NationStates Jolt Archive

Rate where you stand on this statement:
"We are not all born equal, but rather some born with their wits deseased and other with the strengh to climb mountains. It is the duty of true democracy for the greater to give freely of themselves so that the weaker may strive to greater heights. It is only in doing this that humanity may truly seperate itself from the animals from which we decend"

There'll be a poll, but I am far more interested in youor opinions.

No takers?

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether Democracy has any particular duty at all. That being said, if everyone does their bit to help others along, we'd live a better life, yes.
I don't get the poll though.

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether Democracy has any particular duty at all. That being said, if everyone does their bit to help others along, we'd live a better life, yes.
I don't get the poll though.
Basically, you vote the option that best reflects your stance towards the statement. If you absolutely agree, you pick 1. If you absolutely disagree you pick 10. If you fall anywhere inbetween you pick how far between the two polars you stand.

We are all born equal. To state that someone is worth more simply because of his or hers physical attributes sounds a lot like rhetoric used by people like Hitler and his boyos.

Shiat! Well, so much for my reading. I chose 8, actually wanting to choose 2.

We are all born equal. To state that someone is worth more simply because of his or hers physical attributes sounds a lot like rhetoric used by people like Hitler and his boyos.
You do not believe that someone born physically disabled may have need of a wheelchair?

Shiat! Well, so much for my reading. I chose 8, actually wanting to choose 2.
S'ok.

Democracy had more than one definition during the ages.

Personally, I believe that to make democracy work, it is not enough to give every person a vote. You have to enable every person to inform themselves on current events and general political options, you have to educate them in a way that enables them to make a valid and reflected decision on who or what to vote for and you have to make sure that the democracy doesn't turn into a dictatorship of the majority, but reflects the need of the population.

Only if these essential facts are given can you really speak of democray

Democracy had more than one definition during the ages.

Personally, I believe that to make democracy work, it is not enough to give every person a vote. You have to enable every person to inform themselves on current events and general political options, you have to educate them in a way that enables them to make a valid and reflected decision on who or what to vote for and you have to make sure that the democracy doesn't turn into a dictatorship of the majority, but reflects the need of the population.

Only if these essential facts are given can you really speak of democray
Well put

If you make a homogenous society, everybody will be mediocre.

We are all born equal. To state that someone is worth more simply because of his or hers physical attributes sounds a lot like rhetoric used by people like Hitler and his boyos.

I don't think they are "worth more" due to their physical or mental attributes. But they simply do have advantages that others don't have.
You could also argue that a child born into a wealthy family is advantaged, whereas one born to a poor family is disadvantaged. When it comes to political activity, the child from the rich family will have the better education and therefore the better understanding of the process, so as a result, he or she will participate more likely and will get his or her issues attended to. The one born into the poor family may not know all their options and possibilities and may not be able to take advantage of them.

If you make a homogenous society, everybody will be mediocre.
Mediocre, but equal.

We are all born equal. To state that someone is worth more simply because of his or hers physical attributes sounds a lot like rhetoric used by people like Hitler and his boyos.

Nonsense and nonsense.

No one is ever born equal. Some will have advantages of resources like wealth or location (Born in a land of plenty and freedom rather than a land of poverty and oppression, for instance). Some will be born strong or weak, healthy or frail, intelligent or simple, beautiful or ugly.

It's myopic and wishful to ignore these realities in favor of nurturing a misguided fantasy of total equality.

The problem of the mistake you seem to be making is the confusion of equality of humanity and worth, which is universal at birth, with equality of capability, which is not.

"Hitler and his boyos" and like minds through history have believed and advocated that it was not these "attributes" that made one group inherantly superior, but rather the simple fact of being born with certain inconsequential attributes, like fair skin or blonde hair.

If you make a homogenous society, everybody will be mediocre.

This is a seductive but fallacious idea that has been disporved by history again and again.

First it's impossible to make any human society truely and completely homogenous.

Second, as counter-intuitive as it might seem to some, it's been clearly shown that, by any number of measuring criteria, care taken by the "strong" to elevate and advance the "weak", when met with an earnest desire by the "weak" to improve, tends to advance the causes of all involved. The current American standard of living is an excellent example. The current Swiss standard of living may be an even better one.

