I was contemplating life the other day, and a stunning revelation hit me; the vast majority of people who play Warhammer are intellectuals, myself among them. So, when I was posed my debate question and wanted alternate opinions, my first thought was that the people of dakka would have something to say; Time for a mini-debate!

Rules; "Are all humans created equal"
State whether you are for or against this statement, then branch into your argument. Keep it civil, and arguing from either a philosophical or scientific perspective is acceptable. Real-world examples are acceptable, but NO RACISM/SEXISM/ANTI-SEMITISM. Also, I may steal any arguments that I think are acceptable, and use them in my actual debate.

AGAINST
To kick things off, I believe that all human beings were not created equal, as it is impossible to fairly measure one person's talents against another's, without 'equal' becoming a matter of opinion and personal bias. I do not believe that people were created superior or inferior, merely that each personality is so individual, that they are impossible to compare. Agree or disagree as you will, and post your arguments.

All humans are born equal, but people don't like being equal if they can be superior instead.

From that, I take it that you define birth as the point of creation? Fair enough. My question is, can you prove that they are born equal? How can we be sure that one child does not have different thought patterns to another child? Should we take their physical state into account? How can that be measured without some form of bias?

Try to be post-specific, and build on your own arguments whilst rebutting your opponents, and realise that this is not a personal attack.

Just stating my thoughts, dude. I've long since given up arguing on the internet.

According to the UN Declaration of Rights yes, but in actuality not.

Orwell has it right: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

You prove that yourself. Even the rules to this debate show a bias. Let me quote:

State whether you are for or against this statement, then branch into your argument. Keep it civil, and arguing from either a philosophical or scientific perspective is acceptable. Real-world examples are acceptable, but NO RACISM/SEXISM/ANTI-SEMITISM. Also, I may steal any arguments that I think are acceptable, and use them in my actual debate.

You have already highlighted the needed text in caps. No racism and sexism makes sense. but no anti-semitism? That is covered under racism, unless you want to make a special case for Jews.

Many do and do not see it wrong. they remember such words as 'holocaust' and 'pogrom' forgetting that in many cases they refer to others in addition to Jews.

Consequently peoplle misremember history and are encouraged to do so. One people group become special victims of history and gain as a result special levity of action in the present.

The moves to remove mention of other minorities suffering from holocaust memorial and the lack of ethical rights advocacy from Israel are connected, but with 'anti-semitism' being a special case this is overlooked to the point that whole people groups, namely Arabs, but possibly others are dehumanised to some way in turn.

This is ironic as in a literal way Arabs are semitic too.

You see Gutrip a subconscious bias is built in through conditioned media and education. The very terms of the debate show that at some level some people think we should not all be equal and implant exceptions into the broader culture to be picked up unwittingly.

With a little trhouht you could have either removed anti-semitism or added or 'negativity to any people or relgious groups'. But both don't seem right dont they. To remove it seems incomplete, to add to it seems superfluous unless worded well. Bias is inherent to our make up in other ways too, but this is as good an answwer as any to pre-conditioning, and comes up alarmingly frequently in those who think are preaching equality but are not.

I know, thats fine . I'm just looking for an intellectual discussion, and trying to promote talk. Anyone got any views?

I'd certainly like to think we are all equal, I mean we all at one point were apes that crawled out of the ocean right?

I often get accused of being a skinhead, liking Metal and wearing a toque and a old army jacket with band logos laced into it.

From a biological, chemical, or physical standpoint the answer is plainly no. You only need to find a person taller, or shorter than you for proof.

However, such statements are rarely made outside of an ethical context. In that sense it simply relates to the idea that people should be given the chance to demonstrate their character; thereby eliminating things like race, and ethnicity as valid determiners with respect to the worth of an individual.

Very good Orlanth- that bias occurred as I am Jewish and was attempting to be as politically correct as possible, and Judaism is a religion as opposed to a race. To amend, I will revert to simplicity itself and ask people to exercise their rationality and remain civil at all times. Cultural bias is largely unavoidable in today's society, and in an attempt to encompass all of the bases, our efforts are sometimes misinterpreted. But thank you for alerting me, as know it can be amended.

You've asked a difficult question OP; whilst I cannot come to a definite conclusion, here are my thoughts.

When we are born, we al have the same basic thought patterns: eat, sleep, defecate. Im not certain how we can be 'sure' but I dare say there have been studies conducted which demonstrate this. This suggests equality at birth.
As for physical traits, there are clearly some humans born with a natural disadvantage (such as asthma), suggesting that humans are born unequally.

So, IMO we are all born equal.

The manner of our upbringing from this point on however is what determines our 'intelligence'. Clearly a child with access to the best resources will develop a greater intellectual intelligence than a child in a third-world country with few resources.

Thus, humans develop unequally due to their surroundings.

However the development of emotional intelligence is more difficult to explain. Both humans with access to extensive resources, and those without can develop equally, suggesting that humans are indeed equal.


In conclusion, there is evidence for both sides of the argument, and it becomes difficult to make a definitive judgement. To me it seems that the majority of humans are created with the same potential, but their development is what results in the huge variety of abilities you see at adulthood.

Editeded because I can't spell

No,throughout the history many people thought of themselves as superiror which then caused many wars,conflicts etc...

An interesting argument that I heard is that, from a religious point of view, we are all equals before the eyes of god. It is very interesting how, throughout the ages, a child is the epitome of innocence. Somewhat ironic that the question demands that we argue equality at the moment of (in theory) utmost purity.

My original point comes down to the question, do you need to be identical to be equals? It is immeasurable without being identical, but before the eyes of god, we are considered to be equals. If he can overlook all of our faults, and talents, and say that we are no less or more than each other, then perhaps we truly are? I would ask any married dakkites, do you love each of your children equally? Are they equals to you? Please discuss.

Also note, I keep my original view on the matter, this is just intellectual wood to the fire of discussion.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Very good Orlanth- that bias occurred as I am Jewish and was attempting to be as politically correct as possible, and Judaism is a religion as opposed to a race. To amend, I will revert to simplicity itself and ask people to exercise their rationality and remain civil at all times. Cultural bias is largely unavoidable in today's society, and in an attempt to encompass all of the bases, our efforts are sometimes misinterpreted. But thank you for alerting me, as know it can be amended.

Let your original comment stand, just remember that these debates do not start from true parity, just as our judgment itself is imperfect.

Inherent bias is not guarantee of discrimination, it makes some forms of discrimination harder to detect and counter for. We must be practical in our answers if we are to make use of good doctrine. Once aware of the problem we can account for it quietly each to our own. We all have our bias, pointing out one persons, no matter how commonplace the sentiment behind it or the conditioning, is not fair. This a pointer to all of us really because we all have exceptions we include or include to account for our accustomed comforts.

If all people are not created equal then it is perfectly acceptable to exterminate Hutus/Tutsis/Jews/Muslims/Christians/Communists/Capitalist Running Dogs/Hindus/Armenians/Chechnians or any recognisable group that some power elite might take a dislike to.

