[Slinker1]

It really depends on what you mean by coexist. To get along and live within you're means then yes. To want what others have and think you have a right to a share of it then NO.

[southwest88]

...
All natural child birth is the same unless you were either conceived thru science OR you're the virgin Mary.
People grow into who they become by how they are raised as well as what inspires and interests them.
Unfortunately... and in this day in age... our children are being raised and brainwashed by the new "Politically Correct" society.

No, US society for one, is not Politically Correct - far from it. The usual charge is that the universities, the mass media & all of those high-falutin' organizations & layers of bureaucracy are positively lousy with PC. The cultural gatekeepers in the US - up until say, the 1970s may have tended to be sympathetic to the Left. But not US society in general - PC has always been a kind of in-joke among the Socialists, Communists, Marxists, etc.

As for raising children - children still spend more time with their parents - granted, usually the mother, but also with Kindergarten teachers &/or childcare staff. To the extent that parents tend to choose childcare options carefully, especially the more income is available for this purpose - parents can choose the kind of formal content they want - Montessori, open-ended, traditional (ABCs, colors/coloring, numbers, small-group activities, story hours, naps, socializing activities, fine motor skills) & any particular content that the parents may want - foreign language, arts concentration, & so on.

Brainwashing is a tough charge. Yah, if you let your children watch a lot of TV & movies, especially canned, least-common-denominator stuff on commercial TV, you're exposing the kids to a lot of commercial messages for fast food, toys, video games & other consumer goods of doubtful utility. I think parents are aware of this trend, & the ones who are concerned about it limit TV/media exposure or otherwise try to balance the messages reaching their children. Raising children on too much TV/media prepares them to be consumers, though, not to be some kind of Socialist foot soldier.

[anasawad]

i think the context of the all men are born equal came under the aspect of rights are rightful to all living human beings not whether you were born with a disease or poor or rich or any of these things .....
infact 'm quite certain it was meant that way........
coexistence can happen and its quite possible ........once there is a type of law the give all rights to everyone and takes everyones opinions and votes into account rather than what we have in today's world ....whether being ruled by a tyrannic monarchs or under self-centered capitalists ....
once no one is unjusticed and law exist to protect everyone not a special class ...then co-existence and cultural and ethnic diversity is quite possible..rather insured to exist

[Zamuel]

Ugh.. someone born with down syndrome and quadraplegia in a Brazilian slum to a parent who is a penny a go prostitute with a meth addiction and an unknown father is not born equal with a person born with the brain of Stephen Hawking and the physical prowess of Jim Thorpe to parents in a strong marriage who are both well-to-do Oxford Dons. - How much more obvious do I need to be for you to get off your silly "all people are created equal" ideology.

At it again? Take just a moment and think ... The founding Father's said -CREATED EQUAL- not born equal. There are around 9 months of differentiation between that moment of creation and birth ... In that moment, when the divine spark is infused, we are indeed all equal, nothing but unknown potential. CREATED is the common denominator in the equation, the moment in which we become "endowed," everything after that is a variable.

As for coexistence? Hey, there isn't any "can we" about it ... We -DO- coexist. Individuals and ideas may come and go, coexistance is not in question.

Zam

[SolarCross]

At it again? Take just a moment and think ... The founding Father's said -CREATED EQUAL- not born equal. There are around 9 months of differentiation between that moment of creation and birth ... In that moment, when the divine spark is infused, we are indeed all equal, nothing but unknown potential. CREATED is the common denominator in the equation, the moment in which we become "endowed," everything after that is a variable.

At what again? Reality? Why do certain kinds of people find it so offensive to be truthful?

We are not created equal either. Even if you wish to speciously narrow the creation event to just conception we are still not created equal, not by a long shot. The genes, geo-political context, familial network and, for the spiritual, personal karma is as wildly variant at the moment of conception as it is at birth. Love it or loath it, that's just reality.

[Truth To Power]

Fun fact: All men (and women) are not created equal.

The historical context of that "self-evident truth" was a reaction against the hereditary monarchies and aristocracies of Europe, especially Britain. The principle is that people are all "created" (i.e., born) equal in their moral capacity, and so should all be equal in law, and that no one should have special privileges, or more rights than others, purely on the basis of their birth (i.e., who their parents are). So it is kind of a figurative way of expressing the principle of equality before the law.

[Zamuel]

At what again?

Ignoring context and changing other peoples terms (even fabulously famous quotes) to suit your thesis.

