All men are created equal

[West Leas Oros]

Not equal in a literal way, but in a legal way, is the point of the question.

If they are not equal in a literal way why ought they to be equal in a legal one? It seems to be barbarous to base the Law on outdated superstitions.

It means that, in a court of law, all citizens are granted the same legal rights in relation to US law. It does NOT mean that we have to implement handicaps a la Harrison Bergeron.

[Based Groyper]

If they are not equal in a literal way why ought they to be equal in a legal one? It seems to be barbarous to base the Law on outdated superstitions.

It means that, in a court of law, all citizens are granted the same legal rights in relation to US law. It does NOT mean that we have to implement handicaps a la Harrison Bergeron.

You have not answered my question - why should citizens be treated as equal before a court of law or anywhere else if they are not in fact equals?

[West Leas Oros]

It means that, in a court of law, all citizens are granted the same legal rights in relation to US law. It does NOT mean that we have to implement handicaps a la Harrison Bergeron.

You have not answered my question - why should citizens be treated as equal before a court of law or anywhere else if they are not in fact equals?

In what regards are humans unequal?

[Based Groyper]

You have not answered my question - why should citizens be treated as equal before a court of law or anywhere else if they are not in fact equals?

In what regards are humans unequal?

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

[Erythrean Thebes]

It means that, in a court of law, all citizens are granted the same legal rights in relation to US law. It does NOT mean that we have to implement handicaps a la Harrison Bergeron.

You have not answered my question - why should citizens be treated as equal before a court of law or anywhere else if they are not in fact equals?

The protection we ought to have is equal. An evil which can be perpetrated against another human being, can be perpetrated against oneself, and any other human being. Therefore the law prohibits doing evil to others so that evil will, in general, famish and not exist openly, protecting us all as a result.

[Uxupox]

In what regards are humans unequal?

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

you forgot the most important aspect. monetary wealth.

[Jelmatt]

In what regards are humans unequal?

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

Why are those divisions morally relevant as to whether some people should hold power over another, or be given equal protection of the law?

[Based Groyper]

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

Why are those divisions morally relevant as to whether some people should hold power over another, or be given equal protection of the law?

Because some of those things are direct sources of power in themselves.

[Gospel Power]

Man have his responsibilities, and a Woman has her responsibilities

[The Parkus Empire]

It means that, in a court of law, all citizens are granted the same legal rights in relation to US law. It does NOT mean that we have to implement handicaps a la Harrison Bergeron.

You have not answered my question - why should citizens be treated as equal before a court of law or anywhere else if they are not in fact equals?

They aren't. For example, someone can found too stupid or mentally ill to be considered responsible for their crime in the way others can be.

[Jelmatt]

Why are those divisions morally relevant as to whether some people should hold power over another, or be given equal protection of the law?

Because some of those things are direct sources of power in themselves.

That doesn't imply anything about moral relevance. I can hold power over you in a way that is entirely unjust.

[Pope Joan]

Yes,

All humans should by all that is right, be treated as if they all had a sufficient quantum of independence, freedom and dignity.

Only totalitarians and Skinner hold otherwise.

[Ethel mermania]

Not equal in a literal way, but in a legal way, is the point of the question.

If they are not equal in a literal way why ought they to be equal in a legal one? It seems to be barbarous to base the Law on outdated superstitions.

I have been telling you people to worship me as your God / king for years, but no one listens.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes,

All humans should by all that is right, be treated as if they all had a sufficient quantum of independence, freedom and dignity.

Only totalitarians and Skinner hold otherwise.

Hot opinion you got there

[Chessmistress]

Are all men created equal? And is consent the basis of society?

Yes, and yes.
In the first case I would prefer "persons" rather than "men", because it excludes women.

Taking "All men are created equal" at face value

Taking principles affirmations at face value is meant for fun or to create strawmen, not for serious debate.

[Based Groyper]

Because some of those things are direct sources of power in themselves.

That doesn't imply anything about moral relevance. I can hold power over you in a way that is entirely unjust.

You are now the one making a claim, that this hypothetical power is 'unjust', it is up to you to prove it so.

[Jelmatt]

That doesn't imply anything about moral relevance. I can hold power over you in a way that is entirely unjust.

You are now the one making a claim, that this hypothetical power is 'unjust', it is up to you to prove it so.

I merely said it was possible to wield power in a way that is unjust, as a way of noting that simply because power is in a relationship doesn't imply power ought to be.

[New Emeline]

In what regards are humans unequal?

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

Humans is most definitely a useful category... It's the casual name for our species.

[The Parkus Empire]

Height, mass, intelligence, strength, charisma, rationality, consciousnesss; the list goes on and on you'd be hard pressed to find a quantifiable variable where there are not huge differences between "humans" which is why I think it is not very helpful as a category

Humans is most definitely a useful category... It's the casual name for our species.

This is what cats actually believe.

[New Emeline]

Humans is most definitely a useful category... It's the casual name for our species.

This is what cats actually believe.

See, you said cats. Cats is a species.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is what cats actually believe.

See, you said cats. Cats is a species.

I know. Took in a feral pregnant one who recently gave birth. She explained it to me.

[The Alma Mater]

This is what cats actually believe.

See, you said cats. Cats is a species.

And why should cats not have equal rights ?

[Galloism]

Are all men created equal? And is consent the basis of society?

Yes, and yes.
In the first case I would prefer "persons" rather than "men", because it excludes women.

Taking "All men are created equal" at face value

Taking principles affirmations at face value is meant for fun or to create strawmen, not for serious debate.

"Men" is gender neutral in this instance. As in "mankind" or "men of earth" or similar cases.

[The Parkus Empire]

See, you said cats. Cats is a species.

And why should cats not have equal rights ?

New Emeline is a gay cat, don't give her any radical ideas!

[The Alma Mater]

And why should cats not have equal rights ?

New Emeline is a gay cat, don't give her any radical ideas!

*Tosses some Peter Singer in her general direction*