There are people who want to do down some other ethnic group. They would like to use arguments like "Obviously everyone isn't born with the same intelligence" as a way to undermine the core principle of Human Rights.

Damn, this is a philosophical Pandora's Box you've opened up here, Gutrip.

When do you start measuring equality?

At birth? Then no. Some are born with deformites even in the womb, inheriting diseases or genetic traits before even being given the chance to start. Or even another curse that forever marks a child as unwanted or less-favoured. Their gender.

In their upbringing? Still, the answer is no. What country were they raised in? How rich were their parents? What school did they go to? The answers to these questions determine what opportunities you had, when compared to others.

In your life? Well, no. What about sheer dumb luck? Why was it that this man survived the car crash while his brother in the passenger seat did not? Why did one man make his fortune on the stock market, and the other lose it? In this sense, luck can be both a great equalizer or in-equalizer.

In death? Perhaps. Rich or poor, the plain simple fact is that we all die. (Notwithstanding certain biblical exceptions, which can be either be ignored as disputable or admitted as notable oddities) Sooner or later we stop breathing, and no matter the circumstances it's going to happen sooner or later. In this sense, death is a true equalizer in the most ultimate way. Unless there's an afterlife. Which then mucks stuff up even further.

With that morbid point aside, I'll finish with a lovely quote from a certain Monty Python film.

Some Guy on a Cross Sang wrote: You come into this world with nothing, you leave this world with nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

There's also the little issue of fate. But I'm not going to get stuck into that right now.

Of course they arent, for example, i am far more awesome than most people.

But unfortunately, while mattyrm is gifted in awesomeness, he is sadly lacking the brains department. Is this, perhaps, a form of quality in itself?

Of course we aren't born equal. Athletes prove that, not everyone, no matter how hard they train could ever match top athletes. Some people are born with unique skills such as De Vinci.

Shakespeare is a wonderful example, his entire family is illiterate and he received nothing more than a basic education, yet he has produced many amazing works, still recognized this day.

Many people who have studied their whole lives have not come close.

Natural ability FTW!

Humans are certainly not born equal , there is nothing that is born equal. However the idea of been equal is necessary to maintain order.

If anything , all things are born into a balance.
Thats the only thing we can have.

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

Warboss Gutrip wrote:An interesting argument that I heard is that, from a religious point of view, we are all equals before the eyes of god. It is very interesting how, throughout the ages, a child is the epitome of innocence. Somewhat ironic that the question demands that we argue equality at the moment of (in theory) utmost purity.

My original point comes down to the question, do you need to be identical to be equals? It is immeasurable without being identical, but before the eyes of god, we are considered to be equals. If he can overlook all of our faults, and talents, and say that we are no less or more than each other, then perhaps we truly are? I would ask any married dakkites, do you love each of your children equally? Are they equals to you? Please discuss.

Also note, I keep my original view on the matter, this is just intellectual wood to the fire of discussion.

Offcourse we are all equal in the eyes of god. Just as all the ants in a ant colony look equal to us. But we are not equal to each other at all. You have the male female genders to start with to state the most obvious thing. And also any form of debate would be impossible if we were all equal. We would all agree on the topic.

So this debate is proof itzelf that we arent equal

Grtz
L.D.

A lot of you are missing the point.

It is clear that all humans are not born with the same dimensions, weight and prospects in life.

That is so perfectly obvious that the point does not need a debate.

The key to "All created equal" or "All equal before God" is to do with people's standing as equals in terms of human dignity and justice.

I think on average people are born equal. But you do have the off shut that are gifted or not gifted(birth defects). I think what changes it is the enviroment the person grows up in and what they choose to do with what they have. I do beleive though that there is a difference between Intelligence and educated. Intelligence is your natural smarts where educated is what you learn.

To re-focus;

The debate is that all humans arecreated equal. As such, I would ask that we focus upon that point, as it is already established that all humans do not have the same opportunities at the end of life/will end up in different, uncomparable positions.

To give the those who believe that all humans are created equal some room, I would ask that you speak of the point that you define as "created" and build upon your argument from there.

Thanks!

Who are you asking?

I'm not clear whether you are asking the 'Yes' side to expand on their position, or the 'No' side to redefine their position with respect to the 'Yes' side's point.

Both. I am very interested in both side and I would appreciate elaboration with respect to the question.

People are not born equal. While there is a great similarity between all humans (give that as a whole, our DNA is roughly the same between population groupings), there is still gross variation between individuals. Some are more "gifted" than others; some have detrimental deviations from the norm (or "defects") which can cause disease, disabilities, etc which makes the individual less able than the average human being is supposed to be.

That said, KK's point regards legal, social and ethical equality is more difficult to answer. How far from the human "norm" no longer warrants the individual as being classified as requiring human "rights" as accorded (supposedly) all human beings? And what portion of the spectrum of human normality does one take as the baseline for normality?

I would argue that anyone who is descended from the human genetic line should be accorded rights equal to anyone else born from that line (at least, until they do something that requires the limiting or removing of certain of their "rights" - such as criminals loosing their "right" to freedom of movement and action for the duration of their punishment).

In this respect, everyone should be born equal.

I think we are born equally. Then through differing conditioning we end up being different, and there fore creates more equal/unequal people. I mean really, whos to say that some rich politician that makes important decisions, is better then the average guy that works 60 hours a week at a shop, or even a poor bum that lives in an alley. It really depends on how you look at it to judge who is higher up "everyone is equal" chain. Sure the politician has lots of money, and makes decisions for the masses, but how many politicians do you know of, that are strait as an arrow, always makes the best choices and doesnt just plainly screw over the people he is suppose to work for? How many aids do they have to sleep with behind their wives back so on and so on.
So by that thinking, would he rate lower now because he isnt an honest person? Would the 60 hour a week shop worker now take his rank, but still be over the bum? What if the shop worker, the back bone of the country, was a hardcore racist? And had a few skeletons in his closet? What if when he were younger he would rape and beat random women from the races of which he hated, and was never caught? So now is he equal to the others? Or did he too fall farther down the chain of equals. So now the bum, his only real problem is, he got screwed from the shop job he worked at for years, mainly because his foremen, the hardcore racist, hated the fact he was a person of non white background. Tried his hardest not to lose everything he had, but because of the laws the politician put in place for bribes, basically screws this bum, and now he lives in the streets.
Sure its a bit OTT but it depends on how you look at things to see if they really are equal or not.
Politician, labourer, bum. High powered, hard worker, bum. Dishonest, racist, bum? Did I make my point?

Personally i do not believe all humans are equal as I am a firm follower of natural selection, Harsh as it sounds those who cannot survive in the wild are automatically inferior to those that can and the only way to test this is to put said person in said wild.

I think I see. However, I believe your point is more of a "we cannot judge through status whether a person is equal to another, as it may just be pot luck" more than a "People are created equal". By that same token, I would argue that people cannot be judged without bias, as equals, unless they are identical, otherwise it simply becomes a matter of perspective. Therefore, people are not created identical.

