements. So whatever an advertiser is trying to accomplish with their unwanted intrusions into my life, I could care less.
I could care less about your label of advertisements.
I could also care less about you avoiding the spirit of the question.

Maybe if you knew how to ask the question. And just because you know what the spirit of your question is doesn't mean I do. If all you are looking for is an answer you already have in your head, then why do you need me at all? Just look in a mirror and talk to yourself. Save me the headache.

The smaller the group, the better, and we can debate on what is a valid assessment of any group, but to say they are meaningless is just silly.

If a person wants to define themselves based on a group they belong to, then so be it.
No, you said this was wrong, since they are labeling not only themselves, but others in their group.

All I said was so be it. I didn't say I support this action. You already know I don't.

But to take someone and place them into a group based on race, age, or gender is morally wrong.
I think your logic is missing a step here.

Once again, you want me to give you answers you already have in your head. There's no missed step here.

Ask them first if they want to be defined by a physical characteristic.
It's irrelevant, since you said it was morally wrong to do so.

Asking them is not morally wrong. The act of doing so without asking them is.

I'm sure you'd want someone to ask you before they place you into some group based on race, age, or gender.
No, I wouldn't want that. Why would I?
I am a man. I don't need to be asked if I am.

Ok. You don't. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I mistakenly thought you were a 40 year old white woman. I'm glad your not upset by that.

Does that mean that all I care about is sex, as men are prone to do? No.
But, the issue there is not in the labeling me as a man, it is assigning a characteristic to me based on nothing more than the fact I am a man, and then acting on said assumption.

That's what labeling is. Assigning characteristics to someone based on a physical trait.
Why not eliminate them and not take that chance?

Some characteristics are not wrong. Others are debatable. Others are wrong.
Labels are a tool.

Thank you for summing up your position.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.