I was watching a show I enjoy the other day and heard this statement "I look forward to the day where everyone is just a person."

And I wonder when being 'different' from each other became a bad thing? When did the goal become for everyone to be 'just' a person.

some people are short, some are tall, some are brown, some are pale, some are fit, some are unfit, some are female, some are male, some are American, some are Italian ...etc etc...

these are all simply adjectives to FURTHER describe one individual from another ... I wonder why and when people have begun to run from simple adjectives or even crazier to me, take offense to them?

Im of course not talking about adjectives that are MEANT to be an insult, like fat or ugly, etc. Im speaking about adjectives based on some factual standard (like height, weight, color, nationality, race, sex/gender)



I am an African American female born and raised in the USA, I am tan. I am an Ohioan. I am many things AS WELL AS being a PERSON.


What are you, besides 'just' a person?

The problem I see is, to be 'just' a person implies something inferior,in the sense that they just barely qualify as a person. Whereas being a complete person in reality is the pinnacle of achievement.

interesting.

I agree. I am a member of my family and the LARGER human family. I have never wanted to oppress other families. I feel all the adjectives just describe different 'families' we are a part of and that there is something scary about denying membership in different families for a goal of pretending everything and everyone is some monolithic entity.

I am a Canadian, a capitalist, a conservative, a right winger

I am a symbiotic collection of groups of diversified specialist cells, each group adapted to do, or help, with a specific or a range of biological functions, enabling the whole to support several physically intangible entities, such as ego, attitude, language, culture, abstract thought, humour, discernment / discrimination, and love.
Besides that, I am just a weirdo hippy.

Welcome to the race,please proceed to the starting gate.

Without context philosophy is merely sweeping generalizations, anyone can poke holes in a sweeping generalization.
Looking forward to the day everyone is just a person infers a context of authority. It simply suggests that nobody has inherent authority upon another, that authority in etymology refers to an educational reference, ie. what people say may have authority but never the person themselves. It is a truth which is dismissed by the arrogant and unknown by the ignorant, which is functionally the same thing.

An example for those in the back row. An employer instructs you to perform a contracted work duty in a safe manner. It has authority. An employer instructs you to perform a task outside contracted work duties and to do so in a dangerous fashion, ie. lacking required safety equipment, using legally defined unsafe procedures, etc. Here it is your lawful responsibility to supersede the instruction as it no longer has authority, despite the fact the employer may, themselves believe their position offers them seniority towards subordinate employees, as a human being. Legally this is not the case and logically this is not the case. But it is stressful having to argue with an idiot in positions of authority, even when they are giving unlawful instructions as they don't see it that way, so one might look forward to the day when everyone might realize they're just a person and if you have a position of authority you lose that authority every time you're wrong.

This is just an example, completely different ones could be given, describing completely different types of situations from religious worship to a combat environment. The key point is the only logical context of the statement is related to authority.

A non-secret admirer of msharmony

Oh!,I thought you were 'just' a Melmacian (or was Dalmatian ?) but you do have good taste