We are not created equal either. Even if you wish to speciously narrow the creation event to just conception

Yes we are, development begins immediately AFTER conception. At the moment of creation, we are a -0- sum, pure unrealized potential. Completely undetermined, nothing developed at all ... and we ALL share that moment and that value. EQUALLY, 0=0. Development follows creation and is a highly defined set of quantified random events 1,3,4,7,5,8, the individual series vary and become ever more diverse as we grow. You don't have to like it, but attempting to deny it is delusional.

The historical context of that "self-evident truth" was a reaction against the hereditary monarchies and aristocracies of Europe, especially Britain. The principle is that people are all "created" (i.e., born) equal in their moral capacity, and so should all be equal in law, and that no one should have special privileges, or more rights than others, purely on the basis of their birth (i.e., who their parents are). So it is kind of a figurative way of expressing the principle of equality before the law.

No ... A "TRUTH" is not contextual , it is universal. It dictates logical conclusion, but is not limited by them.

Zam

[SolarCross]

Ignoring context and changing other peoples terms (even fabulously famous quotes) to suit your thesis.

Wtf? When have I ever done that? Or are you projecting?

Yes we are, development begins immediately AFTER conception. At the moment of creation, we are a -0- sum, pure unrealized potential. Completely undetermined, nothing developed at all ... and we ALL share that moment and that value. EQUALLY, 0=0. Development follows creation and is a highly defined set of quantified random events 1,3,4,7,5,8, the individual series vary and become ever more diverse as we grow. You don't have to like it, but attempting to deny it is delusional.

Again WTF! Did you flunk biology or something? Look the the whole "all men are created equal" was just some nice sounding but totally empty rhetoric employed by a bunch of slavers and traitors to disguise their collective infamy in pink twaddle. You just make yourself look like an imbecile taking their purple prose as gospel truth.

[Zamuel]

At the moment of creation, we are a -0- sum, pure unrealized potential. Completely undetermined, nothing developed at all ... and we ALL share that moment and that value. EQUALLY, 0=0. Development follows creation and is a highly defined set of quantified random events 1,3,4,7,5,8, the individual series vary and become ever more diverse as we grow.

Again WTF! Did you flunk biology or something? Look the the whole "all men are created equal" was just some nice sounding but totally empty rhetoric employed by a bunch of slavers and traitors to disguise their collective infamy in pink twaddle.

Followed by 200+ years of the greatest freedom mankind has ever known ...

Thanks for your perfect example of diversity taking a wrong turn ...

Zam

[SolarCross]

Followed by 200+ years of the greatest freedom mankind has ever known ...

Thanks for your perfect example of diversity taking a wrong turn ...

Zam

Yanks should have this tattooed on their faces:

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Freedom is barbarism, the most freedom that mankind has ever known has been all of pre-history before the state. With the state comes rules and civility. Laws, licences, regulations, property all are constraints on freedom. The more rules the less freedom. The feudal peasent was encumbered with fewer rules than the modern yank. He should pay a tithe of his production to the military caste and help them in times of war when called upon and not much else. Is that not more free than a modern yank who must abide by a million rules and regulations?

[Pants-of-dog]

Freedom is barbarism, the most freedom that mankind has ever known has been all of pre-history before the state. With the state comes rules and civility. Laws, licences, regulations, property all are constraints on freedom. The more rules the less freedom. The feudal peasant was encumbered with fewer rules than the modern yank. He should pay a tithe of his production to the military caste and help them in times of war when called upon and not much else. Is that not more free than a modern yank who must abide by a million rules and regulations?

You really should learn more about history.

Specifically, about serfs in the feudal era.

[SolarCross]

You really should learn more about history.

Specifically, about serfs in the feudal era.

Are you implying you know something I don't? If so do tell. If not go away.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you implying you know something I don't?

Yes.

If so do tell. If not go away.

I am implying that I know more about the freedom of serfs during the feudal era than you do.

Also, the fact that people are not born biologically identical to one another does not change the fact that in liberal democracies, every person is theoretically born with the right to be treated equally by the laws of the land.

[SolarCross]

I am implying that I know more about the freedom of serfs during the feudal era than you do.

So quit being shy and prove it. Tell us all about the passports, regulations, licencing, identity requirements that the serf had to put up with that were so much more complex and restrictive than the modern serf has to shoulder. Some evidence would also be nice if you can manage it.

Also, the fact that people are not born biologically identical to one another does not change the fact that in liberal democracies, every person is theoretically born with the right to be treated equally by the laws of the land.

This is a conceit of some legal systems though I do not see how that is relevant to the spurious claim that all people are created equal. A claim made by people who kept blacks as their slaves for a double whammy of absurdity.

