The Happy Post

Ah, the American constitution rephrasing Locke's philosophy.

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Tsurana/Lorainne wrote:Ah, the American constitution rephrasing Locke's philosophy.

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

The declaration of independence*. It goes further than that and even arguments that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. And that their just powers are derived from the consent of the people. The first sentence does sound quite a bit like the reason why people left Locke's/Hobbes' state of nature, doesn't it?

(this reasoning is found directly after the sentence I quoted in my previous post)

hmm indeed *conspirecy alaert* history used by the goverment to influence the yongue to promote a perticular party

Yes... No.

Antistia wrote:
"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."

And that is where we differ...

Do elaborate, Ras.

Muzjhath wrote:Morinth, just where in Sweden are you hiding?

Urmm... I'm told Landskrona? XD I've no idea what part I'm in. Skane is being said repeatedly into my ear by a Faralan.

Antistia wrote:Do elaborate, Ras.

It is clear that not all human beings are equal, they are not born equal, they do not have the same abbilities, and I can not accept Hobbe's arguement that since any man can outpower any other man all men are equal, as it take into consideration luck- a factor we can not predict and therefore can not build our theories on.

If not all man are equal, that kind of affects everything else you claim, isn't it so?

Rasonal Dranger wrote:

Antistia wrote:Do elaborate, Ras.

It is clear that not all human beings are equal, they are not born equal, they do not have the same abbilities, and I can not accept Hobbe's arguement that since any man can outpower any other man all men are equal, as it take into consideration luck- a factor we can not predict and therefore can not build our theories on.

If not all man are equal, that kind of affects everything else you claim, isn't it so?

It's not a point about ability, strength or intellect but about worth. It is an argument about worth because it, in its very nature, rejects that any man can be if royal blood and thus be above others simply because of bloodline. It is a form of social equality, not of a person's capability. No man is inherently worth more than another or is inherently above others.

Antistia wrote:
It's not a point about ability, strength or intellect but about worth. It is an argument about worth because it, in its very nature, rejects that any man can be if royal blood and thus be above others simply because of bloodline. It is a form of social equality, not of a person's capability. No man is inherently worth more than another or is inherently above others.

So if someone is capable of achieving more than another man, is able to make better decision than the said invidual, is able to contribue more to the society than the said man, he is still not 'above' him?

Rasonal Dranger wrote:

Antistia wrote:
It's not a point about ability, strength or intellect but about worth. It is an argument about worth because it, in its very nature, rejects that any man can be if royal blood and thus be above others simply because of bloodline. It is a form of social equality, not of a person's capability. No man is inherently worth more than another or is inherently above others.

So if someone is capable of achieving more than another man, is able to make better decision than the said invidual, is able to contribue more to the society than the said man, he is still not 'above' him?

In a meritocratic society he will be able to achieve greater things, be promoted, maybe be a successful politician. More doors are opened for this individual because of his capability but at the core of his being he is no better than the man in the streets. He is still his equal as a human and occupies no place above that other person. Perhaps he enjoys more prestige, more wealth, but at his core he can never be above that other person.

First, let me say that I am not talking about the current wealth or persitage one holds.

Second, elaborate on how a man with higher abilities, much greater potential and so on is not above, at the core or not at the core, from another person with lesser abilities and lesser potential?

Simple, does that person's greater abilities, greater potential make him more human? Likewise, does a person's lack of ability, lack of potential, make that person any less human?

I would say no, hence them being equal and enjoying exactly the same rights.

I believe that brings us very close to, if we have not already come, full circle.

Antistia wrote:Simple, does that person's greater abilities, greater potential make him more human? Likewise, does a person's lack of ability, lack of potential, make that person any less human?

I would say no, hence them being equal and enjoying exactly the same rights.

I believe that brings us very close to, if we have not already come, full circle.

I never liked circles- I couldn't draw them and they always somehow turned into swatis-
Anyhow.

