Yes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do unequal people deserve equal rights?
No shit, that's some sad stuff. I personally wouldn't mind having secret passages and hidden hallways through my house.Parker wrote:
i think thomas jefferson said this just to blow sunshine up peoples asses.
i walked through Monticello when i was 12, and was very taken back by the hidden hallways for the slaves.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-10-17 19:21:11)
The definition of different would be unequal in different areas no? Could equality of rights be defined in the same way, various levels of rights in different areas that balance out to be the same for each person?FEOS wrote:
Not being the same does not mean they are not equal. Not as the term "all men are created equal" is used, at least. Totally different concepts.
I didn't say anything about voting.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Maybe there could be like a simple literacy test that would weed out the ignorant voters... Come on on my friend, you've gone from voter knowledge testing to questioning sociological environmental rearing to voting rights? How would you even set up that test?
If you are an American Citizen of the age of 18 and registered to vote, then you may do so. Because someone is disabled or from another socioeconomic background doesn't disqualify the fact that they are an US Citizen. It's a right.
Even if we are born equal, we are not equal now because of environmental factors. Eugenics is about genetics.Spearhead wrote:
But Flaming Maniac, you do not choose who to be born under. I did not choose my parents.
Sounds like you are advocating this shit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Being different does not mean we are unequal.
Yea, some people are so PC they get pissed off when they are left hilarious Sara Palin karmas. Fucking touchy douche bags....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Yes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do unequal people deserve equal rights?
Take women for example. There was a time they were considered unworthy to vote.
Equal rights however, can be taken too extreme. For example, if the politically correct term is now waitperson cause waitress is offensive (try to work that one out) than it's pointless. What's in a name?
But equal rights in terms of pay\voting\education should be held with the utmost respect.
Did you write this?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say anything about voting.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Maybe there could be like a simple literacy test that would weed out the ignorant voters... Come on on my friend, you've gone from voter knowledge testing to questioning sociological environmental rearing to voting rights? How would you even set up that test?
If you are an American Citizen of the age of 18 and registered to vote, then you may do so. Because someone is disabled or from another socioeconomic background doesn't disqualify the fact that they are an US Citizen. It's a right.
me wrote:
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.
I didn't say anything about voting in this thread. You're taking this as an extension of the other thread.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Did you write this?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say anything about voting.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Maybe there could be like a simple literacy test that would weed out the ignorant voters... Come on on my friend, you've gone from voter knowledge testing to questioning sociological environmental rearing to voting rights? How would you even set up that test?
If you are an American Citizen of the age of 18 and registered to vote, then you may do so. Because someone is disabled or from another socioeconomic background doesn't disqualify the fact that they are an US Citizen. It's a right.me wrote:
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.
Only with regard to someone's actions causing them to forfeit some (or all) of their rights. But they are all equal in the eyes of the law prior to that event occurring.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The definition of different would be unequal in different areas no? Could equality of rights be defined in the same way, various levels of rights in different areas that balance out to be the same for each person?FEOS wrote:
Not being the same does not mean they are not equal. Not as the term "all men are created equal" is used, at least. Totally different concepts.
Define what you mean by unequal people.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I want someone to explain to me why unequal people are looked at equally, not the same "American freedom is the path to salvation and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi" bullshit that everyone is fed throughout their life. (and is currently regurgitating)
i think the question is whether a man with an I.Q. of 150 is more valuable to society than a man with an I.Q. of 80Spearhead wrote:
FM, you either do not know the meaning of social equality, or you are talking about something other than social equality.
A man with 5 million dollars is not any better than a man with 5 dollars. Fact.
This has nothing to do with intelligence, and really that's a genetic factor and not an environmental one.S.Lythberg wrote:
i think the question is whether a man with an I.Q. of 150 is more valuable to society than a man with an I.Q. of 80Spearhead wrote:
FM, you either do not know the meaning of social equality, or you are talking about something other than social equality.
A man with 5 million dollars is not any better than a man with 5 dollars. Fact.
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Define what you mean by unequal people.
I think our constant fear of stepping outside of the lines of political correctness sometimes blinds us to the obvious.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This has nothing to do with intelligence, and really that's a genetic factor and not an environmental one.S.Lythberg wrote:
i think the question is whether a man with an I.Q. of 150 is more valuable to society than a man with an I.Q. of 80Spearhead wrote:
FM, you either do not know the meaning of social equality, or you are talking about something other than social equality.
A man with 5 million dollars is not any better than a man with 5 dollars. Fact.
Inequality is just that - inequality. I have never said "better" or the like, it just means that different people have skills in different areas.
10 > 3. 10 isn't "better", it's just more. Even though it's not better though, if I was offered 10 million dollars or 3 million dollars I would take the 10 million.
TheAussieReaper wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Define what you mean by unequal people.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
aspects of our environment at least partially determine the person we will grow up to be. So really people are very unequal, or as many like to call it "unique".
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The definition of different would be unequal in different areas no?
I don't know how else to say it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Inequality is just that... different people have skills in different areas.
So (assuming they lived in the U.S. should these people have the right to free speech? Should they have the right to bear arms?S.Lythberg wrote:
I think our constant fear of stepping outside of the lines of political correctness sometimes blinds us to the obvious.
You would be hard pressed to prove that these men have as much value to society as anyone else on that bus.
Even though I assume that person was another country, it would be stupid to think that there are not people of that quality here. Do you think you could take away weapons (under some sort of orders) from someone like that?usmarine wrote:
hmmmmm....
I have taken a human life. Does that mean in my mind they were not equal to me? Hence making pulling the trigger possible?
That is the question isn't it? Is free speech (and weapons even more so) a right or a responsibility? People like them are little more than a burden on society, and it seems like we will forever struggle with the question of what to do with them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So (assuming they lived in the U.S. should these people have the right to free speech? Should they have the right to bear arms?
If your a kid yeah, it'd be pretty cool. But since its a old house it would be pretty hard to sneak out if it considering the floors and everything probably creak.DBBrinson1 wrote:
No shit, that's some sad stuff. I personally wouldn't mind having secret passages and hidden hallways through my house.Parker wrote:
i think thomas jefferson said this just to blow sunshine up peoples asses.
i walked through Monticello when i was 12, and was very taken back by the hidden hallways for the slaves.
So rights don't equate to voting as well.. Or is voting more of a privileged to you? And for the record, did you write that?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say anything about voting in this thread. You're taking this as an extension of the other thread.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Did you write this?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say anything about voting.me wrote:
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.