I agree with you completely on that. I dont think people really are created equal personally. If we really were, this world most likely wouldnt be in the state it is. I was just saying, if you wanted to prove or say people ARE equal, you have a lot of things youd have to look at and discount to make them equal.
I also think natural selection is harsh, but the only real way around this problem. We humans have survived this long because we are smart enough to out smart, and out last natural selection. But some day the world as we know it will indeed fall apart. Thats just the way it works. Then itll be man vs man, and that will get nasty. Do some research on "zombie apocalypse" itll give an idea

Natural selection is harsh, so much as breaking an arm (something considered quite trivial these days) can result in your death as could having any form of disability depending on your situation (something like autism could be usefull if your role was that of a lone nimble herbivore living in a rainforest, particularly the attention to detail aspect).

Are people all physically and mentally equal? No. People have inherent ssuperiorities and inferiorities re: other people. I can't win 7 Tours de France, but Lance Armstrong, being physiologically different, can.

From a moral perspective, all humans must be treated equally by others if they wish the same treatment. We can't be amoral egoists.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:We can't be amoral egoists.

Well, we can, it simply doesn't lead to a terribly pleasant society. Unless your idea of pleasantry revolves around association due to advantageous position. Though there do exist arguments which suppose that morality is simply an evolutionary outgrowth of just such a system.

For my part, I believe that all people are created equal from any standpoint that we can currently perceive, and prove, at a social level. However, this ephemeral notion of equality is immediately forfeit upon the achievement of agency; whereby, under narrow circumstances, individuals can be gauged as either superior or inferior. For example, person X can regarded as superior to person Y insofar as the metric by which quality is judged is limited to the game of cricket, football, basketball, etc.

To generalize that point: All people are created equal outside of any conceivable context of sufficiently narrow focus; denying any notion of general worth.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Therefore, people are not created identical.

Identical does not equate with equal in the colloquial, or philosophical sense. Identical implies a sort of equivalence that extends beyond results (ie. not just a good person, but a good person with blond hair), whereas equality does not.

I was contemplating life the other day, and a stunning revelation hit me; the vast majority of people who play Warhammer are intellectuals, myself among them.

No.

The only way in which humans are 'created' is by sexual reproduction. We are not equal even at that point, as our mothers could choose to terminate our lives before birth. Humans are not even really equal before the law, as children are legally denied the ability to do certain things such as voting, working, having sex, consuming alchohol etc.

All humans are NOT equal and neither should they be - that's not the same as saying that people should be discriminated against on the grounds of skin colour, sexual alignment etc., but some discrimination is beneficial to society.

ShumaGorath wrote:


No.

You continue to say what I normally want to.

Albatross wrote:
All humans are NOT equal and neither should they be - that's not the same as saying that people should be discriminated against on the grounds of skin colour, sexual alignment etc., but some discrimination is beneficial to society.

I see you're a man of discriminating tastes.

Perhaps (foul language warning) I could interest you in a fine 18th century brandy?

All taste is discriminatory.

And yes. Yes you could.

Carl Sagan wrote:Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

Did Carl Saigen(sp?) say that? I know he said something about compairing Earth as a dot.

This is your debate topic? How the hell would a debate around this even work? I mean, is there any actual evidence that you could use to support these arguments or would it be entirely based on reasoning?

KingCracker wrote:Did Carl Saigen(sp?) say that? I know he said something about compairing Earth as a dot.

It was indeed. In my hurry forgot yo cite him, but I fixed that now.

RustyKnight wrote:This is your debate topic? How the hell would a debate around this even work? I mean, is there any actual evidence that you could use to support these arguments or would it be entirely based on reasoning?

Uhm, many debate topics are ones that have no absolutes one way or the other, where there is no right or wrong so it is all in how you argue it to determine your ability to convince.

I just think it is peachy we are all doing OP's homework for him.

No. I do not agree. Look at it this way.
The obamas have another kid.
Some random hooker has a kid.
Who has the better chance to go to college?

Of course people are not all equal. If they were, who would work at McDonalds, Wal-Mart and the Dollar store?

In my opinion, everyone is created/born equal - to an extent.

I believe that everyone has the same chances and opportunities. Some people might have to work harder than others to get to the same place, but essentially it is possible as far as I see it. Two children from drastically different social-economic upbringings could end up in identical positions in the pecking order as adults. As far as genders go, there are both male and female CEOs, Executives, Senators, Managers, etc... because they worked harder than someone else to get there. There're plenty of stories of the most unlikely people becoming successes more because of the effort they put in and the choices they made than the resources at their disposal.

So I think that people are... somewhat created equal. They're all given the same layout for life. It's how they utilize it that really matters. The rich kid could become a stoned dropout while the poor kid could end up running the country. Obviously if you're born with FAS or any number of other mental impairments, the odds against you will be greater, but for the most part the chances are still there.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet but, I think that before you can answer the title question you must first ask, "Are humans created?"

Emperors Faithful wrote:But unfortunately, while mattyrm is gifted in awesomeness, he is sadly lacking the brains department. Is this, perhaps, a form of quality in itself?

I lack many things mate... patience, tolerance, subtlety, religious conviction...

I dont think i lack brains however, it may sound rather conceited to say it, but i certainly consider myself above average intelligence.. does my frequent use of foul language make me look foolish?

Good sir,

In my haste it seems that I had not the foresight to divine that one such as yourself may not interperet this silly jest as such and take offence. I humbly apologise for my inability to realise that your good self would take offence. There is clearly some hidden message written within my post of a somewhat serious nature, which only your supreme intellect can detect.

RustyKnight wrote:This is your debate topic? How the hell would a debate around this even work? I mean, is there any actual evidence that you could use to support these arguments or would it be entirely based on reasoning?

Reasoning must be used as evidence, when no evidence is evident.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Of course people are not all equal. If they were, who would work at McDonalds, Wal-Mart and the Dollar store?

However, I'd like to think that humans are created equal. Perhaps we don't all have equal skills, but we all have something someone else doesn't have. In general, people growing up in third-world countries have a lot of faith in religion, for example, while in developed countries people don't always appreciate the good fortune they have. On the other hand, citizens of developed countries have good fortune. Depending on your view, either one could be seen as equally or more important.
Just going to drop the created-bomb now. Don't take offense. I believe humans are created at conception. If you think birth, there's too many similarities between the child as he is, born, and the child as he was, just an hour ago, in his mother's womb. And the child is so similar, all the way back to 9 months before. It's too hard to determine. My reasoning: when sperm meets egg is when the human is created. The next 9 months are briefing for the mission at hand: life.

Just because everyone is born equal, doesn't mean they are equal. Of course, everyone has flaws, and can make up for them in other ways.

Snikkyd wrote:Just because everyone is born equal, doesn't mean they are equal. Of course, everyone has flaws, and can make up for them in other ways.

like making the farting noise through their armpit.

