NationStates Jolt Archive

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?
... 何だHell?!

You DO know the difference between literal and figurative speech, right?

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

That would all be totally profound is equal meant SAME. But it doesn't. It means "alike in quantity, degree or value", which you would know if you could find your way to a dictionary. Two able-bodied white men are not the SAME as one another, but you'd be amazed at how equally they're treated compared to a man with the same abilities and potential with a slightly darker shade of skin.

Also, that saying wasn't meant to create equalism, it was meant to promote equality.

... 何だHell?!

You DO know the difference between literal and figurative speech, right?

Considering he used the word "equalism", I would not at all make this assumption. :(

Yes, from a moral/ethical standpoint, all are *born* equal. It's what happens after that makes someone more equal than someone else. ;)

That being said, yes, people are different. Natural human behavior leads most people to gravitate towards people that are like them in some way, shape, or form. They separate themselves from each other into groups. Now, the Supreme Court held that "separate is inherently unequal", so one can deduce by that line of reasoning that one group will always think in some way that it is superior to another in that aspect.

Not saying it's right, just saying it's natural. Cocaine is natural - doesn't make it right though.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal.

Where does it say they are?

You should probably narrow it down, to "all men are equal before the law" or "all men have equal natural rights" or some such.

Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism,

No, sorry. I don't. Perhaps you could explain more clearly. Who meant to create something, when and in what words. You might be picking a fight with the whole tradition of liberalism ... no-one is going to play unless you narrow it down a bit.

but does this fantasy really need to be there?

If you think it's a fantasy, clearly you don't believe it IS there.

I'm trying to get a little debate here, but you are really going to have to clarify before any sense is going to get written.

That would all be totally profound is equal meant SAME. But it doesn't. It means "alike in quantity, degree or value", which you would know if you could find your way to a dictionary. Two able-bodied white men are not the SAME as one another, but you'd be amazed at how equally they're treated compared to a man with the same abilities and potential with a slightly darker shade of skin.

Also, that saying wasn't meant to create equalism, it was meant to promote equality.

Black people are designed to run faster than white men. Women are less muscular. Men have less brain ability. Mexicans are usually heavier set and have more muscle. I think that these affect the value of a person.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

Fail.

Black people are designed to run faster than white men. Women are less muscular. Men have less brain ability. Mexicans are usually heavier set and have more muscle.

None of those affect their value as a HUMAN BEING.

I think that these affect the value of a person.

Then you are a racist and a sexist, in the most pejorative sense of both words.

There's another name I want to call you, but you aren't worth my second official warning for flaming.

Of course all men are born equal. Some are just born more equal than others.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

You seem to be confusing 'the same' with 'equal'.

A common mistake.

Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal?

Here's your problem: equivocation.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?
1. Figurative speech, not literal speech.

2. The form of equality spoken of was not physical equality or mental equality, but equality under the law, which is completely different. In other words, a handicapped person and an Olympic athlete would both have the same rights to free speech, peaceful protesting, not to have to quarter soldiers, trial by jury, ect ect ect.

all men are equal before god.

all men should be equal in the law.

its put there to dismiss the idea of royalty and nobility.

Black people are designed to run faster than white men. Women are less muscular. Men have less brain ability. Mexicans are usually heavier set and have more muscle. I think that these affect the value of a person.

...wow. Just, wow.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

I think, Therefore I am better than you.

*philosophically strokes beard*

:) jk, ofcourse

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

Equal in this sense means "equal before God" if you believe in God. It also means "equal before the law" or "equal in standing." Of course, no one here is silly enough to believe that it means we're all the same, any more than anyone here is silly enough to think that just because your right to your opinion is as good as my right to my opinion extends to mean that your opinion is as good as my opinion.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

All men are not born the same, but all men are born equal... before the law. Doesn't matter if they're black, brown, blue, strong, weak, or the smartest person in the world, they're still equal.

*yawn* And another one misses the difference between "literal" and "figurative".

1. Figurative speech, not literal speech.

No. Literal. People are literally equal in the relevant sense: morally, rightfully, etc.

There's nothing "figurative" about it at all.

No. Literal. People are literally equal in the relevant sense: morally, rightfully, etc.

There's nothing "figurative" about it at all.

Ditto.

All men are not born the same, but all men are born equal... before the law. Doesn't matter if they're black, brown, blue, strong, weak, or the smartest person in the world, they're still equal.

Even if the blacks were made to run faster than the whites? :rolleyes:

No. Literal. People are literally equal in the relevant sense: morally, rightfully, etc.

There's nothing "figurative" about it at all.

Good point. I missed that distinction.

I assume you are referring to the line from the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."

Jefferson was a product of the 18th c. Enlightenment and his ideas were an attack upon the beliefs of the Ancien Regime that the ruling aristocratic class of society owed its position of power to an innate superiority. Jefferson was influenced in his thinking by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, who argued that we are born tabula rasa - a blank slate - and it is our environment and experiences that form who we are.

