We know the same. We should be payed the same. We should have the same health problems (speaking in hyperbole here, please don’t install health problems on others). Who gets the supermodel? Me. I called first and as we are all equal, I win. See it grays.
Might be a better way to say this that doesn’t polarize the reader, yet will it be as interesting?
We say we want equality, empathy yet that in fullness would be awful – I don’t want to have the health problems of 8 billion plus people even if I do get a Yacht (both sides of the coin installed all at once). I get all the PhDs and all the all-study hours required to get them?
This could all be an excuse to limit equality, fair treatment, better treatment, and better support. Humanization is important, has shown historic precedent for not being fully invested in.
The combination weighs less than ideally on the imagination of the writer.
Anyone that I included in the words we that did not wish to be included in the words we I apologize for, anyone that had nothing to do with the wrongs against me I apologize for grouping.
Something I thought of that is worthy of note, Societies have potential for Feeing at A-level against World Leaders and Military Families – can’t treat better than others might be champed is not a fully appreciated system. World Leaders in Solitary shouldn’t be allowed, equality not always an ideal system. Bias and hardships that factor into winners might not always be factored in?
People are turned up to appreciate reduced oppression, that authority is not all oppression out, and then they have the potential to be min-ed by authority of opposing parties, being min-ed they might fight back, and might be min-ed further, put in solitary, and solitary combined with fighting back might be less than ideal brain damage out. Solitary gets set to a win, a requirement to min, not sure I fully agree with that. B let gets set to met, then gets set to let. Be let or Ban let, doesn’t matter?
My Tech Blog 