[Pants-of-dog]

So quit being shy and prove it. Tell us all about the passports, regulations, licencing, identity requirements that the serf had to put up with that were so much more complex and restrictive than the modern serf has to shoulder. Some evidence would also be nice if you can manage it.

I am confident that you are capable of using Google to find Wikipedia entries for "feudalism" and "serf". I am not responsible for educating you about basic political concepts, just to clarify a tangent that does not relate to the OP.

The actual relevant point is that human rights systems are ways of creating societies where people coexist peacefully.

This is a conceit of some legal systems though I do not see how that is relevant to the spurious claim that all people are created equal. A claim made by people who kept blacks as their slaves for a double whammy of absurdity.

Equality before the law is a basic tenet of liberal democracy that has nothing to do with biology.

The ironic fact that it was slave owners who codified this as a right in the USA does not change the truth of the previous sentence.

[SolarCross]

I am confident that you are capable of using Google to find Wikipedia entries for "feudalism" and "serf". I am not responsible for educating you about basic political concepts, just to clarify a tangent that does not relate to the OP.

The actual relevant point is that human rights systems are ways of creating societies where people coexist peacefully.

Ha so you are backing down on that one, good there is hope for you yet POD. Freedom is not equal or identical to coexisting peacefully. That is a different thing. The serf had more freedom though he may well have had less security. If he travels to another town he will tend to take a long dagger with him for protection for example. Something like this:



If he goes on holiday to another kingdom (called pilgrimages in those days) he will feel safer going in a largish group of fellows from his own area with some number of them also taking arms with them but then he doesn't need a passport or a visa.

The modern serf in contrast will tend go about with little expectation of being jumped by robbers but must go around tagged like cattle filling in endless paperwork for every little thing he does. Classic trade off, I suppose.

[Pants-of-dog]

Freedom is not equal or identical to coexisting peacefully. That is a different thing. The serf had more freedom though he may well have had less security.

I never claimed that freedom is equal or identical to coexisting peacefully.

I am pointing out that you are wrong about serfs (for example, they are not allowed to simply travel to another town or another kingdom), and that your incorrect notions of feudal serfs is not relevant.

--------------------------------

The actual relevant point is that human rights systems are ways of creating societies where people coexist peacefully.

Do you have any discussion about the actual point?

[Truth To Power]

We are not created equal either. Even if you wish to speciously narrow the creation event to just conception

Yes we are, development begins immediately AFTER conception. At the moment of creation, we are a -0- sum, pure unrealized potential. Completely undetermined, nothing developed at all ...

Not so. At the moment of conception, future personality is already largely determined by genes.

and we ALL share that moment and that value. EQUALLY, 0=0.

No. Just as a human being is different from an ape at conception, so people are different from each other. The difference is only one of degree.

Development follows creation and is a highly defined set of quantified random events 1,3,4,7,5,8, the individual series vary and become ever more diverse as we grow. You don't have to like it, but attempting to deny it is delusional.

Denying that evolution works specifically on the basis of differences present from conception is delusional.

The historical context of that "self-evident truth" was a reaction against the hereditary monarchies and aristocracies of Europe, especially Britain. The principle is that people are all "created" (i.e., born) equal in their moral capacity, and so should all be equal in law, and that no one should have special privileges, or more rights than others, purely on the basis of their birth (i.e., who their parents are). So it is kind of a figurative way of expressing the principle of equality before the law.

No ... A "TRUTH" is not contextual , it is universal.

No, you are factually incorrect. A truth is contextual because its meaning is determined by context.

It dictates logical conclusion, but is not limited by them.

How would you even decide what a true statement means without context?

[SolarCross]

I never claimed that freedom is equal or identical to coexisting peacefully.

I am pointing out that you are wrong about serfs (for example, they are not allowed to simply travel to another town or another kingdom), and that your incorrect notions of feudal serfs is not relevant.

There is a gaping emptiness behind your "pointing out".

The actual relevant point is that human rights systems are ways of creating societies where people coexist peacefully.

Do you have any discussion about the actual point?

Read the OP. "All men are created equal" was the major prop under the OP's argument. I kicked it away. So yes I have had a "discussion about the actual point".

[Pants-of-dog]

Read the OP. "All men are created equal" was the major prop under the OP's argument. I kicked it away. So yes I have had a "discussion about the actual point".

Actually, the OP does not have that statement as an important premise. In fact, if you took that statement out, the OP would make more sense.

--------------

Equality before the law is actually a fairly successful way of making people coexist. By restricting the power of the elite through legalistic means, power is more decentralised than in a society where the elite get to openly ignore the law. This then creates less class friction, and thus more peaceful coexistence.