I can make the farting noise with my hands, but not my armpits. I must be a freak or something

I will have to agree with the earlier post saying that people are not created equally physically or mentally, but all humans should have the same set of rights from birth. Of course it is entirely possible to lose these rights after birth, but that would be a different debate.

The basic message that is there(IMHO) is that a person should not be enslaved or treated less just because they are born differently.

You can't debate this unless you narrow the question down. How do you even define equal? Equal in terms of what? Equal in the eyes of the law? In the eyes of god? In terms of their physical and mental gifts?

In the eyes of the law - theoretically yes.

In the eyes of god - depends on your religion, lets say yes.

In terms of mental/physical state? of course not.

halonachos wrote:I will have to agree with the earlier post saying that people are not created equally physically or mentally, but all humans should have the same set of rights from birth. Of course it is entirely possible to lose these rights after birth, but that would be a different debate.

The basic message that is there(IMHO) is that a person should not be enslaved or treated less just because they are born differently.

So basically, people aren't created equally, but should be treated equally? That sounds about right.

In the strictest possible sense yes, as well as the fact that you are equal to the keyboard you typed this on. We are all bundles of protons, neutrons, electrons, and energy constantly going up and down in very careful ways. One proton is exactly the same in every way to another, same with neutrons same with electrons.

Metallifan hit on a point I was going to make. If two men are equal before being given a chance of bettering themselves and one of the two takes it while the other doesn't, are they equal now. And were they ever equal if one will not grab a chance.

This is one of the profound questions that have so many options to follow. Religious, lawful, moral, philosophical, endless ways. I have one thing that hits me. Is there a difference, and if so which difference will give you the better option. To illustrate my point take The Roman Empire, and take the United States of America. Both are republics based around ideals that everyone should be represented equally. Now consider this. The United States claims that all are equal, and is a world power, one of the largest economic and military powers in the world. The same is true of Rome, it is the dominant force over Europe. Rome on the other hand is a slave holding nation. Now admittedly they treated their slaves better than anyone else in history, but they are still slaves. Now consider this, both are equally successful (relatively speaking) but one has a society based on equality while the other is based on inequality. So does it matter. Personally I say yes, because the terms of inequality open up a conspiracy vortex of who decides that. Is the metaphor to broad, maybe it is to big to apply to a question like this. I don't know. This question is broad in itself and can and will go many places in a room like dakka filled with smart nerds (better term for intellectuals don't ya think).

Try Again Bragg wrote:One proton is exactly the same in every way to another, same with neutrons same with electrons.

And yet they don't move in exactly the same places.

Try Again Bragg wrote:
...take The Roman Empire, and take the United States of America. Both are republics based around ideals that everyone should be represented equally....

Not true, but continue.

Try Again Bragg wrote:
Now consider this. The United States claims that all are equal, and is a world power, one of the largest economic and military powers in the world. The same is true of Rome, it is the dominant force over Europe. Rome on the other hand is a slave holding nation. Now admittedly they treated their slaves better than anyone else in history, but they are still slaves.

The question should be: What makes a slave?

Try Again Bragg wrote:
Now consider this, both are equally successful (relatively speaking) but one has a society based on equality while the other is based on inequality.

Yes, that's a nice illusion.

Try Again Bragg wrote:
So does it matter. Personally I say yes, because the terms of inequality open up a conspiracy vortex of who decides that. Is the metaphor to broad, maybe it is to big to apply to a question like this. I don't know. This question is broad in itself and can and will go many places in a room like dakka filled with smart nerds (better term for intellectuals don't ya think).

It matters because you want it to. If you didn't, it wouldn't. Welcome to the human race.

lambadomy wrote:You can't debate this unless you narrow the question down. How do you even define equal? Equal in terms of what? Equal in the eyes of the law? In the eyes of god? In terms of their physical and mental gifts?

In the eyes of the law - theoretically yes.

In the eyes of god - depends on your religion, lets say yes.

In terms of mental/physical state? of course not.

lambadomy hit the nail of the argument right here.

In light of lambadomy's very clear analysis of the question, I propose further extrapolation on the subject.

in the eyes of the law: Bias is inevitable. Whilst we would all like to believe that the law is sound, bias always occurs. Not through some grand vendetta, but rather through a large amount of small factors, errors in communication and the like, can lead to humans making the wrong decisions.

In the eyes of god: In most religions, yes. God sees the soul inside, without tarnished skin, and, as the creator, would have theoretically created us all as equals.

In a mental/physical state: It is impossible to decide the superiority of a colossal glacier vs. a mighty volcano, in the same way that two humans are too different to be judged. One is superior, but it varies as a matter of personal opinion. Compare Rodger Federah and a paraplegic child, or Shakespeare and Leonardo Da Vinci.

Unless they are identical, superiority and equality are a matter of personal opinion.

Ideologically, yes, all humans are equal. I, and the Human Rights thingie with me, think that one human life is worth as much as any other, in theory.
Biologically speaking, it's nonsense. Person A can run faster than person B. Person C can solve complex mathemathical equations, while person D cannot, but can produce mathemthically incredibly complex pleasing patterns with paint, a piece of canvas and a stick with some hairs on it.
And so on.Everybody's different, but everybody's an equally valid person.

Humans will never be equal till our society can sustain it.
Without balance of such inequality it will just lead to chaos if everyone demands absolute equality.

We arnt capable of utopia yet.

Agree with luna. Also As a step further, will we ever be if we are inherently unequal. Many a dreamed of utopian society has destroyed itself based upon human nature.

corpsesarefun wrote:Personally i do not believe all humans are equal as I am a firm follower of natural selection, Harsh as it sounds those who cannot survive in the wild are automatically inferior to those that can and the only way to test this is to put said person in said wild.

Starting with you.

sA

Humans aren't equal. We place a different value on people everyday of our lives. I value my wife more than anyone on these boards, and expect them to value me less than their real life friends and family. The issue becomes not one of whether humans are equal or not, but whether there is any impartial scale to measure them on.

When we were babies, we were all helpless, naked and cranky- yet we were not equal. Some of us were able to survive without medical intervention. Some of us weighed 6 pounds, while others weighed twice that! When we went home, we were laid down in a crib or a bassinet. That could have been in a mansion or a squalid ghetto apartment with 10 other people living in it, and neither was equal.

Our initial instruction in morals, education, and the proper way to act in society were provided by our parents. These parent were very different from every other set of parents out there. You can bet that the son of a Senator receives a very different outlook on life than the son of a garbageman.

Once we're out of the home, we go to schools. If we're in a good district, we may be taught by the finest educators the public school system has to offer. We may also encounter those who are just punching the clock until retirement. Those in private schools or military academies will, again, receive a very different education.

Finally, we come to the point where we are ready to be valued by society. At this point, we find a job and are told what we are worth. You could hire hundreds of me for every CEO out there- and those hundreds could not do the job as well as he could. Still, I'd like to think that if you put him in front of a high school classroom, you'd have inferior teaching as compared to what I can provide.