Now well, that deppends on your definitino of a Human. But I will not go as far as to claim that, even though that may be what I think. I will however go as far to claim it gives him higher chance to be able to contribue to the society, higher chance for the society to be well led if led by him. Hence he is certainly not equal, shouldn't enjoy the same rights, and any forced equality, is as it is- forced.

Got into alpha for UFC Undisputed, woop

Rasonal Dranger wrote:

Antistia wrote:Simple, does that person's greater abilities, greater potential make him more human? Likewise, does a person's lack of ability, lack of potential, make that person any less human?

I would say no, hence them being equal and enjoying exactly the same rights.

I believe that brings us very close to, if we have not already come, full circle.

I never liked circles- I couldn't draw them and they always somehow turned into swatis-
Anyhow.

Now well, that deppends on your definitino of a Human. But I will not go as far as to claim that, even though that may be what I think. I will however go as far to claim it gives him higher chance to be able to contribue to the society, higher chance for the society to be well led if led by him. Hence he is certainly not equal, shouldn't enjoy the same rights, and any forced equality, is as it is- forced.

Homo Sapiens. That's my definition and science's definition. But what you're saying tells only of a dark path, Ras.

Actaully, it's Homo Sapiens Sapiens- but nevermind that;
Now you know who else went for the science as to justify it's deeds? In the nature the apes are certainly not equal among themselves, the one with the better needed abilities has more power than the other. Do you want us to differ from apes by that, forcing equality among unequals?

Rasonal Dranger wrote:Actaully, it's Homo Sapiens Sapiens- but nevermind that;
Now you know who else went for the science as to justify it's deeds? In the nature the apes are certainly not equal among themselves, the one with the better needed abilities has more power than the other. Do you want us to differ from apes by that, forcing equality among unequals?

Your physical or mental prowess doesn't make your life above anyone elses; The meaning of being equal -human- beings, we're not apes. We have moral and common sense.


P.S Change bloody thread for that topic.

I don't know about common sense, hur hur hur...

Rasonal Dranger wrote:Actaully, it's Homo Sapiens Sapiens- but nevermind that;
Now you know who else went for the science as to justify it's deeds? In the nature the apes are certainly not equal among themselves, the one with the better needed abilities has more power than the other. Do you want us to differ from apes by that, forcing equality among unequals?

That particular scientific field you're referring to has been thoroughly debunked (and actually, it was also used by.. Wait for it.. The Swedes, sort of, fun fact ). And no, Rasonal, it's not Homo Sapiens Sapiens according to the Oxford Dictionary. I'd also refer to you that genetics has been proven to be true, while eugenics wasn't.

Apes and humans are not the same, Ras. We clothe ourselves and (normally) don't sling poo at one another just to give two differences.

We aren't, indeed. *adjusts monocle.*

Yes Ras, I definitely agree with you there that not all humans are equal but all humans should still be treated equally. There's no reason why killing random people is wrong, but we still shouldn't do it since society wouldn't function otherwise.People don't choose their position in life. Some people are born smarter than others and some people are born weaker than others so it's not fair to discriminate against people for their innate characteristics which they can't help.

Besides, how do you measure a person's worth? Based on strength, intelligence, looks, wealth, reputation, penis size, skin colour, age, sex? It's not something that can be measured, or not easily measured anyways. This is going to sound very controversial but I could just as easily say I am "more equal" than you because you're Jewish and I'm not, therefore I am going to kill you now.

And some species of apes do have a social hierarchy and we do too actually, but what apes don't do is subjugate members of their own species :p. I think there's this one species of ants that enslaves another and another species that has fungi farmer slaves (lol), but I don't think there's a single species that enslaves members of its own species! And besides, just because a certain phenomenon exists in animals doesn't mean we should copy it.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I passed my exam! Got 90% correct (including bonus) afaik and I needed 80% correct! Wohoo! That should give me a nice grade, a 7 or 8 I hope. Fuck yeah. I disagree with some answers though but still!

That first bit used to be my text message tone.