All men are created equal

[Based Groyper]

You should treat me with the perennial respect offered by burly types to aesthetes and aristocrats of the soul.

One cannot declare himself an "aristocrat of the soul" who "deserves perennial respect"; that is pretention and hubris. In the ancient religion of Northern Europe, boasting was honorable insofar as one lives up to the boast. I think an "aesthete and aristocrat of the soul", at the bare minimum, would be able to select or create an original, beautiful and witty nation name, flag, and overall aesthetic, rather than being reliant on stale 4chan memes used without alteration or individual expression.

If you had taste for these things you would already detect in this account a myriad of subversions and innovations in the Groyper format: as well as a triumph of subterfuge.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Person A: The law of non-contradiction must be true, otherwise, something could be true and false at the same time, but that is absurd.
Racist frog: Ha! So what you're really saying is, the law of non-contradiction has to be true, otherwise the law of non-contradiction isn't true? What a circular argument!

Your real-time breakdown into strawmen and screaming about Nazi frogs is pretty entertaining.

Who said anything about Nazis? Are you projecting?

[Kubra]

Then why is Napoleon to Nietzsche both ubermensch and untermensch, instead of simply ubermensch?

Because Napoleon wasn't the autistic Zarathustra.

Does ubermensch include itself as a category?

[Based Groyper]

To treat certain notions as inherently absurd without argument is pretty provincial tbh.

A world where the Sandy Hook kids don't matter, but Michael Jordon is the king of humanity, is an absurd world.

Why would anyone make Michael Jordan the king of humanity? He is not equipped with talents for the job. But the egalitarian would happily defend his "inalienable right" to run for President of Humanity and duly instantiate that absurd future.

[Kubra]

translation error on my part tho, Nietzsche used unmensch instead of untermensch. Mea culpa, my german is rusty.

[36 Camera Perspective]

A world where the Sandy Hook kids don't matter, but Michael Jordon is the king of humanity, is an absurd world.

Why would anyone make Michael Jordan the king of humanity? He is not equipped with talents for the job. But the egalitarian would happily defend his "inalienable right" to run for President of Humanity and duly instantiate that absurd future.

Oh, but you see, it's all about ability on your view, so whoever has the most ability gets the most moral consideration. Michael Jordan kicks everyone's ass at basketball, so his needs and interests should be catered to, while kids are mostly useless, so it not should be considered immoral when they're slaughtered by the dozens.

Also, equal consideration does not mean equal outcomes, so no, they wouldn't.

[Ifreann]

If I didn't love philosophy so much, I wouldn't be sitting arguing with a racist frog.

I have gained this by philosophy: That I do without being commanded what others do only so long as they can tolerate racist frogs.

[Based Groyper]

translation error on my part tho, Nietzsche used unmensch instead of untermensch. Mea culpa, my german is rusty.

so is mine tbh although I spotted that mistake from my near eidetic memory of his texts, I haven't actually translated Nietzsche into English, I don't actually speak German - I was telling a fib.

[Uan aa Boa]

Shouting angrily at the Based Groyper isn't going to get you anywhere

We're not asking you to pretend that people have equal talents or abilities when they really don't. We're asking you to extend equal moral consideration to everybody regardless of their talents.

Why should I do this? I am desperate to hear your argument.

Equal consideration is already assumed by the law. Our different talents and abilities might mean you're unable to stop me taking your possessions by force, or perhaps vice versa. The law says it's the same crime to steal from anyone without reference to who they are. There's no category of people from whom it's OK to steal from because equal consideration doesn't extend to them. Behind pretty much every aspect of the criminal or civil law is the same underlying principle.

[The Parkus Empire]

Shouting angrily at the Based Groyper isn't going to get you anywhere

We're not asking you to pretend that people have equal talents or abilities when they really don't. We're asking you to extend equal moral consideration to everybody regardless of their talents.

Why should I do this? I am desperate to hear your argument.

Equal consideration is already assumed by the law. Our different talents and abilities might mean you're unable to stop me taking your possessions by force, or perhaps vice versa. The law says it's the same crime to steal from anyone without reference to who they are. There's no category of people from whom it's OK to steal from because equal consideration doesn't extend to them. Behind pretty much every aspect of the criminal or civil law is the same underlying principle.

The law apportions VASTLY disparate amounts of property to different men, and more than a few have NO property in terms of assets. What you're saying is akin to saying the king is treated just like everyone else in an absolute monarchy, since every other man would get the same treatment if he were king.

[Badassistanian]

Concerning the confederates, do those who rob a certain class of men of rights deserve rights themselves?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Concerning the confederates, do those who rob a certain class of men of rights deserve rights themselves?

