![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 13th, 2006 09:09 pmThis post is inspired by a reply to a comment i made in this thought-provoking post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fallenpegasus' LJ, in which he said:
( An auto-biographical vignette, which gives some pertinent personal background - in short, my view of middle-class is skewed. )
In summary, will there ever be full social equality? Very probably not. Can there be less social inequality? Most probably, if not in the near-term.fallenpegasus is absolutely correct that people are *diferent*. We don't all want, desire, or even need, the same things. But hould we each have a truly equal opportunity to have the same? Yes, we should.
fallenpegasus' LJ, in which he said: But people are not socially "equal" and cannot be, because people are *different*.He's absolutely right, and i do not in the least disagree with his statement. But does that mean that we should not acknowledge those who are too different from us; that we oughtn't treat those lower than ourselves socio-ecomically as they are people; that we should refuse to try to dilute the concentration of below-poverty-line people in the ghettos we as a society have, in most places, forced the poor to live, or that we should not at least try improve the conditions therein?
( An auto-biographical vignette, which gives some pertinent personal background - in short, my view of middle-class is skewed. )
In summary, will there ever be full social equality? Very probably not. Can there be less social inequality? Most probably, if not in the near-term.
fallenpegasus is absolutely correct that people are *diferent*. We don't all want, desire, or even need, the same things. But hould we each have a truly equal opportunity to have the same? Yes, we should.
