[JMLot]

In some societies men and women are not equal at birth. For example, under the One Child Policy in China, there were many reported cases of female infanticide due to the perception that a boy is more valuable in economic and societal terms than a girl.
...
Or what about children who are born with HIV and are immediately discriminated against, or children whose mothers were raped and are treated not as victims but blamed for their misfortune, with the children as unwanted pariahs. In this context rights seem like just a luxury for the privileged...

In the poll, I have only 3 categories : legal rights (set by law), intelligence and physical abilities. I completely understand your points, but I think that discrimination, be it against women or on racial grounds, does not fit in the category of legal rights, except if the law specifically give unequal rights to men and women or different ethnic groups. Men and women may have different rights (e.g. different retirement age), but I am not sure whether all the combined differences are always unequal. Now that I think about it, women may enjoy more rights in some Western countries, as they avoid conscription (in some countries also men), and can often retire a few years earlier. Yet, I can't think of any law favouring men only in Western countries.

[rozneesitcn]

I agree with the information you carefully pointed out in your #7 post, Maciamo san--in fact, a recent article in the magazine Science atested to how that can make a difference in a persons having a tendency to be an habitual lier. That grey and white does work out to present a difference as the brain grows, yet at birth how can that translate into intelligence?

I am not 100% sure, but I think that the proportion of grey vs white matter is set genetically and does not change after birth (or at least once the brain has been completely formed a few months later).

[googlopharm]

In the poll, I have only 3 categories : legal rights (set by law), intelligence and physical abilities. I completely understand your points, but I think that discrimination, be it against women or on racial grounds, does not fit in the category of legal rights, except if the law specifically give unequal rights to men and women or different ethnic groups. Men and women may have different rights (e.g. different retirement age), but I am not sure whether all the combined differences are always unequal.

I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist.

Alternatively, if you look at it from the perspective of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then discrimination is covered by the law, asuming one respects international law.

In regards to domestic laws which are disriminatory, consider Syria, where a man is entitled by law to kill his wife in the case of infidelity, but a woman has no such rights.

I can't think of any law favouring men only in Western countries.

That's what I meant in saying "idealised states", but I tried to avoid the terms 'democracy' or 'Western'.

Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ?

Now that I think about it, women may enjoy more rights in some Western countries, as they avoid conscription

Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder?

[Narus63]

I was approaching the idea from another angle. In other words, not what things should be like, but what they are like. Therefore I was suggesting that legal instruments can be conceived as unable to protect the rights of individuals because such inequalities do in fact exist.

If we look at the rights of someone at birth, it is unlikely that they will face discrimination at that time, and unsure whether they will actually face discrimination in their life. This is a matter of "chance", while law is imposed on everyone and does not depend on chance.

Would you consider the glass ceilings in pay scale existent in most Western countries a discriminatory law? Perhaps not a law per se but a regulation ? It is obviously discrimination. But that's not a right someone get from birth or is sure to be confronted to. My poll is about certain, unavoidable things. We cannot say that all men and women in "idealised states" will certainly have different rights. Yet, it is undeniable that male and female brains think differently, and that men and women have clearly different bodies. With the same training, you cannot expect a woman to be a strong as a man, because the hormones are just different (muscles need testosterones, and men have much more of it).

Do you mean women have more rights in this case because they have the right to not be in the military? I daresay that in most countries where there is conscription, women generally do not on the other hand have the right to serve in combat military roles, so one right is traded for another. A good deal, I wonder? 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.

[bjacogaerllyo]

freedom is a choice that one can always differentiate away from others, so i believe not one human is of equal situation.-my 2 cents

[uranbigis]

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.

[luspikals]

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..

[Fouttysotlalf]

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.)

[EntectCelpelm]

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...

[Blelidupgerie]

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.

[MondayBlues]

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...

[Pjayjukr]

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...

[Qnpqbpac]

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.

[rowneigerie]

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.

[lagunaEl]

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.

[gregmcal]

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.

[Annyllop21]

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.

[timmybrown]

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.

[enurneAcourdy]

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.

[IteseFrusty]

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.