Even in that most basic aspect, our right to life, there are those who are not equal. If you kill someone out of anger and malice aforethought, then you are no longer equally entitled to life as the rest of us. If you rape someone, you will be imprisoned and forever regarded with institutionalized suspicion.

There was a man in Tampa that recently threw a baby out of a window, then picked it up and took it with him to the freeway. He threw it out of the window there while driving. When asked why, he replied "It's a dirty game". I do not believe that such an individual is equal to anyone any longer.

We all begin life with a different set of skills and abilities. What we choose to do with them will determine what we are like. One of the few things we will never achieve is equality with everyone.

Gitzbitah wrote:Humans aren't equal. We place a different value on people everyday of our lives. I value my wife more than anyone on these boards, and expect them to value me less than their real life friends and family. The issue becomes not one of whether humans are equal or not, but whether there is any impartial scale to measure them on.

When we were babies, we were all helpless, naked and cranky- yet we were not equal. Some of us were able to survive without medical intervention. Some of us weighed 6 pounds, while others weighed twice that! When we went home, we were laid down in a crib or a bassinet. That could have been in a mansion or a squalid ghetto apartment with 10 other people living in it, and neither was equal.

Our initial instruction in morals, education, and the proper way to act in society were provided by our parents. These parent were very different from every other set of parents out there. You can bet that the son of a Senator receives a very different outlook on life than the son of a garbageman.

Once we're out of the home, we go to schools. If we're in a good district, we may be taught by the finest educators the public school system has to offer. We may also encounter those who are just punching the clock until retirement. Those in private schools or military academies will, again, receive a very different education.

Finally, we come to the point where we are ready to be valued by society. At this point, we find a job and are told what we are worth. You could hire hundreds of me for every CEO out there- and those hundreds could not do the job as well as he could. Still, I'd like to think that if you put him in front of a high school classroom, you'd have inferior teaching as compared to what I can provide.

Even in that most basic aspect, our right to life, there are those who are not equal. If you kill someone out of anger and malice aforethought, then you are no longer equally entitled to life as the rest of us. If you rape someone, you will be imprisoned and forever regarded with institutionalized suspicion.

There was a man in Tampa that recently threw a baby out of a window, then picked it up and took it with him to the freeway. He threw it out of the window there while driving. When asked why, he replied "It's a dirty game". I do not believe that such an individual is equal to anyone any longer.

We all begin life with a different set of skills and abilities. What we choose to do with them will determine what we are like. One of the few things we will never achieve is equality with everyone.

Well said Gitzbitah,I have to say I agree with most of your points here.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I was contemplating life the other day, and a stunning revelation hit me; the vast majority of people who play Warhammer are intellectuals, myself among them.

No.

Yeah, that. Very much that. To be fair though, I used to have a fairly low bar for what constituted an academic (more or less thinking of it as someone who read and discussed issues) until I actually met some intellectuals. Them dudes knows some stuff.




To try and answer the OP's question, I think everyone recognises the importance of considering everyone equal before the law (whether or not that actually happens is a different issue). The bigger issue is whether we are to be considered equal as individuals, whether my abilities are equal to yours, and yours to some other guy's.

I would never make the claim that just because a person is bad at something they're likely to be good at some other task, that all seems like some ridiculous exercise in GURPS style points balancing. But it's also true that we're very complex creatures, athleticism alone has so many different elements; strength, aerobics, fine motor control, spatial awareness, etc, that it becomes very hard to decide exactly who is better and who is worse than anyone else.

And that's only for athleticism - consider intelligence with its countless forms - LT and ST memory, problem solving, language, humour, how do you decide how important each one is. Without some weighting system you'd never be able to really say how smart a person is.

Then you consider the rest... If a person is smart and athletic, but a coward, are they more or less than the averagely intelligent brave man? How do you account for kindness?

We're not equal, but deciding who is greater or lesser than anyone else is a completely subjective thing. The practical solution is to figure we're not equal, but it'd be an arbitrary and pointless exercise to think in those terms. Better just to take people as they are, recognise their strengths and weaknesses and move on.

sebster wrote:I would never make the claim that just because a person is bad at something they're likely to be good at some other task, that all seems like some ridiculous exercise in GURPS style points balancing.

Some people seem dead set on this being how the real world works. The next time someone tells me that muscle makes you slower I'm going to slap them.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Some people seem dead set on this being how the real world works. The next time someone tells me that muscle makes you slower I'm going to slap them.

It's an easy trick to fall into. I've been caught out assuming someone was crap at sport because they were smart, and been absolutely thrashed.

And I don't believe there's a guy out there who hasn't mistakenly assumed a pretty girl was dumb at least once.

All lives are equal.
It's what we do with them that affects the balance.

This clears up the issue I think.



Let freedom ring. Yea Humanity

Frazz is soo sarcastic, I don't know whether or not he is trying to be:

A) sarcastic, and sorta disagreeing with MLK,

B) or he really does believe that.

I'll put my left testacle on A.

Are we equal? On one thing only. Every person on this planet has these rights, as said so convienently by the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So then therefore, We are all equal, as much as frazz doesn't want it, we are ALL equal.

No we aren't.

we are equal in the sense that all human beings have the right to freedom of speech religion, assembly, protest, media, the right to be treated fairly, tnot to be judged because of skin color or race, but because of character. I passionately believe taht, it's waht i meant. Are we equal in the sense of skills? hell no. I paint better that my sister, she speaks better arabic than me, etc.

So which is it to be - Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream...' speech, or the Declaration of Independence?

They are two completely different things. Things which relate to America. America is not the world.

Not everyone has those rights. So no, not everyone is equal.

My argument here isn't quite intellectual, Buuut....

In case it hasn't been stated before by one of the others(You'll know who you are by this statement)
When Heimdall came to Midgard, under Odin's behest to improve the lot of man, there came to be three and a half, maybe four kinds of Man in this world.
The Thrall, simple and unmotivated, easily distracted by basal urges and supposed needs.
The Carl is motivated and proud of his craftsmanship, carrying himself as an expert or professional in his field of work or study.
The Jarl is that leader of men, either loved or vindicated by his righteous actions and thus followed, trusted to lead truly.
The Skald is the leader of men's souls, respected and strange to the three prior.

In today's modern world, you can clearly see these four kinds of Man. Be they man or woman, they are there.
The thrall woman can be likened to Peg Bundy, as can the thrall man to be likened to Al Bundy. Would you consider yourself to be the same as these pair?
The carl woman might not even be a professional in the common sense, but instead a housemaker who goes about her duties and chores with love and dedication.
The carl man too, might merely be a grease-covered mechanic with a wad of chewing tobacco distorting his lower lip but he knows his profession well.
The jarl man might not be that guy you see on the television set every night addressing these people or those people; he could simply be the guy who knows how to get the most out of the people around him, and rewards those who contributed justly.
The jarl woman would not be considered to be "that stuffy *&^%$" by any right-minded person, but rather that trusted team leader who honestly earns her position.
The Skald might not even be a member of any church, rather just that one person that everyone in their community seeks counsel with and whose word is weighed heavily.

