Are humans all born equal ?

[Index]

In most/all Western countries where there is male conscription, women have the right to serve in the army if they want to (as career soliders). Men are forced to join the army for a certain period of time (like in France), while women have the right not to join.

I don't see this train of thought going any further than it has so I won't make any more comments, except to point out that the above statement you have made seems to me to be missing the point-I stated that women do not have the right to take part in combat roles in the military, not that women do not have the right to join the military. In any case, in your example, men also have the right not to join, thought they do not have the right to ignore conscription. To talk about women having the right to avoid consription is a moot point by the way, since they are not conscripted in the first place.

[Carlson]

well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

when you start adding education and experience... things change... im going to up to strech the meaning of experience a little.. basicaly opportunity..

[Maciamo]

well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

You are obviously forgetting that no every brain at birth has the same potential (number of neurons, proportion of grey matter to white matter, etc.)

[Carlson]

You are obviously forgetting that no every brain at birth has the same potential (number of neurons, proportion of grey matter to white matter, etc.)

but they are all equal.. say a child has 200% neurons then another child.. it dont matter only thing they can do is be a blob on the floor.. no child is self sufficient at birth. the topic asks if all humans are born equal... not post birth..

i just like to argue for the sake of argueing...

[Tsuyoiko]

but they are all equal.. say a child has 200% neurons then another child.. it dont matter only thing they can do is be a blob on the floor.. no child is self sufficient at birth. the topic asks if all humans are born equal... not post birth..

i just like to argue for the sake of argueing...

I can see where you are coming from with this argument - I think you are saying that since all babies can do virtually nothing they are all intellectually equal. But I think even at birth babies can do slightly more than nothing, and that what they can do differs between individuals. I can't think of an example though, because as you imply, it is hard to see what a newborn can do intellectually. Still, Maciamo is right that each individual's brain physiology is different, so I think his argument gets my vote.

[Kinsao]

Well, for example, some babies show more "activity" of their brain shortly after birth than others. Like, some would react to a noise, turn their head in the direction of the noise, others maybe not (if their brain/hearing wasn't so sensitive to it). But it's hard to tell without measuring their brain waves because it might just be their physical reactions that are fewer (i.e. not turning their head) and no difference in the way the brain received and processed the sound (they heard it just as clearly).

Also, development speed changes... a baby who is slow at learning things for 2 years (for instance), might learn very quickly from ages 5 to 7... it's difficult to predict...

[Carlson]

Well, for example, some babies show more "activity" of their brain shortly after birth than others.

does it really matter?


what were we talking about again...

[ragedaddy]

well thats f*cked up im only 1 to pick All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)

and its true..

every person on this earth was born the same.. sperm of a father and egg of a mother... when you young the only thing you care about is eating, sleeping, and going number 2...

when you start adding education and experience... things change... im going to up to strech the meaning of experience a little.. basicaly opportunity..

Are you are saying that you are intellectually equal to someone who is born with a mental handicap at birth? There are numerous diseases that already affect one's mental capacity at the time of birth. Also, look at geniuses, the majority of these people inherit their intelligence through genes as opposed to studying hardcore. I don't think one can say that everyone is born intellectually equally, but that's just my opinion.

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't think one can say that everyone is born intellectually equally, but that's just my opinion.

I would go further and say it's a well-established fact.

[Reinaert]

Hmm.. The man/woman discussion is not relevant. Statistically, women are more social in their behaviour, and that is natural. If you say man are better in maths, I know some women who are very clever in maths too.

Every human being has a unique set of talents. By education you can learn to use these talents in a useful way.

And of course children may have an advantage in the genes from their parents, but without a good education that advantage doesn't develop.

So I only voted for..
All humans are equal in rights.

Every human being deserves a shelter, food, drink, teaching, freedom, and safety.

It isn't hard to do.
Just Imagine..
A world without religion, without war.

John Lennon, thank you.
I may be a dreamer too..
But I detest the piggies who abuse this world, just like you did.

