Welcome to the Planet Earth

I find the term equality to be too abstract and too idealistic based on two words found in the construction of the term. First the word equal. I mean let's be honest to get two persons to agree on what is equal in that of existence on all levels seems completely idealistic with no sense of truism to be found. I mean equality is a term that has the connotation of "I'm all in" or nothing. It isn't something where two out of three works; no it has to be all three. So with that said, I mean it's quite a nice thought to say that all humans deserve the right to clean water, clean air, and adequate education, social order, universal health care, and many other esoteric (how bout them apples Mr. Farrat) ideals, but obviously our world full of its modernity is too complex and too far removed from those simple variables to just anchor humanity on those standards. Let's be honest, to first define what is equal between all men takes more than just hope but takes unilateral agreement which is completely ludicrous. Here are a few simple things we can't agree on: Sex, babies, life, belief, origin, air, time, colors, sex, girl-boy,...
I mean these things seem so foundational and innate to our existence, and yet we can't come to an agreement on more than a few of these lest all these and the myriad of other variables constructing what makes us all human and equal.

Secondly, the word quality is found in equality. Even better of an idea to hound upon. For two persons to agree what is quality is another lost cause. Most may not like hearing these words, but quality is defined by outside sources. There are too many influences to be found in a person's understanding to adequately define quality lest find the same in another person's understanding. Quality is first defined by the social order around a person and secondly how that person chooses to agree or react with those orders. And the social orders are found in so many different levels that no man or woman could ever point to nor articulate all the varying voices that force them to define quality. So for quality to be unanimous between all persons is downright incomprehensible.

I've come to an understanding that most can agree with at least in the quiet of their minds that there is no such thing and there will never be such a thing as equality. It's one of those liberal (which in of itself means "free" which in pure honesty no man, and especially no woman will ever be free in this world) dogmatic principles that can never happen. And with my appeal in focus, the reason for this notion is because I personally understand and see how an individual's personal prerogative is too varied to unanimously agree on anything. Equality has to be levelled through all, and for that to happen, persons would have to be made into bathing apes (Pop-Culture Reference; 75 points) where systems and understanding could be universal. Many people will choose to compromise on some less valuable beliefs or undestandings in order to gain some pull, or at least compromise in order to gain something that is a bit more worthwhile for their personal happiness. But when it comes to the things closest to a person's being, meaning the things, the ideas that a person bases their existence upon, men and women will not budge easily. So, for all men and women to completely agree in a discussion, or at least choose to acquiesce everything painful or hurtful and just agree on what is equal and what is quality is not a present nor will it ever be a future reality. I'm not trying to be anything else but honest and live completely in the world we live in.


Welcome to the Planet Earth.



Be Relentless,
Peace
Remoy