Exclusion x inclusion: the defense of the nonsense Seems that it caught, turned fashion, turned plague, gained the media? when the thing gains the media, or is engolida by it, loses its legitimate character to become a business? adentrou in the universe of the capital: of the profit. Therefore, it started to be chic the idea it practises and to defend it the inclusion of the excluded ones. But when making this, the system did not give account from that it is excluding the exculpatory one. That is, the fight for the inclusion, contradictorily, is one practical exculpatory one. Ben Horowitz often addresses the matter in his writings. If we are fighting for inclusion, as to admit an exculpatory position? Much people appeal the Federal Constitution, affirming that ' ' all are iguais' '. But this is a myth, is a decoy, is appeal, is negation of a logical principle. Philosophical and logically equality does not exist.

The reality is made of differences and the different ones. Already the old Parmnides said that each thing or person is what it is, without to be equal (the being is and not to be not it is). Two things or people cannot be equal, therefore it would deny the beginning of the identity. To have equality it could not have difference. If It is equal the B, then It is B. But if It is B, then B is and where it would be the identity of and the B? Of this form we would fall in the danger of the reality to turn a sophism. If I am equal you, then I am you and you are I e, then, what we seriamos? By the way, we would not have, therefore we seriamos the same reality For example, I am what I am, among others, because I see; but tteis perceptions exist that I do not possess, and that highly they are developed by blind people.