If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Read my last post, we're all human. We all dropped out of a vagina and we're all human beings, that's what makes us equal, not talents and whatever.
(As a side point, before I begin, MoonRat, may I recommend that you do a quick check on Greek philosophy and their two distinct notions of equality in form and equality in content. It may help clarify your thinking in regard to human 'equality'.)
On one point are you correct: we're all (until some extra-terrestrials join this discussion) humans, and we're born that way. In that sense we are equal. We're not all born through vaginal passage (witness the C-section); we're not all born with equal genetic endowments from our parents. We have different mixes of genes, some even have extra chromosomes. Even at the moment of birth we become fundamentally different beings.
But suppose this were not the case. The content of a human being is not merely his/her genetic endowment; it is also what many would simply call personality, the accumulated effects of that person's experiences in life. Those experiences are different for each person. Even if we were born equal, our different life experiences would make us unequal very quickly indeed.
How does this bear on whether one treats somebody with respect or disrespect? Very clearly: the attitude and appearance that someone brings to the table has a clear impact on how others will react to them. Approach aggressively and others are likely to react accordingly; act in a socially considerate manner and they, too, will act differently.
On the other hand, let us turn the situation around and consider not how the 'visitor's' attitude determines the other's reactions, but how you decide on your reactions based on the observations you make of the other person. Give it a moment's thought, and you will realise that you do not treat all persons, all situations, with the same manner. Indeed, many would consider it ludicrous to deal with a toddler in the same manner as an aggressive adult. Respect is relative to the situation at hand -- and the only basis on which you can parcel it out is that of your own observations and reasoning.
So, on a second point you have the right idea: Why not just respect everybody unless they deliberately piss you off. Indeed, that is what most people do most of the time -- it's what many would call "common courtesy". It's what we give without any special consideration, it's everyone's "starting balance", based on our initial, usual, assumption that the other person is pretty much okay. And we change that diagnosis if we perceive them to be otherwise.
When do we respect people? It sounds glib and very much like circular reasoning, but it's the truth: when they earn it. It's the reward of trust and additional kindness (and a lot more besides) that we give those whose interests we perceive to be more closely in lose with our own.
How is respect earned? By giving a little. With luck, the other person picks up on it and the favour rebounds and magnifies. How does disrespect come to be? By much the same means.
We humans judge each other on what we bring to the table.
Any standard.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "equal" in this context. Yes, everyone has differing abilities, but we are also all human beings and should be accorded equal rights and opportunties.
Another well reasoned and thought out response.
Well done.
Why does the fact that we are all human beings imply that we should all be accorded equal rights and opportunities? (Or were you stating those two things as disjoint facts with no implication implied? 'And' is sometimes a tricky word! :-) ) Children under the age of 18 are, after all, human beings, and yet few would say that their rights are abridged by their not having the right to vote in elections general or local.
LOL @ the sarcasm
Ok, but you guys get where I'm coming from, ai?
Restated: Read my last post, we're all (mammals). We all dropped out of a vagina and we're all (mammals), that's what makes us equal, not talents and whatever.
It doesn't. "Rights" and "opportunities" are relative to political power which has utterly nothing to do with any "humanity."
>>>I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "equal" in this context. Yes, everyone has differing abilities, but we are also all human beings and should be accorded equal rights and opportunties.
We are all mammals. It thus follows that all mammals should have equal rights and opportunites. To enslave our fellow mammals in zoos is wicked!!!!!
>>>Um. Ok, I'll back up my side of why I think respect should be freely given. We're all equal, humans, animals, the earth and all that shit.
This preposterous statement is not supported by a shred of evidence.
>>>Nobody's above another person so why should we disrespect anyone?
This is false. Some people are above others for all individuals do not possess power equally.
>>>I mean I've worked behind a bar, collected and worked for charaity, worked in shops and been to loads of clubs and met literally of people in my time. I don't know what's going through somebody's mind to make them act the way I do, I don't know what background they're from and if I did, I could never see the world through their eyes. So what would we have to disrespect? Our own perception is not reality, to gain a true sense of reality we'd have to take every perception on the planet and add it together and even then it would amount to nothing. Why not just respect everybody unless they deliberately piss you off. So just how does one earn respect?
At least you admit, unlike other egalitarians, that you are out of touch with reality.
>>>Aye but we're still all human, so technicaly we're stil equal. I mean on what standards do we judge people?
We are also all still mammals. The fact that we are all humans is of no significance whatsoever. There is no such thing as a "human" government or a "human" society. Humanity as a political entity has never existed. And no, we are not all still equal for there are multiple subdivisions of humanity. What standards do we judge people. Easy, the political, some individuals are friends and some individuals are enemies.
Like you say 'different' this does not denote that difference implies superiority/inferiority between individuals by anything other than subjective standards.
As you noted earlier most judgements are subjective so surely you are being a hypocrite?