[rotunjere]

ok here is my humble opinion, very afraid to voice out really, you guys here really seem to know your stuff. and my internet-forum experience has been absolutely horrifying thus far, filled with ******, flamers and the likes. i can't believe such a polite and open minded forum like this exists!!! this is only my 2nd post here, and coming from a ***** filled background, please pardon me if don't live up to the standards. anyway, here goes.

i believe the human mind is inherently incapable of quantifying and appreciating the concept of "equality". let me elaborate. we all know 1=1. and a=a, b=b. but is 1 apple = 1 orange? or we need not go that far even, we can't even say for certain if ANY apple is equivalent to ANY OTHER apple in absolute terms. if i were to task anyone, to find 2 apples of equal value, can anyone do it? ok here comes my opinion, i DO believe that there ARE 2 apples of equal value, just that we lack the ability to make that judgement. because we cannot quantify the value of ANY apple in the first place. so how are we to find another apple (or orange) of equal value? in short, we cannot place an absolute value to objects. not because there isn't a value, but we are INCAPABLE. what we ARE capable of, is placing a RELATIVE value to objects, and if i have myself clear, i think my point is obvious now already.

Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. It is hardwired into us. If i ask u, how important is your watch, or your father, how do you answer? On the other hand, if i ask you which is MORE important, watch or your father, the answer is plainly obvious and without a single doubt. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature. And also a human flaw. I believe a computer for eg, if intelligent enough, would be able to place absolute values, maybe. but definitely NOT humans. and for this reason, humans can NEVER be equal, at least not in each others' eyes. I think i have a theory as to why we are so incapable, but this post is long enough already i think.

Please critique. I can take any criticism, even flaming; what i cant take is being ignored lol.

[Antigone]

Welcome rotunjere, I think it is a bit of a silly topic actually. It goes without saying that all humans should have equal rights and opportunities under law but on an individual basis, are all humans born with equal talents and abilities? No. If that were the case we'd all be millionairs, or great artists, or mathmaticians, or scientists, or electricians or even just toilet cleaners. But we are not, each and every one of us is different.

[LeBrok]

Welcome rotunjere, I think it is a bit of a silly topic actually. It goes without saying that all humans should have equal rights and opportunities under law but on an individual basis, are all humans born with equal talents and abilities? No. If that were the case we'd all be millionairs, or great artists, or mathmaticians, or scientists, or electricians or even just toilet cleaners.

We are lucky we are not born equal morons. We would have been stuck in caves or on trees for ever, lol.

[LeBrok]

Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. It is hardwired into us. If i ask u, how important is your watch, or your father, how do you answer? On the other hand, if i ask you which is MORE important, watch or your father, the answer is plainly obvious and without a single doubt. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature. And also a human flaw. I believe a computer for eg, if intelligent enough, would be able to place absolute values, maybe. but definitely NOT humans..

Values as hierarchy for classifications are only a human and other mammals, or birds and some other animals. They don't exist in physics, or let's say beyond life. As you said it is hardwired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. Surely it is important to life on earth, and probably is related to making choices or more precisely the right choices to survive, find food and make offspring.
If it come to AI/computers, any values would need to be set by humans. Otherwise for (not caring - from lack of emotions) computer there is no need for values, values or priorities wouldn't exist. For AI all things are equal, and it wouldn't even care for its own existence, unless people created value for AI life and programed it in. For AI the value of human life is the same as value of bacteria, or existence of grain of sand.
However, one can argue that lack of values in AI would give any value value of 0, therefore making them all equal, as 0=0 and make all values absolute. But who would care if it doesn't exist, lol.

[edao]

Humans can ONLY place value to objects, subjects, situations, in RELATIVE terms. The habit of prioritizing, organizing and arranging based on RELATIVE value is simply ingrained into us. We simply HAVE to do it. It is human nature.

I agree as soon as you attribute value you create hierarchy as values are compared to each other. This is why socialist ideas of a removal of hierachy have never worked because it opposes our fundamental human nature. Capatalism on the other hand accepts hierachy. Even in our democratic systems we still create the one leader the king, emperor, lord, prime minister, president, we change the rules, the system, the name but our fundamental animal nature comes through every time.

You will never remove the hierarchy unless to change the beast itself, perhaps genetic engineering will allow us to create pure equality, but we would cease to be human as we know it. The best human society can hope for is to make the hierarchy fairer with less of gap between the top and the bottom.

[PonosBosne]

2.1 All humans are born intellectually equal (only education and experience differenciate them)



Totally agree with this.