Obviously, Jefferson understood that everyone is not the same, but in arguing we are all born equal he was saying that no group of people deserve to rule simply because their parents and grandparents ruled.

1. Figurative speech, not literal speech.

2. The form of equality spoken of was not physical equality or mental equality, but equality under the law, which is completely different. In other words, a handicapped person and an Olympic athlete would both have the same rights to free speech, peaceful protesting, not to have to quarter soldiers, trial by jury, ect ect ect.

See, I have a problem with that. Sure, I could simply assume that the author is American, and that "all men are born equal" is of course meant in reference to the opening phrase of the Declaration of Independence.

But I don't see why I should. Not when it actually reads "all men are created equal" and then in the same sentence goes on to speak of rights, making it blindingly plain in what sense "equal" is meant.

This is why my very first post demanded to know of the OP, which written form of words he was challenging the sense of. The Massachusetts Constitution, perhaps?

It does you no credit to accept the premise of the OP that we must of course all know what they're talking about ... when they plainly don't.

See, I have a problem with that. Sure, I could simply assume that the author is American, and that "all men are born equal" is of course meant in reference to the opening phrase of the Declaration of Independence.

But I don't see why I should. Not when it actually reads "all men are created equal" and then in the same sentence goes on to speak of rights, making it blindingly plain in what sense "equal" is meant.

This is why my very first post demanded to know of the OP, which written form of words he was challenging the sense of. The Massachusetts Constitution, perhaps?

It does you no credit to accept the premise of the OP that we must of course all know what they're talking about ... when they plainly don't.

True, but I have a very bad habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt on that one.

"Born equal" and "created equal" are really quite different things. The second leaves the question of when one becomes a person open, the first refers to a unique event which occurs at a particular time in every life.

People may say "oh, it's figurative not literal" but I prefer a statement to make sense, and to make a similar sense, whether taken figuratively or literally.

What's more, I'm going to arrogantly claim to have thought this before reading Soheran's posts. ;)

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

Wow! You really misunderstand the concept of equality! Equality isn't about people being born with the same abilities, or being forced to lead identical lives or some such nonsense; it's about people having the opportunities to achieve success by way of their ability, and to not have irrelevant things like race, gender, and nationality determine one's fate and the opportunities made available to them. What you said was just stupid.

Black people are designed to run faster than white men. Women are less muscular. Men have less brain ability. Mexicans are usually heavier set and have more muscle. I think that these affect the value of a person.

This is just an obscenity right here.

People are born with the right to equal opportunities, not a guarantee of equal outcomes. The phrase does not mean that we are clones of one another.

This isn't really a difficult concept to grasp.

Black people are designed to run faster than white men. Women are less muscular. Men have less brain ability. Mexicans are usually heavier set and have more muscle. I think that these affect the value of a person.
These are generalizations. It is a simple matter to find individuals who would put the lie to any of these examples. The amount of variation from indivdual to individual makes generalizations less than useless, it makes them harmful.

No. Literal. People are literally equal in the relevant sense: morally, rightfully, etc.

There's nothing "figurative" about it at all.
Ditto.
Tritto.

These are generalizations. It is a simple matter to find individuals who would put the lie to any of these examples. The amount of variation from indivdual to individual makes generalizations less than useless, it makes them harmful.

For example:

The average jew:
http://ninjanate.com/nateoholics/bill.jpg


The average chinese:
http://blog.its.ac.id/putuyuwono/files/2008/03/yao_ming_narrowweb__300x5280.jpg

The average man:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f377/chellebelle2476/richardsimmons1xr6rq1.jpg


Dare I go on?

For example:

The average man:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f377/chellebelle2476/richardsimmons1xr6rq1.jpg


Dare I go on?
No... please no. For the love of God, no!

For example:

The average jew:
http://ninjanate.com/nateoholics/bill.jpg


The average chinese:
http://blog.its.ac.id/putuyuwono/files/2008/03/yao_ming_narrowweb__300x5280.jpg

The average man:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f377/chellebelle2476/richardsimmons1xr6rq1.jpg


Dare I go on?

I didnt even have to look at the name to know who post this!
And to think, you might have actually said something serious.
Although, your pictures do speak louder then words and you are showing a fair point. I still giggled. Thanks LG. *pushes you into the mud*

Where does it say they are?

You should probably narrow it down, to "all men are equal before the law" or "all men have equal natural rights" or some such.



No, sorry. I don't. Perhaps you could explain more clearly. Who meant to create something, when and in what words. You might be picking a fight with the whole tradition of liberalism ... no-one is going to play unless you narrow it down a bit.



If you think it's a fantasy, clearly you don't believe it IS there.

I'm trying to get a little debate here, but you are really going to have to clarify before any sense is going to get written.

But not all men are equal before the law. A person born to a resputable family is going to be considered more truthful than the man who was a bastard. This is sad, but true.

You people keep saying equal before the law, but the same argument works there. The judge will be biased toward a person, it is human nature. Judges and such are going to listen more to the guy who grew up in Washington than the guy who grew up in Texas. Birth has to do with this because a guy who was born in texas or in the country is not very likely to leave. Anyway, even judges are biased.

You people keep saying equal before the law, but the same argument works there. The judge will be biased toward a person, it is human nature. Judges and such are going to listen more to the guy who grew up in Washington than the guy who grew up in Texas. Birth has to do with this because a guy who was born in texas or in the country is not very likely to leave. Anyway, even judges are biased.

yes its a principle of law that we try to live up to.

if a defendant is treated unfairly by the judge because of bias against him, he can appeal the verdict.

no human system is perfect. that doesnt mean that we dont have the ideal that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. it gives us something to work towards.

Wow! You really misunderstand the concept of equality! Equality isn't about people being born with the same abilities, or being forced to lead identical lives or some such nonsense; it's about people having the opportunities to achieve success by way of their ability, and to not have irrelevant things like race, gender, and nationality determine one's fate and the opportunities made available to them. What you said was just stupid.

A person's abilities should be utilized fully. This is an argument of utility, in economics as well as the general good. Certainly their station of birth, or their superficial characteristics (of class, race, gender etc, but also of their undeveloped potential, eg of a talented individual who has a poor education) should be less important than their performance, calibrated by their initial advantages.

Or more simply: a person should not be judged by their performance, until they are adult. But by then, they have been advantaged or disadvantaged by education, by upbringing and by the judgements which their talents could not defeat.

There is no greater injustice in the life of a person, than that of age. We are born powerless, without the capacity to influence our environment. No "right-of-passage" will equalize us with others -- regardless of our individual "talents" (more correctly, capacities.) We are not competent to express our "talents" until many years of their stewardship in the hands of elders (parents, culture, economy) have formed them.

No society of mortals, born helpless and only gradually acquiring power, will EVER be equitable. We can only try to make it so, from the same sense of justice, of equality between what is and what can be, of ... of ... there is no proper word I know ... let me say "fairness."

Fairness is the root of our sense to protect children, to give them equal opportunities. It is the exact same thing, at the moral level (not the power level ... it's at the level of intentions not outcomes) as our sense to respect an adult for their achievements, for how they cope under their circumstances, rather than to judge their worth by outcomes, by their gross wealth or their capacity to serve others.



This is just an obscenity right here.

The word I couldn't find, thankyou. That post is obscene.

To confront may be useful ... to offend without confronting is not. I am certain this second, goodnight post was intended to offend, and it did.

===========

Arcde B: "I was joking" does not suffice. A joker cares to hear the laughs, you ran away. You tried to offend, to hurt people's feelings. The pain will be repayed in full measure, from each who you offended. And from me, double.

I am more offended than you can possibly imagine. Given that, an apology or retraction would reduce my indignation to your intentions: I will be no more offended than you could imagine I would be.

Apologize, and I will only kick your arse the one time.

Please do not take a new name and post on. Stand by your words and take the punishment you deserve, or see it meted out on others (noobs or just posters of your post-time envelope) who I think might be you.

I'm angry with you, Arcde B. That, poster, is a very mean achievement indeed.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

This is where you fail to understand.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1equal
Pronunciation: \ˈē-kwəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequalis, from aequus level, equal
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial
3: free from extremes: as a: tranquil in mind or mood b: not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a: capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b: suitable <bored with work not equal to his abilities>


As you can see, there are different meanings of "equal", the one I've bolded being most apt to describe the "equality" between human being within the issue of individual rights and inherited social differencies.

1 = 1 is not just an "equality". 1 = 1 (aka "equal" in mathematics, quod vide), means "identical", not just "equal". In algebra, a function that has the same object as argument and value (input and output) is called an "identity" and it is noted like this: id(a)=a for any a in a given set A.

In mathematics, the "equalities" are a vast class (or a set? I'd say class but meh) of relationships between objects: the "identical" equality is just one of the possible equalities. A generical relationship, here denoted as ° , is an equality if, and only if, for any a,b,c in a given set A the following conditions are met:

a°a
a°b if and only if b°a
a°c if (a°b and b°c)

Just to make and example, take flat geometry. A square and a triangle may have the same area (yes, area equivalence is an equality as you can prove by yourself), but aren't the same object (they aren't identical).

But not all men are equal before the law. A person born to a resputable family is going to be considered more truthful than the man who was a bastard. This is sad, but true.

