(February 23, 2009 at 7:52 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Sorry, looks like we posted at the same time. I did see how the image could be interpreted as racist, but I didn't see it as racist in nature. That was the difference. I'm sure socialism would facilitate equality, which is why I subscribe to egalitarianism, but I am unconvinced that socialism can solve economical problems. Please explain how you can call the philosophy that we are born equal "obvious" and then say it doesn't happen. That seems like a contradiction.

No contradiction. Only racists would argue we are not born equal. You fail to grasp what equality means to the poorest people on the planet. It is meaningless. I am repeating myself. You are an intelligent person. Why do you not see it?

I agree that it is meaningless to the poorest people. That's not what I was arguing at all, and what you seem to have turned the debate into. The point was that it should be held as both a human right and a philosophical constant that everyone is born equal, in the sense that we are all equal as a species. This ignores wealth, political views, sexual orientation, etc.

As I pointed out before, you could argue that Quantum Mechanics is meaningless to 99% of the world's population, but it doesn't mean it doesn't effect each of us. You seem to be arguing a relative position, whereas I am arguing an absolute position. I do see your position, but I fail to see what it has to do with the philosophy of egalitarianism.

(February 23, 2009 at 8:10 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I agree that it is meaningless to the poorest people. That's not what I was arguing at all, and what you seem to have turned the debate into. The point was that it should be held as both a human right and a philosophical constant that everyone is born equal, in the sense that we are all equal as a species. This ignores wealth, political views, sexual orientation, etc.

As I pointed out before, you could argue that Quantum Mechanics is meaningless to 99% of the world's population, but it doesn't mean it doesn't effect each of us. You seem to be arguing a relative position, whereas I am arguing an absolute position. I do see your position, but I fail to see what it has to do with the philosophy of egalitarianism.

I think we've gone full circle on equality, Adrian...agreed?

(February 24, 2009 at 3:22 pm)bozo Wrote: I think we've gone full circle on equality, Adrian...agreed?

I have absolutely no idea where we are. I think we're arguing for the same side, but you are talking about economic equality (which I agree people aren't born with) and I am talking about a human right that should be bestowed on every person, the equality that we are all part of the same species and therefore there is no reason for discrimination to exist.

We also went off on a tangent when you brought up people putting survival over equality, which had nothing to do with the debate.

(February 24, 2009 at 5:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 24, 2009 at 3:22 pm)bozo Wrote: I think we've gone full circle on equality, Adrian...agreed?

I have absolutely no idea where we are. I think we're arguing for the same side, but you are talking about economic equality (which I agree people aren't born with) and I am talking about a human right that should be bestowed on every person, the equality that we are all part of the same species and therefore there is no reason for discrimination to exist.

We also went off on a tangent when you brought up people putting survival over equality, which had nothing to do with the debate.

I agree how it should be.

Good good, then I think we're on the same page