[Templar]

It is no coincidence that Black people excel in some Olympic sports (e.g. sprint)

West African Bantus excel at sprinting, but are horrible at long-distance/endurance running, while East Africans excel at long-distance/endurance running and are pretty bad at sprinting. I think it is important to separate these two groups because they are different in far too many ways to be considered members of the same race. Just because they both have the same skin color doesn't justify it. Physiology is much more important when categorizing humans into races, rather than mere skin color.

[Riccardo]

I'd rather say that we are all equal at death. That's why I find power-obsessed people ridiculous, they are just living bad their life after their hidden pathology. And so worse people that envy them.
Some kind of hierarchy is normal, of course. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the same opportunities and the same basical rights. I think it's stupid not to accept differences, but I think it's more stupid to use these differences to discriminate other people.

[Cotys]

No, people are not born equal, nor live as equal. There are several types of un-equalities we are subjects to:
- biological - people are born with different physical capabilities, plus some are born with deficiencies, medical conditions etc that influence their whole lives and their performance.
- social - peopel are born in different social conditions, in families that can range from rich and functional to very poor and disfunctional, with myriads of combinations and levels of functionality and standard of life.
- political - people are born in a different political situations, in minorities or majorities, with myriad combinations of unequalities and different abilities to give chances to the kids born in them.

Lastly, there are myriads of combinations between those 3 types of unequalities, that affect the life of each one of us. Being equal is a dream, not a reality, and most probably will always be only a dream. But this is what makes us human, no - that we dream and try to counter in some way those inequalities and level them a bit 0 but this is just human effort, not how we are born. We are born in random-ness, unequal, unpredictable, unknown - and most unfair.

[superhorn]

All people DESERVE equal rights, though unfortunately this has never been the case anywhere in the world because of prejudice and bias, which are universal phenomena .
Not all people have equal intelligence, but intelligence is a very difficult thing to measure as far as I am
concerned . I'm very skeptical about IQ measurements and don't believe you can measure intelligence
with numbers . Some people have mental retardation , and others are geniuses who are brilliant in science, mathematics , music and other fields .
One person can show brilliant intellectual ability in one field yet foolishness and stupidity in other areas .
Intelligence has nothing to do with skin color . Brilliant intellects have come from all races and ethnic groups , as well as mediocre or stupid people . Nor does it have anything to do with gender .

[JFWR]

Allow me to explain my rationale for my choices:

I decided to vote for every choice excepting the egalitaria 1.1., 2.1, and 3.1.

For questions of rights: Rights (as politically protected liberties) are exclusive to the given legal framework in which they are formed. As such, it is only natural the rights will differ based on race on a world wide scale, as well as by sex, and amongst individuals. In a given society, however, one could imagine a pure state of legal equality, although the ontological differences between men and women, for instance, ought to be recognized in differing roles in society and rights. Likewise, I see no reason why a nation ought to be compelled to accept diversity of races, excepting when they so choose to.

For questions regarding intelligence: It is empirically justifiable to say that men are smarter than women and that some races are smarter than others on average. However, each individual does have a unique intelligence, and exceptions are found across the globe.

For questions regarding strengths and abilities: The same as intelligence.

[hope]

Allow me to explain my rationale for my choices:

I decided to vote for every choice excepting the egalitaria 1.1., 2.1, and 3.1.

For questions of rights: Rights (as politically protected liberties) are exclusive to the given legal framework in which they are formed. As such, it is only natural the rights will differ based on race on a world wide scale, as well as by sex, and amongst individuals. In a given society, however, one could imagine a pure state of legal equality, although the ontological differences between men and women, for instance, ought to be recognized in differing roles in society and rights. Likewise, I see no reason why a nation ought to be compelled to accept diversity of races, excepting when they so choose to.

For questions regarding intelligence: It is empirically justifiable to say that men are smarter than women and that some races are smarter than others on average. However, each individual does have a unique intelligence, and exceptions are found across the globe.

For questions regarding strengths and abilities: The same as intelligence.

I am not sure what you mean by some "races" are smarter than others. Certainly some people in lesser developed countries may not have such easy access to education that we
take for granted and this may effect their level of knowledge, but that is quite different from intelligence.
Also in regards to men being smarter than women, mmmm.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...elligent-women

[JFWR]

I am not sure what you mean by some "races" are smarter than others. Certainly some people in lesser developed countries may not have such easy access to education that we
take for granted and this may effect their level of knowledge, but that is quite different from intelligence.
Also in regards to men being smarter than women, mmmm.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...elligent-women

It is a matter of empirical science that the races are disparately intelligent. See the Bell Curve and also the work of Dr. Michael Levin of CUNY Grad (whom, to note, I studied under at one time).

As for men v. women, your link speaks to the fact that men are more intelligent in IQ. As it notes, though, men also are more variably intelligent, with more imbeciles and geniuses than the more consistently average female.

The talk about "height", however, is probably wrong in more ways than one. It does not at all correlate to racial studies, for instance. East Asians and Jews rank highest in average IQ, but are often short. Contrariwise, Sub-Saharan Africans have statistically the lowest intelligence on a whole and are widely noted as a very tall people. This seems to me like the study did not adequately address a potential correlation does not equal causation confusion, or else another reasonable issue.

As a historical point, we can also point to the fact that men have a monopoly over intellectual and political achievements in all cultures and all times.

[hope]

It is a matter of empirical science that the races are disparately intelligent. See the Bell Curve and also the work of Dr. Michael Levin of CUNY Grad (whom, to note, I studied under at one time).

As for men v. women, your link speaks to the fact that men are more intelligent in IQ. As it notes, though, men also are more variably intelligent, with more imbeciles and geniuses than the more consistently average female.

The talk about "height", however, is probably wrong in more ways than one. It does not at all correlate to racial studies, for instance. East Asians and Jews rank highest in average IQ, but are often short. Contrariwise, Sub-Saharan Africans have statistically the lowest intelligence on a whole and are widely noted as a very tall people. This seems to me like the study did not adequately address a potential correlation does not equal causation confusion, or else another reasonable issue.

As a historical point, we can also point to the fact that men have a monopoly over intellectual and political achievements in all cultures and all times.

You will forgive me as , for now, my reply must be brief.
Firstly I am not a great lover of the Bell Curve, and I believe it was a study based mainly within Americas populations. It also stated, correct me if I am wrong, "whether" and "how" genes and environment had on ethnic differences remained "unsolved".
As for dominion of men in politics, this is a completely different study more I feel inclined to the differences in society of the sexes rather than intelligence between
the sexes. As we know women in history have never been urged on to be politically engaged. In fact women have had to struggle to be "engaged"
in many power positions.
As for sub-saharans lower intelligence, as you state, let us remember these countries have for a very long time been either under colonial dictatorship, capitalist abuse , poverty and disease. None of these factors make for good education.

[JFWR]

You will forgive me as , for now, my reply must be brief.
Firstly I am not a great lover of the Bell Curve, and I believe it was a study based mainly within Americas populations. It also stated, correct me if I am wrong, "whether" and "how" genes and environment had on ethnic differences remained "unsolved".
As for dominion of men in politics, this is a completely different study more I feel inclined to the differences in society of the sexes rather than intelligence between
the sexes. As we know women in history have never been urged on to be politically engaged. In fact women have had to struggle to be "engaged"
in many power positions.
As for sub-saharans lower intelligence, as you state, let us remember these countries have for a very long time been either under colonial dictatorship, capitalist abuse , poverty and disease. None of these factors make for good education.

Your reply was hardly brief and it is quite okay. I am busy, too! A brief one before I go for a while.

I do not believe the Bell Curve study was able to address the precise mechanisms of why the races have disparate intelligence, only that it was seen to be the case. Joining that study (which as you said was American-focused in large part) with more broad studies, however, makes the findings even more convincing. IQ and the Wealth of Nations, for instance, finds that the lowest IQ nations are predictably in the areas from which the less intelligent races derive from.

Also: As a note for the Bell Curve, the American focus on the test actually is really useful as it allows one to bypass arguments that there is a different culture, different backgrounds, et cetera. Americans of different races are more alike than different.

In regards to women: Yes, women have never been encouraged, and have even had to fight for the ability to be, politically engaged. But this doesn't address the deeper issue of how this is almost universally found in populations. The predominance of male-dominance is a historical fact across cultures and times, to such an extent that it is impossible to conceive that there is not in some sense a "natural" cause for this. Matriarchies are few and far between (in fact: there are no pure matriarchies on record, though matrinlineal societies are found in some areas).

I agree that Sub-Saharan African countries have faced a slew of problems, but this does not change the genetic aspects of intelligence. There is an improvement when conditions are better, but not a complete one.