came across probulm with complete equailty in my head.

[cary jebus]

dont get me wrong I support equality. but I found this paradox. if theres a plane crash with 500 people in the plane and only 3 survive, do you kill the 3 in order for everyone to be equal? so "everyone dies or none dies" like "freedom for all or freedom for none"? I cant figure it out can someone help?

[RedAnarchist]

Why would you kill the three survivors? It was an accident and they shouldn't be punished simply for surviving an accident.

[manic expression]

When we talk about "equality", we're usually talking about living people. If someone dies, they're not really entitled to the same amount of food as living people.

[Marsella]

dont get me wrong I support equality. but I found this paradox. if theres a plane crash with 500 people in the plane and only 3 survive, do you kill the 3 in order for everyone to be equal? so "everyone dies or none dies" like "freedom for all or freedom for none"? I cant figure it out can someone help?

Err...it's pretty clear - you let them live. :)

Whether someone survives a plane crash is down to good luck, not representative of some sort of economic inequality (unless you can prove that first class seats are safer than lower-class seats - but I think the safest part of the plane is the tail end, where lower class seats are located- so why am I still typing?!)

If we followed that bizarre notion of equality, we would be kill people at a certain age to prevent ageist inequality! :eek:

;)

[blackstone]

No offense, but you almost got me fired for laughing so hard while at my job. I think the other comrades explained it well, you don't need to kill the survives so that they can be equal to the other victims.

[spartan]

I can just imagine the scenario:

Survivor: "Hey a majority of people on the plane are dead!".

Fellow survivor: "Well then lets kill ourselves so we can be equal to those dead people as they have an unfair advantage being dead whilst we are all still alive".

The fact is if you go by cary jebus's logic then we would all have to kill ourselves as there are people dying all over the world.

[cary jebus]

but wouldnt this been equality is bad??? there must be a way around...

[Luís Henrique]

but wouldnt this been equality is bad??? there must be a way around...

Nobody is for such kind of equality.

We are for equal access to the wealth we produce collectively. We won't cut out the tip of the heads of tall people, nor force the left-handed to use their right hands, or anything like that.

Luís Henrique

[Pawn Power]

I guess we all better start committing suicide since an overwhelmingly vast majority of people who have existed are now dead...:rolleyes:

[cary jebus]

Nobody is for such kind of equality.

We are for equal access to the wealth we produce collectively. We won't cut out the tip of the heads of tall people, nor force the left-handed to use their right hands, or anything like that.

Luís Henrique

oh I understand... thanks everyone for helping me here...

[INDK]

dont get me wrong I support equality. but I found this paradox. if theres a plane crash with 500 people in the plane and only 3 survive, do you kill the 3 in order for everyone to be equal? so "everyone dies or none dies" like "freedom for all or freedom for none"? I cant figure it out can someone help?

Don't think of equality as something so literal! Equality, for Communists and Anarchists, is a question of economics.

[Dr Mindbender]

dont get me wrong I support equality. but I found this paradox. if theres a plane crash with 500 people in the plane and only 3 survive, do you kill the 3 in order for everyone to be equal? so "everyone dies or none dies" like "freedom for all or freedom for none"? I cant figure it out can someone help?
i thought you were going to ask ''theres 500 people and only 3 parachutes left so who gets the parachutes before the plane crashes''.

The answer to your question though is its down to the randomness nature of probability. Not divine purpose or anything like that. The variables leading up to the accident had an equal toll on everyone on the aircraft, so the likelihood is that not one person had a greater or lesser chance of survival. Its got nothing to do with who has more right to survive.

[Dr Mindbender]

No offense, but you almost got me fired for laughing so hard while at my job. I think the other comrades explained it well, you don't need to kill the survives so that they can be equal to the other victims.
you get to use the internetz at work? Lucky bastard. If i got caught id be sacked just for being online.
:(

[Red October]

But in all seriousness, if you are the sole survivor of a plane crash, that makes you a bourgeois enemy of the people who must be purged.

[Dros]

Equality doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. I have brown hair you have blonde hair. Does that mean we are "unequal"? Equality refers to economic access and privelidges, control over production, and autonomy.

If one person is smart and the other is stupid, do you handicap the smart one? Of course not! These kinds of chance "inequalities" are not what we are talking about! I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron.(I think that's what it's called.)

[cary jebus]

no but you give the retard special help. :P jk Ill read it.

[blackstone]

you get to use the internetz at work? Lucky bastard. If i got caught id be sacked just for being online.
:(

I'm not spose to neither. But what kinda communist, doesnt rebel?:cool:

[Dimentio]

I am sorry for my earlier remark, but I thought: "Wtf is this question for real?"

[Sentinel]

no but you give the retard special help. :P jk Ill read it.

Would you mind not using the word retard like there was something funny about it? We don't like that shit here. Thx.

Also, you make my troll alarm go off. No-one can seriously be that ignorant of communism..

[midnight marauder]

The meaning of the word "ignorant" according to Random House Unabridged is: lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, in fact, the entire purpose of this forum is specifically for those who are looking for information about a particular area of interest they want to know more about. That seems to be exactly what cary_jebus was doing.

I've split off some of the needless flaming into the Trashcan. There is absolutely no reason to ridicule someone for wanting to learn about communist egalitarianism. If this person is a troll we will find out soon enough, but at present there doesn't seem to be evidence that that's the case.

In the mean time, some of you would do well to read the description of Learning listed on the main page:


A place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless.

[Sentinel]

Well, I naturally agree that there's nothing wrong of being ignorant. It's just that this particular user's displayed level of ignorance doesn't seem plausible to me. Those are kindergarten arguments against communism and I refuse to believe that an individual which masters the skill of turning on a computer actually holds them, and I thus bet he is a plain troll.

[Comrade Rage]

dont get me wrong I support equality. but I found this paradox. if theres a plane crash with 500 people in the plane and only 3 survive, do you kill the 3 in order for everyone to be equal? so "everyone dies or none dies" like "freedom for all or freedom for none"? I cant figure it out can someone help?I almost ROFLed at this one. Of course you let them live.
Communism is about equality amongst living people.

[Spasiba]

i thought you were going to ask ''theres 500 people and only 3 parachutes left so who gets the parachutes before the plane crashes''.

So what would be the answer to that question?


Also, you make my troll alarm go off. No-one can seriously be that ignorant of communism..
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all.