NationStates Jolt Archive

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

"Harrison Bergeron" - Click on the link below.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

Human equality and human conformity are two different things.

"There is no human equality, theres on progress and those willing enough to acheive it."


Do you mean there's only progress?

Do you mean there's only progress?

Thank you, buddy. :)

Define what "human equality" means for the purposes of this poll.

Also, your sig is way too big.

I think, and this is just wild conjecture on my part, but I think what the whole, "All men are created equal," thing refers to everyone being equal in the eyes of the law. That no one is king over anyone else by right of birth or divine right. It didn't actually mean that we are equal or should be equal. I don't think anyone was was agueing that. I think it was just more a further refinment and that whole civilization thing. You know, giving up your right to murder someone who pisses you off in return for other people not trying to murder you? So you are no longer allowed to be born head honcho but if you want and you have the talent you can still go out and become President or a billionaire or whatever.

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

I agree. It's all about power though. If you let the powerful decide about equality, you will get people who are more equal than others.

It's like peace. Everyone says they want it. But when the push comes to shove, principles disappear in favor of a bit of the ol' ultraviolence.

Human equality and human conformity are two different things.

You said it sister.


...or brother, whichever. (Sister sounds better, though.)

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

I agree. It's all about power though. If you let the powerful decide about equality, you will get people who are more equal than others.

It's like peace. Everyone says they want it. But when the push comes to shove, principles disappear in favor of a bit of the ol' ultraviolence.

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

The equality usually refered in the legal sense, is in terms of basic societal rights, not ability.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal," he did not mean social or economic egalitarianism. Rather he and others of the Founding generation believed that society by its nature could never be socially or economically homogeneous because men differ in their abilities and virtues. They did not want to level society, but rather give to each individual the opportunity to make the most of his abilities. In order for this opportunity to exist, all men (and at the time they were only concerned with men) had to stand before the law on an equal footing.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/equal.htm

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

There's a vast difference between being the same, and being equal. The latter is worth striving for. The former is not.

The equality usually refered in the legal sense, is in terms of basic societal rights, not ability.

I was talking about, like in terms of society. That everyone should be equal, deviod of uniquness...basically like what happens under Communism. Basically what I'm talking about can be grasped by reading the article I posted in the OP.

Define what "human equality" means for the purposes of this poll.

Like I said above...just read the story in the OP.

I think, and this is just wild conjecture on my part, but I think what the whole, "All men are created equal," thing refers to everyone being equal in the eyes of the law.

That's not just what you think, and it isn't wild conjecture. It's what the original framers of the constitution intended, according to the records they left.

There's a vast difference between being the same, and being equal. The latter is worth striving for. The former is not.

Under the law, there IS a difference between being the same and being equal, in soceity, I dont think there is.

I was talking about, like in terms of society. That everyone should be equal, deviod of uniquness...basically like what happens under Communism.

"Equal" and "devoid of uniqueness" are very different things. Communism does not proscribe an end to uniqueness. You are making that up; it is a blatant straw man.

Basically what I'm talking about can be grasped by reading the article I posted in the OP.

Which is an example of extreme conformity, not equality.

The pro-equality people are espousing equality as a legal tenet. We are not inherently equal and it is obvious. Why people can't sort out these different uses of the word really bugs me.

Equality under the law: We should all be for this (Yes there are situations that void such and such, don't make this your only reason to reply to my post).

Physical/Mental equality of all human individuals: Doesn't exist; no duh and no debate.

Under the law, there IS a difference between being the same and being equal, in soceity, I dont think there is.

Sure there is. People can enjoy both political and economic equality without being the same. Differences in, say, hair color are irrelevant to equality, at least as it is conventionally used.

Under the law, there IS a difference between being the same and being equal, in soceity, I dont think there is.

Of course there is. I pity people who look at other human beings and only calculate worth.

I was talking about, like in terms of society. That everyone should be equal, deviod of uniquness...basically like what happens under Communism. Basically what I'm talking about can be grasped by reading the article I posted in the OP.