As I said, this isn't an intellectual entry on this subject. merely a philosphical one.
If someone a little more familiar with Jungian archetypes wants a crack at this, Please do.

The thrall's position is important, because it's uneconomical to press carls into tilling the land when the carl is better suited at something else productive and technical. The jarl might not know the first thing of what his carls do, but knows how to use his carls and thralls before him. The skald isn't interested in any of this drek; they're happier with their role.

isthatmycow wrote:Frazz is soo sarcastic, I don't know whether or not he is trying to be:

A) sarcastic, and sorta disagreeing with MLK,

B) or he really does believe that.

I'll put my left testacle on A.

Are we equal? On one thing only. Every person on this planet has these rights, as said so convienently by the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So then therefore, We are all equal, as much as frazz doesn't want it, we are ALL equal.

I hold this speech and the ideals within it to be representative of one of the top 10 things ever said by man anywhere, anytime. I too dream of that time and see it coming into being. My children are better than I was. I am better than my parents were. King speaks of heaven on earth. It can be achieved. It will be achieved.

I would have to say not all humans are created equal. That no matter what your mother told you, you can't do everything you set your mind too. Some people are just better at certain things, than others. And the misconception that being bad at one thing, means your talent is elsewhere is also false. There are people that exist, that are mediocre at everything. Some of us are just better than others. There isn't anything to do with race or gender, but it's just a fact of life. While we should all share equal and unalienable rights, the delusion that every man is capable of everything with enough grit and determination is a pipedream.

God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.

No. All humans are not equal.

Remember, 49% of the population is below average.

darkkt wrote:
Remember, 49% of the population is below average.

Outliers can significantly lower the arithmetic mean such that the majority of the population actually lies above it.

Interesting, but there are outliers on both sides...

I would say there are significantly less Stephen Hawkings than there are Cleatus the Slack Jawed Yokels.

Maybe it would be correct to say that all people are created equal (+ or - 6 standard deviations).





(and that about taps out my memory of statistics).

darkkt wrote:Interesting, but there are outliers on both sides...

Maybe it would be correct to say that all people are created equal (+ or - 6 standard deviations).

I think the central issue is that it would be nearly impossible to come up with a single quantitative measure of individual quality such that we can determine the actual significance of potential outliers.

Of course, that won't stop people from trying.

Some people are created with extra toes, or merged with an unfortunate twin's body.

Some are created in test tubes, and others are created by Hollywood.

Frazzled was created by pouring Jack Daniels into a rusty washtub and leaving it out under a full moon.

I think the point is not any one's idea of how, where or when creation happens, but whether the equality the OP is talking about is social, spiritual, physical or otherwise.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Some people are created with extra toes, or merged with an unfortunate twin's body.

Some are created in test tubes, and others are created by Hollywood.

Frazzled was created by pouring Jack Daniels into a rusty washtub with a bowl of queso and leaving it out under a full moon.

I think the point is not any one's idea of how, where or when creation happens, but whether the equality the OP is talking about is social, spiritual, physical or otherwise.

Corrected your typo.

Frazzled, you're made in part, of fondue?

Wrexasaur wrote:Frazzled, you're made in part, of fondue?

Sucker please. Queso, food of the gods and gun toting bandits everywhere.

Spiked Fondue? Is this a good idea, or a shortcut to third degree burns?

Albatross wrote:So which is it to be - Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream...' speech, or the Declaration of Independence?

They are two completely different things. Things which relate to America. America is not the world.

Not everyone has those rights. So no, not everyone is equal.

But people should be equal in the sense of human dignity and liberty. why should someone from asia have less rights than some one from afrcie? why should some from Europe have more rights and freedom than someone from africa? the question here, is not whether or not, we are equal in life, (wealth, health, wisdom, properity, etc.) cuase the ansewr is painfully obvious, no in those categories we are not. But in race, religion, freedom of speech, assembly, press, human dignity we all should be given the same amount of treatment, same amount of rights and freedoms, do people always have, of course not. but the point is, they should.

isthatmycow wrote:

Albatross wrote:So which is it to be - Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream...' speech, or the Declaration of Independence?

They are two completely different things. Things which relate to America. America is not the world.

Not everyone has those rights. So no, not everyone is equal.

But people should be equal in the sense of human dignity and liberty. why should someone from asia have less rights than some one from afrcie? why should some from Europe have more rights and freedom than someone from africa? the question here, is not whether or not, we are equal in life, (wealth, health, wisdom, properity, etc.) cuase the ansewr is painfully obvious, no in those categories we are not. But in race, religion, freedom of speech, assembly, press, human dignity we all should be given the same amount of treatment, same amount of rights and freedoms, do people always have, of course not. but the point is, they should.

No. . . the right to those things you mentioned(same treatment, same rights) are generally gotten(is this a word?) by fighting for them(American Revolution, English Civil War,-to a lesser extent the magna carta, French Revolution) or have had their systems of rights set up by countries with those rights established(several african nations that were under colonial control), people who are not willing to fight for those rights do not deserve them. An example is the civil rights movement in the US, the african americans didn't get rights until they "fought" to get them and yes it took time but they fought and they got their rights.
A more personal and closer example is people who addicted to harmful drugs(immediately harmful, not something like cigarettes) should lose some rights as a human since they have lowered themselves as a human.
In a situation where people don't fight for their rights as people they deserved to be conquered and ruled

isthatmycow wrote:But people should be equal in the sense of human dignity and liberty.

Yes, but the question was not should all humans be equal, was it?

isthatmycow wrote:But in race, religion, freedom of speech, assembly, press, human dignity we all should be given the same amount of treatment, same amount of rights and freedoms, do people always have, of course not. but the point is, they should.

Says who? Children don't have exactly the same rights as adults - rightly so. And that's just for starters. Absolute freedom of the Press? Never gonna happen, sorry. Absolute freedom of the press in its end state would allow for hard-core child porn to be shown on the morning news.

Absolute freedom of anything is a myth. Absolutely equal rights is another one. I'm guessing you're a teenager.


No offence.

Huffy wrote:No. . . the right to those things you mentioned(same treatment, same rights) are generally gotten(is this a word?) by fighting for them(American Revolution, English Civil War,-to a lesser extent the magna carta, French Revolution) or have had their systems of rights set up by countries with those rights established(several african nations that were under colonial control), people who are not willing to fight for those rights do not deserve them. An example is the civil rights movement in the US, the african americans didn't get rights until they "fought" to get them and yes it took time but they fought and they got their rights.

So African-Americans deserved to be legally treated as 3/5 of a human being until they fought for equality? By your reasoning, they also deserved bondage. Classy!