Usually constitutions, declarations and bills are used not to state the obvious reality, but to issue a statement of intentions: thus, saying "all men are equal" we mean "all men should be regarded as equal and we're willing to build a society where this shall become true".

But not all men are equal before the law. A person born to a resputable family is going to be considered more truthful than the man who was a bastard. This is sad, but true.

By what law?

By what law?

By what law?

Please, we speak here as gods, we decree what is right, and judge the law.

We do not speak of principles, as your thread-starting post did, only to mock them as "impossible to implement" ... and cite failures in our tools (yes, our moral tools, the awesome forces of law) as evidence.

For who is our judge, who we argue before? A hyena cackle out of the moral night?

If your only point, expressed as an absolute of rights, is that the law sucks ... then you are unfit to judge anything, let alone the law.

All men are not born equal. They are not all the same. Many are handicapped, they come in different colours, they are born in different situations. I think no men are born equal. Equal is 1=1. No person is a copy of another person, so how can people be born equal? We know that this line was meant to create some sort of illusion of equalism, but does this fantasy really need to be there?

Uh, no. It means that everyone has an equal right to live their lives how they see fit without government telling them what to do or legislating special rights to any specific group.

This is where you fail to understand.

I would say "willfully misunderstand."

Risottia, I have great respect for you, and your moderate response to this person (after other moderate responses from other good posters) finally gets through to me that I have missed something, or am perhaps responding disproportionately from some external frustration.


In mathematics, the "equalities" are a vast class (or a set? I'd say class but meh) of relationships between objects: the "identical" equality is just one of the possible equalities.

"Identity" is where two things are recognized as equal in every possible way. Are in fact, not two things but the same, one, thing.

By being ever considered two separate things, perhaps they can never be one. Perhaps 1 does not always equal 1, if person A considered 1 to be an apple, and person B considered 1 to be an orange.

But ... well, things seem that way sometimes when one is drunk, which I certainly am.

I'm done for the night.

============

Arcde Belothe, I should have taken the time to read your other fifty-so posts. Perhaps you have some qualities of speculation I did not take the time to consider. Perhaps your intentions to express yourself in English exceed your capacity.

These are matters which should be considered in sobriety.

Uh, no. It means that everyone has an equal right to live their lives how they see fit without government telling them what to do or legislating special rights to any specific group.

You are more wrong than the author of the Original Post.

But I have no problem with you. Being wrong is no problem, in fact: folks wandering in and being wrong is what keeps NSG alive.

Why do I say you are wrong? You assert a right, then define it by what government should not do.

I'm going to bed now, and will have lots of time to consider the question, without my pesky ego, nor even my linguistic mind, interfering. It would be rude of me to ask the same of you ... but perhaps you could make yourself a hot beverage, or take a turn up and down the hall. I won't presume to demand you think about it ... but please let a little time pass before dismissing this idea.

If rights are inherent in the individual, it makes no difference what what any "government" says or does. The rights persist.

If rights are granted by a government, then they do not exist if denied by that government.

If rights can only exist as an amalgam of the existence of an individual with rights, and a government which recognizes those rights ... then you need a model which cannot conceive of an individual with rights (but ungoverned), nor or a government which defines rights (regardless of the individuals who are granted it.)

Don't rush to reply. I'm for bed.

No... please no. For the love of God, no!

Pity. I found some nice pics of Nicole Bass as the average woman. :p

I didnt even have to look at the name to know who post this!
And to think, you might have actually said something serious.
Although, your pictures do speak louder then words and you are showing a fair point. I still giggled. Thanks LG. *pushes you into the mud*

*wallows in the mud happily*

What about trolls? Are all trolls born equal? I don't think that inherent value is an issue because the inherent value of a troll is less than the time and effort I spent typing this.

But not all men are equal before the law. A person born to a resputable family is going to be considered more truthful than the man who was a bastard. This is sad, but true.

What? No. That's just wrong. A bastard and the son from a reputable family are still equal in the eyes of the law.

What? No. That's just wrong. A bastard and the son from a reputable family are still equal in the eyes of the law.

How many bastards have fathers (or mothers) from "reputable" families?

How many bastards have fathers (or mothers) from "reputable" families?

Lots.

But not all men are equal before the law. A person born to a resputable family is going to be considered more truthful than the man who was a bastard. This is sad, but true.

WTF? Maybe if you live in a Dickens novel.

You people keep saying equal before the law, but the same argument works there. The judge will be biased toward a person, it is human nature. Judges and such are going to listen more to the guy who grew up in Washington than the guy who grew up in Texas. Birth has to do with this because a guy who was born in texas or in the country is not very likely to leave. Anyway, even judges are biased.

Honest to god, I don't even know what you're saying anymore.

Judges are pre-disposed to believing the stories of people from the Pacific Northwest rather than the Southwest? Now, I know I have this bias, being California born, but seriously. This is crack.