Like I said above...just read the story in the OP.

That's the point of both my post and "Harrison Bergeron" - equality was originally intended to be a matter of legality, not of ability.

(And just my two cents: you should go ahead and post the title of the story. It's not like it not well known.)

"There is no human equality, theres only progress and those willing enough to acheive it."

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

"Harrison Bergeron" - Click on the link below.

Human equality is inherently flawed because it forgets the fact that each and every human is unique. (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal..... (read the story tell me what you think)

*sigh*

Equal rights, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, equity.

Those are the goals. Equal treatment and opportunity despite differences. Not some artificial absolute equality that denies human uniqueness and is devoid of differences.

*sigh*

Equal rights, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, equity.

Those are the goals. Equal treatment and opportunity despite differences. Not some artificial absolute equality that denies human uniqueness and is devoid of differences.

Nonsense. If that were true, there would be some ongoing means of developing the law to recognize and accomodate reasonable differences among people while still fomenting an environment for individual achievement. Some kind of "civil...rights...movement" or something.

Nonsense. If that were true, there would be some ongoing means of developing the law to recognize and accomodate reasonable differences among people while still fomenting an environment for individual achievement. Some kind of "civil...rights...movement" or something.

dream on hippie

dream on hippie

Hey, my ferret says that dreams are the rocket fuel on which the apollo program of hope is sent to the moon of...um...possibility, or something...

Anyway, to advocate personal excellence is fine, but such excellence is meaningless without the pursuit of equality in the eyes of the law.

This conversation calls to mind the schoolroom passage in Jennifer Government, where they talk about blinding babies.

Equality in the eyes of the law is meaningless if you are not seen as equal by your fellow human beings. Also, there is a difference between treating everyone the same and treating everyone as if they are of equal moral worth.

Equality in the eyes of the law is meaningless if you are not seen as equal by your fellow human beings. Also, there is a difference between treating everyone the same and treating everyone as if they are of equal moral worth.

But the view of an individual should be their own and not mandated; I don't see it as plausible to legislate how everyone views everyone else. Being a minority, I am prepared to satisfy myself with as close an approximation of equal treatment as can be achieved.

As to "moral worth", I find it nebulous and a frequent excuse for discrimination...

But the view of an individual should be their own and not mandated; I don't see it as plausible to legislate how everyone views everyone else. Being a minority, I am prepared to satisfy myself with as close an approximation of equal treatment as can be achieved.

Agreed, but I am not talking about legislation, I am talking about morality.


As to "moral worth", I find it nebulous and a frequent excuse for discrimination...

Fair enough. I will try and think up a more precise term.

I was talking about, like in terms of society. That everyone should be equal, deviod of uniquness...basically like what happens under Communism. Basically what I'm talking about can be grasped by reading the article I posted in the OP.

Equal =/= devoid of uniqueness.

Isn't it funny how some people require inequity to find uniqueness? I think that's funny. "If you want uniqueness, then somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. And me, well, I'm a middle class white boy, and I think we all know that I'm going to end up being the most unique person here..."

economic equality
God, how I hate those two words together.

Equality in the eyes of the law is meaningless if you are not seen as equal by your fellow human beings.

Spoken like a person who has no concept of legal oppression.

Personally, I know damn well that MOST of the citizens of my country view me as "less equal." And I don't particularly care. I think it's annoying, sure, but the law forbids them to put most of their stupidities into practice.

The only places where I actually care about the opinions of the stupid are the places where the law still does not protect me from their stupidity. There are gaps in the law, through which their stupidity can slither, and I stand at those gaps and yell in their faces whenever they try. But I only stand at the gaps.

I don't care if other people don't see me as their equal, so long as they are legally required to recognize that I AM their legal equal. In fact, I kind of enjoy the looks on their faces when they are legally compelled to eat their words :).


Also, there is a difference between treating everyone the same and treating everyone as if they are of equal moral worth.
Not always.

I love Harrison Bergeron. It's great satire.

