Are Humans Equal?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(22-03-2013 04:38 AM)Heathen Wrote:  But I will say that I believe what the founders intended is that all are equal under the law.

Yes, what I understood it to mean was "equal under the law." People seem to warp this idea to mean "each individual is exactly the same."

You also see that when people say men and women deserve, for example, equal pay for equal work, and people's train of thought gets derailed and they somehow take it mean they are physically identical and women now have penises, or something, when the original intention was to not discriminate based on (for example) gender.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
31-03-2013, 07:00 PM
RE: Are Humans Equal?
Uhhh... Amy... Are you telling me that the chick I slept with last night that had a penis.... oh God....

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2013, 01:21 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2013 02:08 AM by fat cat.)
RE: Are Humans Equal?
(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Like I said, there will be no discussion on the matter.

Okay. I just wanted you to know I didn't intend to offend you.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That's contradictory nonsense.

If you expect me to talk to you in certain ways, then I ask that you please don't reduce my words to "nonsense" just because you don't make the same sense of them that I do. I'm trying to understand you from every angle I can in an effort to make sure I don't reduce your thinking to only my perceived possibilities. I believe in giving people that respect. I only ask that you please return the courtesy, even if you don't consider it a courtesy.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  We are born with the ability to behave. Do you care to refute that fact? THAT is the given. I have already provided it.

I have said multiple times I do not refute that fact, and if you think I was refuting that, then the only possibility I perceive is that you're not completely trying to understand me, and I'll explain that perception by telling you why I don't think what I wrote is contradictory nonsense.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You open by saying that yes, to take away there must be something present. Then you contradict that by saying it's illogical to assume that breathing doesn't mean the person was born able to breathe. That's just nonsensical.

What is the "ability to breathe"? Is it not the nervous system, lungs, esophagus, nose, mouth, etc all moving together in ways that allow/bring air into the lungs and allows/forces that air back out? That's my vague perception of "the ability to breathe", so if a baby is born with an umbilical cord wrapped around its neck and thus choking, I would say that baby is not born with the ability to breathe. If you consider something else "the ability to breathe", then that might explain our misunderstanding each other.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  My ability to behave is inherent. Unless you care to refute that.

Again, I said multiple times I agree "the ability to behave" is inherent. What I have been trying to convey, though, is that "the ability to behave" takes different forms throughout our entire life. A couple years ago I climbed a 260 feet tall anemometer tower. I couldn't have done that when I was born, and I won't be able to do that if I ever reach an age at which I struggle to even stand.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I already answered this. Rights and freedoms are meaningless unless we can exercise them.

To put my question in your terms: what the crap is "meaning"?

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I also said that our rights end at the limits of the possible. I neither have the right nor freedom to catapult myself to Alpha Centauri because it's impossible. If there is no ball, then that's beyond the limits of the possible.

Yes, you said this, but the phrase "limits of the possible" is vague. By that do you refer to what's possible now, or what will ever be possible? And are you speaking entirely abstractly and thus those limits are independent of current circumstance, or are we to take into account current circumstances?

My ball situation was entirely hypothetical, so it worked under the assumption that the nonexistence of any ball is possible. You could change the hypothetical to say "but no ball is currently available to us, so we can not currently throw a ball", and it would still work out the same way.

Since I didn't explicitly ask, I now feel compelled to ask: when you say we are born with full rights, what specifically do you refer to by a "right"? That is, what is a "right"?

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have said multiple times that restrictions are an inherent part of social living. We all accept restrictions. I said that explicitly in the quote you quoted.

Yes, I understand you have said this, and that's partially why I have thought you've been contradicting yourself, which is why I brought up what you call "strawmen".

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have never said that we are told we have the right to do absolutely anything we want or to do the impossible.

Then I think you have not made your words universally match your perspective, which is why I brought up those "strawmen". You see them as "strawmen" perhaps due to the way you interpret your use of specific pronouns, but I saw them as "actual" men due to my interpretation of those pronouns.

Again, you said the following:

"What you call entitlements are exactly what I've been talking about when I say rights, IN PRACTICE, are GIVEN. And we have the right/freedom to exercise ONLY those rights given otherwise we are PUNISHED.

This is the illusion. We're born with them, we're told we have them, but in practice, the system operates under the conceit that we begin with none and only enjoy those given to us."

Because you said, "we have the right/freedom to exercise ONLY those rights given otherwise we are PUNISHED", followed by "This is the illusion", I interpreted "them" in the phrases "We're born with them, we're told we have them" to reference every single one of what you call our natural/inherent rights. So I picked one of those natural/inherent rights, that of murder, and mentioned the system doesn't tell us we have that right, trying to point out that what you see as an illusion might not be an illusion.

So yes, you didn't say "we are told we have the right to do absolutely anything we want", but you did say "we are told we have them", and I interpreted "them" to mean "the right to do absolutely anything we have the ability to do".

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps my vague idea of what you were talking about was incorrect. Going back to your last post, I now take it that by "elite" you were talking about government, and by "proletariat", you were talking about non-government civilians. Is that correct?

Regardless, I was thinking of the "elite" as the "powerful" in general, such as corporations and whatnot, and the "proletariat" as all else, and thinking of them specifically in Supreme Court case settings and such. Does that make some sense of what I was saying?

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The degree of freedom we enjoy here is not just anomalous historically, but it is anomalous in comparison to the rest of the world today.

Okay, now I understand your standard of comparison for "anomaly", but that doesn't change the fact that the anomalous nature of anything is subjective characterization of that something.

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  No, it is not possible.

Then may I ask what definition of "obligation" you're thinking with?

(31-03-2013 09:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You cannot win an argument by decontextualising things.

The word thing can be used, strictly speaking, to describe anything with mass. A planet is a thing. A sun is a thing. My penis is a thing. Urine is a thing. A human being is a thing.

But NOBODY uses that term in that way in this context. Nobody.

I do, because the only existing context is the entire universe, so I think humanity could benefit much from always speaking in the context of the entire universe. So I guess my position on the empathy discussion has just been my lack of appreciation for conversation involving broad strokes and subjective context. I was not seeking a win, and I wasn't trying to disprove any theory. I apologize for apparently causing trouble. Sorry.

Edit: If our logic is untrue in one context, then our logic is not true in any context.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: