ddancom, I get the feeling you are merely being devil's advocate. Inequality exists.

Irrespective, my point was that opportunity does not lead to equality.

Irrespective, my point was that opportunity does not lead to equality.

Manored:
Learning is conflicting too. Conflict is not only about fighting against others, but against the forces of nature and the universe itself. Then you learn, you make an effort to learn, and therefore you conflict against your own incapacity to understand.

Is life just a struggle? Learning has to be an effort? Perhaps looking for perpetuation of one's own view can be troublesome.

I am not sure why caroline has to be in conflict if she chooses to be on this forum. I must have missed that rule.

Doc:Not-Impressed:

Ok it could be said there's conflict of the positive kind which has no negative impact and conflict of the worse kind which can cause devastion, violent death and suffering the first one is ok the second one isnt, my rule is if you're not harming anyone else leave them be if you are then you are wrong, can you see where the two differnt kinds of conflict fall into-the positve and the negative they are not the same in that they have different affects and effects which is where you have to draw the line so to speak, they are only the same in that they consist of two opposites.

Equal or = is a common truth to all. It has very limited use or descriptive quality. For me it highlights the importance of actions; everything has an equals; everything has a consequence! What the consequence is or should be is not explained by equals. There is very limited guidance in equals. I think you should look further.

Equal is universally infinite, and One cannot look further than that.
Beyond truth is only more truth.
The equitable infinite truth of All.

=
MJA

Is equality not limited by the existence of concepts? Are concepts not derived from the physical?

It depends of how you interpret the word "conflict"

I dont think its really that simple, anything we do can cause harm to someone, independently of whenever we want it or not. Then I buy food, I am reducing the stocks of one kind of food and therefore increasing its prices, maybe contribuiting for some people who can only buy that food to be unable to buy even that. Perhaps if I bought something else I would be contribuiting for the hunger of less people, or none at all...

That's a fair question; let me see if I can help you understand the true infinite nature of equality.

Imagine a balance scale teetering on the infinite point or fulcrum of truth.
That point of balance is the point of equality, nature's harmony, justice, the scale's only single simple truth.

A balance that measures nothing is altogether useless. You neglect what must lie on each end of the scale -- that which must be compared: concepts.

The way it is, is not the way it has to be.

My view is this: for sustainable, non-momentary social equality to exist, there must a complete lack of conflict within society. Put simply, there must never be a loser in any social interaction.

tell me manored if you had control over the means of production would you make it a conflict or would you seek fairtrade, myself i would fall into the latter unfortunately i dont get to make that decision unless i become a politicion or something, what can we do to veto this cruel way of production, im heading into marxism,who predicted man would come together and rise against and overcome governments however his theory fails in that man has become alienated and cannot come together, no doubt the government is grateful for that.

A balance that measures nothing is altogether useless. You neglect what must lie on each end of the scale -- that which must be compared: concepts.