God, how I hate those two words together.
Why is that? (Honestly curious)

The pro-equality people are espousing equality as a legal tenet. We are not inherently equal and it is obvious. Why people can't sort out these different uses of the word really bugs me.

Even though you yourself are showing an inability to parse "equal"?


Equality under the law: We should all be for this (Yes there are situations that void such and such, don't make this your only reason to reply to my post).

Physical/Mental equality of all human individuals: Doesn't exist; no duh and no debate.
Given your second statement, I think there is a substantial case to be made against your first statement. That happens to be the subject of this thread, I believe.

Harrison Bergeron is a rather poor strawman attack on socialism if you ask me. The fact is, being rich and powerful doesn't necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. It just means you fit well in the system. Do you really think that Britney Spears is especially talented at music or that Bush is a genius? The story confuses equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

Harrison Bergeron is a rather poor strawman attack on socialism if you ask me. The fact is, being rich and powerful doesn't necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. It just means you fit well in the system. Do you really think that Britney Spears is especially talented at music or that Bush is a genius? The story confuses equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
It also overlooks the fact that the requirements for success in our society quite often don't match up with our stated standards for greatness.

For instance, if you ask the average person to list the most important qualities for a superb human being, you will get a very different list than if you ask them to list the most common qualities found in rich/powerful humans in their society. We SAY that we value certain traits, but we reward very different traits in reality.

The ideas of "left" and "right" are flawed, so I won't be voting in the poll. As for "equality" it depends what you mean. Obviously humans aren't equal in the sense of identical, but they can be considered equal with respect to civil rights.

Spoken like a person who has no concept of legal oppression.

Personally, I know damn well that MOST of the citizens of my country view me as "less equal." And I don't particularly care. I think it's annoying, sure, but the law forbids them to put most of their stupidities into practice.

The only places where I actually care about the opinions of the stupid are the places where the law still does not protect me from their stupidity. There are gaps in the law, through which their stupidity can slither, and I stand at those gaps and yell in their faces whenever they try. But I only stand at the gaps.

I don't care if other people don't see me as their equal, so long as they are legally required to recognize that I AM their legal equal. In fact, I kind of enjoy the looks on their faces when they are legally compelled to eat their words :).


Not always.

I don't underestimate the power of legal oppression. I am merely aware that non-legal oppression can be every bit as demeaning.

In my country I find the gaps are too many, and too large. People are only taught that certain kinds of discrimination are wrong, and freely practice others. All that is to say that the laws are inadequate to promote equality.

But even with robust anti-discrimination laws, I am not sure you can legislate equality.

I don't underestimate the power of legal oppression. I am merely aware that non-legal oppression can be every bit as demeaning.

Sure it can, never said it wasn't. But your claim was that "Equality in the eyes of the law is meaningless if you are not seen as equal by your fellow human beings." And that is simply untrue. Equality in the eyes of the law means a whole shitload. Just ask a black American who lived through the Civil Rights era. Yes, there is still racism, and yes, it still fucking sucks...but the rights and legal progress mean a whole hell of a lot.


In my country I find the gaps are too many, and too large. People are only taught that certain kinds of discrimination are wrong, and freely practice others.

I can understand the feeling that legal equality is not SUFFICIENT. And, certainly, I am more than willing to work on increasing social consciousness and getting people to let go of idiot notions about racial, gender, or religious superiority. I would love to live in a world where nobody felt entitled to fuck over others based on some arbitrary categories of Us and Them.


All that is to say that the laws are inadequate to promote equality.

Depends on what you, as an individual, find adequate. I believe that laws would be more than enough to promote MY idea of adequate equality, provided that those laws are actually enforced in a just manner (which is a serious provision, mind you). I know some people would NOT be satisfied with that level of equality, but I, personally, would be.