Huffy wrote:A more personal and closer example is people who addicted to harmful drugs(immediately harmful, not something like cigarettes) should lose some rights as a human since they have lowered themselves as a human.

In your opinion. You could substitute 'addiction to harmful drugs' for 'homosexuality' or 'abortion', and quite easily look shockingly bigoted here.

Huffy wrote:In a situation where people don't fight for their rights as people they deserved to be conquered and ruled

Again...

Huffy wrote:
No. . . the right to those things you mentioned(same treatment, same rights) are generally gotten(is this a word?) by fighting for them(American Revolution, English Civil War,-to a lesser extent the magna carta, French Revolution) or have had their systems of rights set up by countries with those rights established(several african nations that were under colonial control), people who are not willing to fight for those rights do not deserve them. An example is the civil rights movement in the US, the african americans didn't get rights until they "fought" to get them and yes it took time but they fought and they got their rights.

You're conflating ability with righteousness. Rights are not real things, and so cannot be said to be objective. They are purely subjective concepts which effectively serve to anchor the beliefs of a group of people. The examples you cited are, at the most basic level, instances in which one group of people believed that they were entitled to certain rights, while another group of people took the opposite stance. This divergence of belief lead to conflict, which then forced one side to acquiesce. The cessation of hostility did not determine which side was right or deserving, it merely determined which side had the power to enforce its point of view.

Huffy wrote:
A more personal and closer example is people who addicted to harmful drugs(immediately harmful, not something like cigarettes) should lose some rights as a human since they have lowered themselves as a human.

You're assuming a hierarchy, which cannot exist objectively.

dogma wrote:I think the central issue is that it would be nearly impossible to come up with a single quantitative measure of individual quality such that we can determine the actual significance of potential outliers.

Yeah, this. There are people who are absolute geniuses in their technical fields that shouldn't be allowed to cross the road unsupervised.

We are not equal, but human qualities are so diverse and so subjective that it'd be impossible to ever determine who's better than who.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Huffy wrote:No. . . the right to those things you mentioned(same treatment, same rights) are generally gotten(is this a word?) by fighting for them(American Revolution, English Civil War,-to a lesser extent the magna carta, French Revolution) or have had their systems of rights set up by countries with those rights established(several african nations that were under colonial control), people who are not willing to fight for those rights do not deserve them.

Your theory has serious problems when referenced to reality. The magna carta is not an example of the people demanding rights, it was demanded by barons and is almost entirely based around what rights they are guaranteed - habeas corpus is more or less and afterthought in the document. It did play an important role in the evolution of Britain into a constitutional monarchy, over generations of steady reform.

The French revolution didn't do a lot for the freedoms of its people. It's writing were hugely influential in US freedom, but in France they basically led to The Terror, which made the latter days of the monarchy look delightful in comparison. After that lengthy period of brutality they ended up with Napoleon as dictator - who used the new powers of the state to conscript a vast portion of the population to go off conquering Europe, bankrupting France and getting a lot of its citizens killed. Not a lot of freedom won there. Following Napoleon's defeat there was monarchy under the control of the wealthiest bourgeoisie, then another shortlived Republic, then another Napoleon dictatorship (his brother's kid). The Republic was finally established, but only when the dictatorship collapsed after defeat to Prussia in 1870, nothing particularly triumphant there. That generally disfunctional government survived until defeat by the Nazis, and the modern French state only developed after liberation by the Allies.

Actual instances of violent revolution producing functioning governments are extremely rare. The US revolution shouldn't be seen as the standard for the progression of rights, but as the remarkable piece of good fortune it really was. Guys like Washington are rare, really rare, guys like Robespierre are common, really common.

The rest of your post follows on from the misunderstanding I've demonstrated above. What determines rights isn't how much we've fought for them, but how much circumstance - particularly the power granted by economic position and education - allows us to demand rights. There's also a lot of dumb luck involved. Look at Russian history, there is an immensely long history of fighting and sacrifice for rights, and even now they're still getting screwed.

Define "equal". If you mean possessing the same abilities, physically and/or mentally, then of course not. Some are smarter, some are strnger, some are (by our cultural norms) considered more attractive.
If you mean having the same inalienable rights, then yes, yes they are.

don_mondo wrote:Define "equal". If you mean possessing the same abilities, physically and/or mentally, then of course not. Some are smarter, some are strnger, some are (by our cultural norms) considered more attractive.
If you mean having the same inalienable rights, then yes, yes they are.

Did you read the thread? Because the ideas you mention have been given a dozen or more times, and then expanded again and again. In summary, yes people have varying abilities but it's all but impossible to objectively measure abilities. And yes, people like to talk about equal rights but it's a big world and most people simply don't have the rights we take for granted.

I get the impression that four pages into this that no clear definition of equal has yet been agreed upon. If no one agrees on its meaning, how can the question even be asked, let alone answered? Might as well ask if all humans are dringbelled schizzlestax and let everyone read into it what they want and propose an answer.

Actually, I suppose since the OP wanted an answer he should have given us his working definition and let us determine using that criteria how to answer the question. So, bad OP, bad!

Ahtman wrote:Might as well ask if all humans are dringbelled schizzlestax

Of course they are. Fascist.

I agree that we need a clear definition of equal to properly answer the question, though I'll point out that properly answering the question on an internet forum is an ambitious plan.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Might as well ask if all humans are dringbelled schizzlestax

Of course they are. Fascist.

I agree that we need a clear definition of equal to properly answer the question, though I'll point out that properly answering the question on an internet forum is an ambitious plan.

That is assuming that we are democratic in determining the definition. If OP were to state what he means (this is for his project after all) then we could formulate a thesis based on the definition. This doesn't mean it is something would would all agree to, but whether it works within the confines of this project.

The OT seems awfully friendly today.

We could also work backwards, and address well known definitions. I am pretty sure most of that has been covered at this point, but it wouldn't hurt to summarize the thread so far. I'll see what I can gather, 3 pages is a substantial amount of input.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Might as well ask if all humans are dringbelled schizzlestax

Of course they are. Fascist.

Hey now! Fascism is a perfectly fine choice, as long as you have a leader that knows what they're doing and will not let the power go to their head.

If all humans are equal, isn't a government based on one human as likely to be good as one based on all people?

Although my post began in farce, I am interested to see what logic can be applied to this question.

Well since someone brought up Fascist its time for a further comment from Frazzled to put the whole issue in perspective.

Ahtman wrote:That is assuming that we are democratic in determining the definition. If OP were to state what he means (this is for his project after all) then we could formulate a thesis based on the definition. This doesn't mean it is something would would all agree to, but whether it works within the confines of this project.

I wasn't saying anything about who'd pick the definition, I was just saying that definition or no we probably won't get a focussed answer whether we have one or not because this is the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:Hey now! Fascism is a perfectly fine choice, as long as you have a leader that knows what they're doing and will not let the power go to their head.

If all humans are equal, isn't a government based on one human as likely to be good as one based on all people?

