The definition was not circular nor internally inconsistent, it was incomplete. I indicated that we are debating not merely equivalence, but "social equality" - as in, equality within society. As "society" in itself is such a broad, all-encompassing term, "social equality" is comprised of many factors, some of which I listed.

These factors can be individually defined if you want. For example:

Equal employment opportunity - the ability to be chosen for work based entirely on merit and achievement and irrespective of factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, policial opinion, marital status, nationality etc. where they do not directly relate to the ability to perform in the job in question.

Equal rights under law: the ability to have access to all rights imposed under law, irrespective of the types of factors mentioned above.

Hopefully you get the idea, but I could go on if you want.

Now all of these things are impossible, I still don't see why they they shouldn't be

Also, by your reasoning, paid parental leave discriminates against infertile women and women who choose not to have babies; government subsidised medical treatment discriminates against healthy people; unemployment benefits discriminate against the employed etc.

>According to your logic, I would be entitled to handouts, specifically as a male, to engage in unprotected and uncommitted sex with many and various women, on the ground of the “social benefits” I would leave in my wake.

I have no idea where you pulled that from. Please explain?

NQD
I’ll answer your questions but first I would like to define our terms because as you know I maintain that the whole concept does not and cannot amount to a logically sensible proposition.

Could you please define equality, rather than describe what you think policy should do. And if the definition resolves back to “society”, please define that too.

Peter Hume.
This sort of clever logic chopping and smarty pants asking for definitions really does not get anybody anywhere. The article (remember that?) was trying to deal with the complex and important issue of democracy, Arabs (with associated religious issues), and the education and status of women. I cannot see how your comments advances the discussion by one whit. If you could possibly take a minute or two off from the 'what do you mean by' stuff I would be grateful if you would answer the basic issue: is the education and status/condition of women in Middle Eastern/Muslim countries likely to aid or hinder the rise of democracy in those countries?
I expect another constipated load of define this and define that. Please understand that all of us could do that, I for one do not because it serves little or no purpose.
Anyway, please answer the question I asked. If it makes you happy you can define all the words you use, but at least try to confront what is a serious issue.

I agree with eyejaw, stop arguing semantics and address all of the other points that I've made. It's impossible to define every aspect of equality here - whole books have been written trying to do this and have not succeeded. I will give you a workable definition under international law and that's the end of defining terms.

Article 26 of the ICCPR:

>All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This has been interpreted to involve the four separate obligations to:

1) guarantee equality before the law, by ensuring that law enforcement authorities shall treat all people without discrimination;
2) guarantee the equal protection of the law, by removing any discriminatory provisions from applicable laws and regulations;
3) prohibit any discrimination in private relationships; and
4) guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination, if necessary, by the adoption of positive action measures in response to the situations of structural discrimination.

This is qualified by the definition of discrimination, which can encompass:
1) direct discrimination;
2) indirect discrimination from specific measures;
3) indirect discrimination highlighted by statistics;
4) discrimination as a failure for reasonable accommodation; and
5) structural discrimination.

"Indirect discrimination" is defined as "treating equally situations that require different treatment".

Eyejaw
I point out that what you are arguing is illogical and self-contradictory, and your response is to degenerate into a personal attack.

Your question assumes that it’s legitimate to use aggressive violence to treat people as ends chosen by you, which I deny.

You need to answer my earlier questions first:
1. If we need to use force - law - to treat people unequally, in order to bring about your ideal of treating women equally, surely that disproves your assumption that the sexes are equal in the first place?

I think it's literally meaningless to say that they sexes are "equal". 2. Do you? 3. But if not, given that they are not factually equal, what could it possibly mean?

You still haven’t shown *why* the sexes should be treated equally when they factually aren’t and can’t be made so, *how* they ever could be without treating people unequally, and why it would justify unprovoked aggression as a means to an end, especially since it’s impossible, and could only ever amount to arbitrary sexism which you falsely *pretend* to be opposed to.

If you can’t get past the issues of principle, you are not qualified to dictate what should be the practice and your question is therefore irrelevant.

NQD
I’m not surprised you didn’t want to define terms, as you have only proved what I’ve been saying all along - that what you are saying is literally meaningless, self-contradictory and impossible, and is used as a pretext for arbitrary power and treating people *unequally*.

>All persons are equal before the law
For starters, the political states that comprise the UN exist solely by their claim that they comprise an *unequal* and superior class vis-à-vis their subject populations.

1. The legislators, in their capacity as legislators, obviously aren’t equal to everyone else, are they? *They* claim a prerogative to use aggressive force as a means to ends, which they forbid on pain of imprisonment to everyone else.

2. Therefore please admit that you are not in favour of all persons being equal before the law.

> and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.

But you yourself are opposed to this, remember? You think you should be able to single out sub-set A of the population for privileges and benefits to which all not-A are not entitled.

3. Please admit that you don’t agree with the equal protection of the law.

> prohibit any discrimination in private relationships

4. So in your opinion it’s a violation of civil rights for a heterosexual to discriminate against people of the same sex in choosing a sexual partner?

5. Please either admit it, or admit that you don’t agree with the prohibition of any discrimination in private relationships.

6. Please give an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

Thank you, eyejaw and NQD, for displaying the hypocrisy, sexism, and nonsense of your arguments.

Admit it, what you’re arguing doesn’t make sense in the terms you are saying it does. It only makes sense, in the sense that you demand for yourselves, through political states, the *unequal* right to threaten, fine, handcuff, taser, imprison, or shoot people into submission, to force them to obey you in doing *anything you want them to do and call it equality*, and THAT is what you are really arguing for.

Guess what? You don’t form a morally superior class. You don’t know what’s better for people than their voluntary relations show, and have no right to try to bully them into submission and obedience.