But even with robust anti-discrimination laws, I am not sure you can legislate equality.
I think it's perfectly goddam easy to legislate equality, it just gets messy when you need to enforce the laws. It also requires that everybody accept the fact that some people aren't going to like you, and some people are going to WANT to treat you unequally, no matter what laws are passed. Just like how some people WANT to murder others, no matter what laws we pass. Some people will murder no matter what laws we pass against murder. This doesn't mean we should give up on laws against murder, nor that we should cave in and stop enforcing the laws, and it certainly doesn't mean that laws against murder are worthless or meaningless.

let me save you the search

http://www.devilducky.com/media/9271/

One cant watch that and really be impressed by it. But its a bunch of 15 year olds out playing a game. no more or less ludicrous then high school sports or JROTC.

In the end things like the SCA (and its hundreds holier then the last guy spin offs) and million various LARPs are just games, a way to spend your free time gathering a little happiness, and as long as the games are fun for you, then you should play it. When it gets sketchy is when you are an old man having fun in a child’s game

Sure it can, never said it wasn't. But your claim was that "Equality in the eyes of the law is meaningless if you are not seen as equal by your fellow human beings." And that is simply untrue. Equality in the eyes of the law means a whole shitload. Just ask a black American who lived through the Civil Rights era. Yes, there is still racism, and yes, it still fucking sucks...but the rights and legal progress mean a whole hell of a lot.

Agreed. Sorry, my statement was an overstatement. It should have been something more to the effect that "equality in the eyes of the law is insufficient ..." And I can respect the fact that not everyone feels that way.


Depends on what you, as an individual, find adequate. I believe that laws would be more than enough to promote MY idea of adequate equality, provided that those laws are actually enforced in a just manner (which is a serious provision, mind you). I know some people would NOT be satisfied with that level of equality, but I, personally, would be.


I think it's perfectly goddam easy to legislate equality, it just gets messy when you need to enforce the laws. It also requires that everybody accept the fact that some people aren't going to like you, and some people are going to WANT to treat you unequally, no matter what laws are passed. Just like how some people WANT to murder others, no matter what laws we pass. Some people will murder no matter what laws we pass against murder. This doesn't mean we should give up on laws against murder, nor that we should cave in and stop enforcing the laws, and it certainly doesn't mean that laws against murder are worthless or meaningless.

Agreed. I absolutely support enforcing the laws that we do have, and trying our best to plug the gaps, as you suggested earlier. I see difficulties in enforcement as well. However, I also see law as being an inherently limited tool, that will be inadequate to eradicate discrimination on its own.

You're just looking for excuses to say 'Egalitarianism/Communalism/Socialism ist teh ev1l,' and have found a conveineint ally in the man of straw.

No one I have heard of has EVER suggested that we physically and mentally handicap people so they all have the same base level of ability. That is retarded, illegal and immoral, because it assumes people have a right to be the same; or indeed that it is possible.

Instead, the term 'Human Equality' is used in the sense that people have a right to be equal - that things like their position of birth, or monetary power, or straight up strength and intelligence do not make some people morally or legally better, or more worthy than others.

In Liberal thought, this means equality before the law and equality in rights. In Socialist and Socialdemocratic thought, this means the Liberal definition, plus that people's natural differences do not entitle some to an unfair share of resources, while others are left starving/cold/whathaveyou. And in (pure, not that Stalinist bullcrap) Communist thought, it means that natural differences do not entitle one to a superior economic, social or political position than one's fellows.

In none of those situations does anyone say we should hobble the strong, or retard the intelligent. Your argument against 'human equality' is a strawman.

I think someone pointed out that this story is about equality of outcome. And that is what American leftists strive for.

For example, the Federal law (Title IX) that says that there must be equal numbers of sports teams for men and women in college, and any sport that is unequal is not allowed. So if there are no women interested in a sport, it cannot be allowed to have an organized team.

And now they are planning to extend that concept to having equal numbers of men and women in college math and science classes.

And of course, it is already done with regard to racial discrimination. If any profession lacks the same percentage of "races" as in the general population, discrimination is presumed to be occurring.

I can easily see the events in "Harrison Bergeron" taking place, in a US where we already are moving to ban smoking in private homes, and regulating what people are allowed to eat at school, next comes restaurants, then homes...