Although my post began in farce, I am interested to see what logic can be applied to this question.

You seem to be using fascism when you mean dictatorship. Facism is a lot of things and is generally fairly hard to define, but generally has ultra-nationalism and individual sacrifice for the state among its message.

In terms of letting elites run government, I'd point out government is led by just a few in representative democracy. They're just elected by the people, to make sure the people in power have our general interest in mind. While the track record of elections in picking the most capable leaders isn't perfect, the other things we've tried suck harder and tend to get more people killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well since someone brought up Fascist its time for a further comment from Frazzled to put the whole issue in perspective.

Ah, so you're saying fascism wasn't a response to communism, but a response to Godzillism? Interesting.

Awesome pic by the way.

There is a method to my madness; I did not give a definition because I felt that it was better to leave the debate open to interpretation. The definition of 'equals' is very much a matter of opinion, and I was interested to see them argued as equals in some ways (in the eyes of the law), and most certainly not in others (physically, thought patterns).

The idea is to encourage people to focus people on the values of modern society, comparing humans as equals through their ability to fulfill these values (Bravery, honesty, dedication, faith, wonder, enough corny garbage.

So now I pose the question; How can we be created equals if we each posess a different set of moral values?

Also, from the way I post, how old do you think I am? (A bit unrelated, perhaps just write a number below your arguments for the focus question. Think of it as a social experiment.)

I think you need to define the term 'created', in this context.
It is potentially problematic.


As you said you were given this as a debate question, one would naturally assume you are in some form of full-time education - it seems a fairly elementary topic, a topic which does not require much in the way of specialist knowledge, so I would guess that you're in high-school. That isn't a value judgement on your posts - they are coherent and thoughtful, if possesed of a little 'naivete'. Which is understandable.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:How can we be created equals if we each posess a different set of moral values?

We still don't know what 'equal' means (outside of a mathematical sense) and now we have to define 'morals' and 'values', either in general or specific?

Are all humans created equal?

Let me share the wisdom from a t-shirt I got at the DMZ gift shop: All men are not created equal. Only the finest become Marines.

Carry on.

Existence predates essence. Even if everyone is created equal, then the guy born in an isolated mountain village with no knowledge of the next valley will still end up with very different morals, knowledge and overall achievement than the person born in the middle of a vibrant cultural center to active, wealthy parents.

Moral values are not created, they are taught by our experiences, our friends and our family.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:The definition of 'equals' is very much a matter of opinion, and I was interested to see them argued as equals in some ways (in the eyes of the law), and most certainly not in others (physically, thought patterns).

Saying someone is equal in the eyes of the law, or not equal in those senses which you referenced, simply recontextualizes the uncertain term. That can help us arrive at a colloquial definition by mass demarcation, but it doesn't directly explain what equal means. In philosophy there are subtle, but important differences between words like 'equal' and 'identical', or even 'equal' and 'equivalent'.

Two good ideas to keep in your mind when considering philosophy are:
1: If you think its obvious, then it most definitely is not.
2: Synonymous does not mean "the same."

Okay, okay, okay, okay, What about this. Here we go, the Cow's Charter of Human rights:

1. All people are born equal to the law, no one person shall be treated better or worse becaues of age, sex, Race, Ethnicity, Religion, or Creed of any sort.

2. All people have the right to freedom of expression so long his freedom does no physical/mental harm to another, and is kept within resaonable decency to basic public access (so yeah, you gotta be 18 to watch porn, smoke, etc.).

3. The above clause also includes freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, adn redress grievences (petition).

4. The law is meant to seve Justice to it's offenders, not to oppress the people.

Alright, can we agree that all people should and I repeat should have these rights?

does no mental harm? Anyone who agrees with me causes me mental harm, the meanies!

We're not even equal in the eyes of the law though. I kill someone, I'm off to jail, because i'm mentally 'all there'. Say if... Frazzled killed someone, he'd be off to the looney bin! That's discrimination! I'd want to go to the looney bin too!

Same crime, different punishment, therefore we're not equal in the eyes of the law.

isthatmycow wrote:Okay, okay, okay, okay, What about this. Here we go, the Cow's Charter of Human rights:

1. All people are born equal to the law, no one person shall be treated better or worse becaues of age, sex, Race, Ethnicity, Religion, or Creed of any sort.


2. All people have the right to freedom of expression so long his freedom does no physical/mental harm to another, and is kept within resaonable decency to basic public access (so yeah, you gotta be 18 to watch porn, smoke, etc.).

You're probably thinking I'm nit-picking you just for fun at this point, but your second law pretty much negates the first. Plus, your idea of 'reasonable decency' seems to be based around American standards - European Standards are very different (16 for sex, smoking - 18 for Alcohol etc.). There's a certain amount of prejudice implicit in your charter, in that you consider American standards as being the best, or most appropriate. America is far from being an ideal society, even if it is closer than many.

bsohi wrote:We're not even equal in the eyes of the law though. I kill someone, I'm off to jail, because i'm mentally 'all there'. Say if... Frazzled killed someone, he'd be off to the looney bin! That's discrimination! I'd want to go to the looney bin too!

Same crime, different punishment, therefore we're not equal in the eyes of the law.

You murdered a dude with a full understanding of what you were doing. Fraz, being a loon, committed a murder with little understanding of what he was doing. So you committed a crime, whereas Fraz is just a poor, troubled soul badly in need of therapy.

The point is that the crime is different when a person is as crazy as Fraz, so the punishment should be very different.

I work on construction vessels in various parts of the worlkd, building offshore oilfields. Got asked this question by an engineer who also happened to be a midget. Told him, "You look at a thalydymide baby and tell me we were all created equal."

Yeah, I didnt read the thread. Just stuck my cents in to answeer OP's question.

sebster wrote:

bsohi wrote:We're not even equal in the eyes of the law though. I kill someone, I'm off to jail, because i'm mentally 'all there'. Say if... Frazzled killed someone, he'd be off to the looney bin! That's discrimination! I'd want to go to the looney bin too!

Same crime, different punishment, therefore we're not equal in the eyes of the law.

You murdered a dude with a full understanding of what you were doing. Fraz, being a loon, committed a murder with little understanding of what he was doing. So you committed a crime, whereas Fraz is just a poor, troubled soul badly in need of therapy.

The point is that the crime is different when a person is as crazy as Fraz, so the punishment should be very different.

You missed the part about Frazzled knowing how to bury...preishable...items in the swamp/bayou whereas the other guy doesn't. Just sayin'

Frazzled wrote:You missed the part about Frazzled knowing how to bury...preishable...items in the swamp/bayou whereas the other guy doesn't. Just sayin'

We will never be truly equal in the eyes of the law until we all have our own bayou for burying dead hookers.

I was thinking more along the lines of people who mistakenly wandered onto my lawn, but whatever floats your boat.

Frazzled, the more I read of you, the more it seems you have clip art for every occasion.

The honor, is to serve.

I, for one, welcome our new baby overlord!