I’ve often laughed at the irony that a war was fought for a states right to decide to not grant people rights

[Uan aa Boa]

The law apportions VASTLY disparate amounts of property to different men, and more than a few have NO property in terms of assets. What you're saying is akin to saying the king is treated just like everyone else in an absolute monarchy, since every other man would get the same treatment if he were king.

The law doesn't directly apportion property - socialists would say that is its failing. Most Western countries have certain laws, and certainly governments, that act to facilitate a flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, but the law can't avoid recognising that stealing from or assaulting a poor person is the same crime as stealing from or assaulting a rich one. I'd agree that in criminalising many sudden movements of wealth from one person to another the law serves the rich more than the poor since, in that respect, it acts to keep property with the people who currently have it (having more subtle means of protecting the upward flow).

Your monarchy analogy doesn't apply because a king can't be legally stripped of his kingship in the way a rich person can be stripped of her wealth. He is the king because of who he is, not because of what he has. The law probably does offer him special consideration because to harm him will be treason in addition to the offence of harming another person.

[The Parkus Empire]

Concerning the confederates, do those who rob a certain class of men of rights deserve rights themselves?

I’ve often laughed at the irony that a war was fought for a states right to decide to not grant people rights

The war was not over states' rights. Slavery was indeed the focus, but it had to do with Lincoln not winning a single electoral vote in the South (and not even a single ballot in five states), which meant the slave states effectively no longer had a say in the executive, the free States could unilaterally choose the President. Lincoln was of course a serious and vocal abolitionist, but he didn't have authority to abolish slavery in slave states and even stated that he would not because it would be unconstitutional. He only later did this because a civil war gave him emergency authority he would not otherwise have exercised.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’ve often laughed at the irony that a war was fought for a states right to decide to not grant people rights

The war was not over states' rights. Slavery was indeed the focus, but it had to do with Lincoln not winning a single electoral vote in the South (and not even a single ballot in five states), which meant the slave states effectively no longer had a say in the executive, the free States could unilaterally choose the President. Lincoln was of course a serious and vocal abolitionist, but he didn't have authority to abolish slavery in slave states and even stated that he would not because it would be unconstitutional. He only later did this because a civil war gave him emergency authority he would not otherwise have exercised.

Ah silly me I didn’t keep up with the latest in pro confederate Propaganda
All of the Presidential Candidates I know of didn’t appear on ballots in some states. And as for not receiving electoral votes from certain states, that’d mean most states should succeed every election

[The Parkus Empire]

The law apportions VASTLY disparate amounts of property to different men, and more than a few have NO property in terms of assets. What you're saying is akin to saying the king is treated just like everyone else in an absolute monarchy, since every other man would get the same treatment if he were king.

The law doesn't directly apportion property - socialists would say that is its failing. Most Western countries have certain laws, and certainly governments, that act to facilitate a flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, but the law can't avoid recognising that stealing from or assaulting a poor person is the same crime as stealing from or assaulting a rich one. I'd agree that in criminalising many sudden movements of wealth from one person to another the law serves the rich more than the poor since, in that respect, it acts to keep property with the people who currently have it (having more subtle means of protecting the upward flow).

Your monarchy analogy doesn't apply because a king can't be legally stripped of his kingship in the way a rich person can be stripped of her wealth. He is the king because of who he is, not because of what he has. The law probably does offer him special consideration because to harm him will be treason in addition to the offence of harming another person.

The law absolutely determines who owns which assets.

A king can be stripped of his kingship, see the Glorious Revolution

[The Parkus Empire]

The war was not over states' rights. Slavery was indeed the focus, but it had to do with Lincoln not winning a single electoral vote in the South (and not even a single ballot in five states), which meant the slave states effectively no longer had a say in the executive, the free States could unilaterally choose the President. Lincoln was of course a serious and vocal abolitionist, but he didn't have authority to abolish slavery in slave states and even stated that he would not because it would be unconstitutional. He only later did this because a civil war gave him emergency authority he would not otherwise have exercised.

Ah silly me I didn’t keep up with the latest in pro confederate Propaganda
All of the Presidential Candidates I know of didn’t appear on ballots in some states. And as for not receiving electoral votes from certain states, that’d mean most states should succeed every election

Not sure how that is pro Confederate propaganda, since it shows Lincoln did not threaten to do anything unconstitutional.

[Chessmistress]

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



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.

That's why "womyn" and "wimmin" should be used more and more: because there are people alleging that "men" can be a gender neutral word.
Would you be comfortable with "women" being a gender neutral word?
"mankind" or "men of earth" are patriarchal relics, too.

[Fartsniffage]

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

That's why "womyn" and "wimmin" should be used more and more: because there are people alleging that "men" can be a gender neutral word.
Would you be comfortable with "women" being a gender neutral word?
"mankind" or "men of earth" are patriarchal relics, too.

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... le_rich_qa