Equal rights--sure. Equal in every way? Some people are stupid, mean, and hideous. :)

The only thing equal about humans is that we all sin, but then not even in equal degrees.

For example, the Federal law (Title IX) that says that there must be equal numbers of sports teams for men and women in college, and any sport that is unequal is not allowed. So if there are no women interested in a sport, it cannot be allowed to have an organized team.

no, it doesn't.

And now they are planning to extend that concept to having equal numbers of men and women in college math and science classes.

no, they aren't.

And of course, it is already done with regard to racial discrimination. If any profession lacks the same percentage of "races" as in the general population, discrimination is presumed to be occurring.

so you think that such systematic disparities are not the result of past or present discrimination?

It also overlooks the fact that the requirements for success in our society quite often don't match up with our stated standards for greatness.

For instance, if you ask the average person to list the most important qualities for a superb human being, you will get a very different list than if you ask them to list the most common qualities found in rich/powerful humans in their society. We SAY that we value certain traits, but we reward very different traits in reality.
It would be better if a meritocracy operated seperately to monetary interests; ie a society where wealth is not the ennobling factor, but rather just a luxury one might enjoy.

In any case, I am for legal equality, but I do not believe that humans are equal in any way, beyond a legal sense; they are individuals, and this should be celebrated. I am unapologetically Nietzschean in this regard. The idea of complete equality should be left to drones and droids.

It would be better if a meritocracy operated seperately to monetary interests; ie a society where wealth is not the ennobling factor, but rather just a luxury one might enjoy.

In any case, I am for legal equality, but I do not believe that humans are equal in any way, beyond a legal sense; they are individuals, and this should be celebrated. I am unapologetically Nietzschean in this regard. The idea of complete equality should be left to drones and droids.

As usual, 100% agreed.

It would be better if a meritocracy operated seperately to monetary interests; ie a society where wealth is not the ennobling factor, but rather just a luxury one might enjoy.

In any case, I am for legal equality, but I do not believe that humans are equal in any way, beyond a legal sense; they are individuals, and this should be celebrated. I am unapologetically Nietzschean in this regard. The idea of complete equality should be left to drones and droids.

Then I would say that you don't have a very good understanding of Nietzsche, because Nietzsche would be very unlikely to agree with your sentiment as stated.

Now, if you will allow me, I will elaborate on what I think you mean. You support the position of legal equality between all people; in other words, all men are treated equally by the law of society without arbitrary distinction. Now, what unites man in this common respect before the law is the common faculty of reason. Even the most foolish man is infinitely more capable of using reason to order his knowledge in ways that even the highest animal simply cannot reach, and while there are some men better able at using reason than others, it is nevertheless indisputably a common faculty among men and a unique faculty of men. Because of this common sense of reason, all men are commonly supposed to have equal standing in law.

Now, as elaborated, I think this serves as a good base for what you were saying. But Nietzsche never said anything like this; indeed, Nietzsche never would say something like this, as this in his view is a perfect instantiation of slave morality. Rather, I'm pretty much quoting chapter and verse from the liberal author John Locke.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, feels that there should be no legal equality, because he sees men as fundamentally unequal in what really matters, which is not reason but the ability to express the will in a creative way. For Nietzsche, all advances are the result of an aristocratic society, or to put it more bluntly, a society that allows fundamental inequality of law on the arbitrary basis of strong or great will. In that sense, it is impossible to reconcile Nietzsche with the notion of legal equality, because there is nothing equal about what make men men in Nietzsche's account: some men have what it takes to be great, and others don't, and society should conform to the will of the great over the slaves.

Equality is flawed, but I'm libertarian...so that puts me where of center then?

Equality is flawed, but I'm libertarian...so that puts me where of center then?