Rate where you stand on this statement:
"We are not all born equal, but rather some born with their wits deseased and other with the strengh to climb mountains. It is the duty of true democracy for the greater to give freely of themselves so that the weaker may strive to greater heights. It is only in doing this that humanity may truly seperate itself from the animals from which we decend"

There'll be a poll, but I am far more interested in youor opinions.
"We are not all born equal, but rather some born with their wits deseased and other with the strengh to climb mountains.-True
It is the duty of true democracy for the greater to give freely of themselves so that the weaker may strive to greater heights.-I agree that a true democracy must do these things.

It is only in doing this that humanity may truly seperate itself from the animals from which we decend"
I disagree plenty of animals help out other animals look at the mouse pulling the thorn out of the Lions Paw or the Horse and the Chicken, stuck in Quicksand.

Besides Democracy is overated.

Imo, we do inherit some characteristics from our parents (both physical and mental), but this is not enough to say "humans are not born equal". I believe that anyone can be whoever he/she wants to be... as long as they have the right "enviroment" (for example: a child from a poor family might not get as much education as a child from a rich family).

True democracy needs to give as much information as possible to those who vote so they can make the decision that they truly want. But there's no link between democracy and how advantaged or handicapped a person is born; democracy is just what the majority wants.

Imo, we do inherit some characteristics from our parents (both physical and mental), but this is not enough to say "humans are not born equal". I believe that anyone can be whoever he/she wants to be... as long as they have the right "enviroment" (for example: a child from a poor family might not get as much education as a child from a rich family).

True democracy needs to give as much information as possible to those who vote so they can make the decision that they truly want. But there's no link between democracy and how advantaged or handicapped a person is born.


Well, there is a link imo between democracy and how well those disadvantages are evened out.

Imo, we do inherit some characteristics from our parents (both physical and mental), but this is not enough to say "humans are not born equal".
Depends on what is meant by the word equal. It seems to me that the original post meant equal in the context of being advantaged or disadvantaged, in which case it is false to state that everyone is born equal. They are not.

I believe that anyone can be whoever he/she wants to be... as long as they have the right "enviroment" (for example: a child from a poor family might not get as much education as a child from a rich family).
I think that is a rather naive belief. It doesnt matter what environment I was raised in, I am simply not tall enough to be a supermodel, end of story. It isnt true that anyone can be anything they wish to be.

Evidently I believe you are missing the point, surely the point of the paragraph we are discussing is that the environment ought (in a democracy) be so ordered that it does facilitate the best possible outcome for even those born into greatest disadvantagement (relative to others within the democracy)?

Seems like my argument was quickly turned upon. When I say equal, I mean in the sense of everyone being "worth" as much. And while I don't believe this is so in society of today it still doesn't change the fact that I consider all humans to be of equal "value".

Seems like my argument was quickly turned upon. When I say equal, I mean in the sense of everyone being "worth" as much. And while I don't believe this is so in society of today it still doesn't change the fact that I consider all humans to be of equal "value".

I wondered if that was the case (but didnt want to put words in your mouth...it's never polite to put things in other people's mouth uninvited ;) ).

This is kind of what I meant when I said 'missing the point', the meaning of equal you are intending is (I believe) different to the intended meaning in the original post. You are refering to 'worth' or 'value' where as I believe the original post was referring to equal as in 'functionality' and 'opportunity'.

I belive that a truely enlightned society gives every member of its society the tools and the encouragement to acheive thier maximum potential. Some will climb higher than others. Some will start higher than others. Some will climb from the bottom of society to the upper halls. Others will fall. What a person achieves on thier own merits should be the standard that a person is judged.

He had me up to the point where he started talking about "duty" and that made me put a 1.
Yes, some people are born with better attributes then others, and I say that the duty of any free society is to unshackle the superior element. Let the scientists devote all they have to building better mouse traps, let the writers pound their keyboards to oblivion in a search for the correct word, let the investors throw their money and political dicks about as they will in pursuit of wealth, let the artists, er, art, and the rest of the world will be better through proximity. (I'm pretty sure that I ripped that quote, well excluding the art part, off from somewhere, but I don't know where).
Whatever, anyway, yeah. Let the masses rot, they should have put more thought into it before they became peasants!

With the exception Fiddlebooty, I think we have a consensus amoung posting voters. EVERYONE AGREES WITH ROTOVIA BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT< says I.