Not really sure...I tried not not be totally specefic...which is why I stuck "tend to be" in there....:p

Didnt reallly work though I guess, as show by exhibit A. :D

Nietzsche, on the other hand, feels that there should be no legal equality, because he sees men as fundamentally unequal in what really matters

I'm no great shakes at Nietzsche, but wasnt he the first to propose an Ubermensch, in fact, as Wiki puts it, "Nietzsche believed that a human being of any race could become an Übermensch. Thus, while Nietzsche did believe in superior and inferior people, he did not believe that superiority and inferiority were determined by race.

Not that I disagree with him, I'm just saying that doesnt sound like equality.

By the way, does anyone know that quote from Nietzsche...something about how the Overman will overcome...or will take over..or something along the lines of that...its really blurry in my mind. I'm trying to find it but I cant seem to locate it.

Why is that? (Honestly curious)
Because I'm not economically equal with that retard who went to highschool with me, would have trouble telling me the capital of his home country and spent his time skipping school and beating up kids weaker or smarter than him.

He deserves all the poverty that he'll get to see. It's not my fault he is that way, and I'll be damned before I give up my money to feed him.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, feels that there should be no legal equality, because he sees men as fundamentally unequal in what really matters, which is not reason but the ability to express the will in a creative way. For Nietzsche, all advances are the result of an aristocratic society, or to put it more bluntly, a society that allows fundamental inequality of law on the arbitrary basis of strong or great will. In that sense, it is impossible to reconcile Nietzsche with the notion of legal equality, because there is nothing equal about what make men men in Nietzsche's account: some men have what it takes to be great, and others don't, and society should conform to the will of the great over the slaves.

I tend to go with a more Sartrean reading of Nietzsche, though the meaning you indicate is definitely there.

The Ubermensch is the man who rejects mauvaise foi, the free man who refuses to obey any restriction not of his own making, to hold to any conformist standard. He creates his own values, respects his own authority. By refusing to hold back because of external restrictions, by letting himself and his strive for perfection reign, he makes himself strong.

Hierarchy is not the expression of this drive, but its impediment. Any system of authority swiftly turns into a system of arbitrary authority. Privilege wrecks great humans; underprivilege suppresses them. When you have a hierarchy both the masters and the slaves are externally defined; their quest for self-perfection and value is undermined by the social structures of which they are a part. Hierarchy corrodes virtue, both Nietzschean and conventional.

It is egalitarianism, not hierarchy, that fits the model. Egalitarianism rejects the right of any human to rule over any other, and thus it does not restrain freedom but rather affirms its reign. By liberating both oppressed and oppressor from external definition, it permits the full flowering and development of each.

I'm no great shakes at Nietzsche, but wasnt he the first to propose an Ubermensch, in fact, as Wiki puts it, "Nietzsche believed that a human being of any race could become an Übermensch. Thus, while Nietzsche did believe in superior and inferior people, he did not believe that superiority and inferiority were determined by race.

Not that I disagree with him, I'm just saying that doesnt sound like equality.

By the way, does anyone know that quote from Nietzsche...something about how the Overman will overcome...or will take over..or something along the lines of that...its really blurry in my mind. I'm trying to find it but I cant seem to locate it.

That was my point: Nietzsche was never for equality, although he was also never one to make distinctions based on racial basis (in fact, one of his lesser-quoted, but probably most quotable, statements was "I am now having all the Anti-Semites shot"). He believed that anybody could be an Overman, but he nevertheless believed that any man who truly willed great things into existence should not be hindered by society, even if by his willing he tramples the weak in society. In that sense, he's in no way for equality because he sees men as fundamentally unequal.

That was my point: Nietzsche was never for equality, although he was also never one to make distinctions based on racial basis (in fact, one of his lesser-quoted, but probably most quotable, statements was "I am now having all the Anti-Semites shot"). He believed that anybody could be an Overman, but he nevertheless believed that any man who truly willed great things into existence should not be hindered by society, even if by his willing he tramples the weak in society. In that sense, he's in no way for equality because he sees men as fundamentally unequal.

Right..I was just reading some stuff about the Overman, it seems he beleive that this person was destined to rule the earth with his other great people...sort of like Slave and Master, in fact, S&M (not sexual) came up alot while I was reading him.

He makes some very good points and I sorta agree with him on alot of this stuff.

Anyway, again can anyone find that good quote on him talking about how the Overman are going to come to rule? I saw it last week somewhere and I cant seem to find it again.

Because I'm not economically equal with that retard who went to highschool with me, would have trouble telling me the capital of his home country and spent his time skipping school and beating up kids weaker or smarter than him.

He deserves all the poverty that he'll get to see. It's not my fault he is that way, and I'll be damned before I give up my money to feed him.

Man, you are so sounding like a Capitalista, :p

Hey, just wondering, on the political compass, economically, do you score in the positives or in the negatives?

Also, do you know what quote I'm talking about?

Because I'm not economically equal with that retard who went to highschool with me, would have trouble telling me the capital of his home country and spent his time skipping school and beating up kids weaker or smarter than him.

He deserves all the poverty that he'll get to see. It's not my fault he is that way, and I'll be damned before I give up my money to feed him.

No one deserves poverty. If he contributes socially-useful labor, he deserves a fair share of society's collective economic proceeds. His personality and ignorance, however abhorrent they may be, are irrelevant.

Hey, just wondering, on the political compass, economically, do you score in the positives or in the negatives?
I don't know. Used to be negative on both, but I have a feeling that may be changing a little.
But the questions really don't delve deep enough to get a proper answer.

Also, do you know what quote I'm talking about?
No, Nietzsche is not my forté.

His personality and ignorance, however abhorrent they may be, are irrelevant.
In other words, his existence is.

What am I if my personality is irrelevant?

In other words, his existence is.

No. What kind of person he is is indeed more or less irrelevant. Obviously, his existence is relevant, because if he did not exist he would not contribute anything.

Physical/Mental equality of all human individuals: Doesn't exist; no duh and no debate.

True, but are you saying one human life is worth more than another because of greater mental or physical strengths? Equality is the noble belief that we are all worth the same, conformity would be an incorrect assumption that everyone is capable of the same things.

No. What kind of person he is is indeed more or less irrelevant. Obviously, his existence is relevant, because if he did not exist he would not contribute anything.
I am more than just my body. He is only a body, he doesn't have a mind to speak of.
His "contribution" is that of a robot. My contribution is that which my brain can do, and worth infinitely more, judged by the only way of valuing contributions we have - what others think of it.

Human equality doesn't mean that everybody is exactly the same. It means that everyone has equivelent oppertunities.

Depends what you mean by 'equality'.

The people I've seen who go on anti-equality rants tend to define it in clearly negative ways.

I believe that human beings are all inherently of equal moral value.

But, *obviously* there's differences between people, differences between cultures, etc. Ignoring those differences doesn't mean you're a proprietor of equality. It means you're ignorant. People should be treated as the individuals they are, not be lumped into some cultural, ethnic, or religious group and treated as just 'members of that group'.

I am more than just my body. He is only a body, he doesn't have a mind to speak of.
His "contribution" is that of a robot. My contribution is that which my brain can do, and worth infinitely more, judged by the only way of valuing contributions we have - what others think of it.

I see. And, of course, with the mighty powers of your mind, you make your own clothes, your own car, your own house, your own food, your own computer....

I am more than just my body. He is only a body, he doesn't have a mind to speak of.
His "contribution" is that of a robot. My contribution is that which my brain can do, and worth infinitely more, judged by the only way of valuing contributions we have - what others think of it.

You are heading down a dangerous road when you feel justified in denying the moral worthiness of other persons.

You are heading down a dangerous road when you feel justified in denying the moral worthiness of other persons.
He started it! :p

Some people don't deserve to be treated as equals, ie criminals, terrorists, dictators, and 50 cent.

Some people don't deserve to be treated as equals, ie criminals, terrorists, dictators, and 50 cent.

Ahh. But all criminals should be treated the same based on the nature of their crime and the context in which they committed it, regardless of who they are.

And all dictators, and all terrorists. And rappers should be treated based on how individually offensive their musical output is to your ear and aesthetic pallet.