QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
An example above, of a paragraph that is irrelevent and lack of any substance. Show me where is your arguments to support your theses, but you know you can't do that, so you rely on cheap tricks like intellectual intimidations.
Again, you just talk without saying anything. FACT: You can not place equalities to compare oranges with apples, equality is a mathematical notion, or a legal notion... any other defintions are errnious and innaplicable. Let me tell you why, if there can not be a possible ">" and "<" there can not be an equality. A number can be higher or lower from another, and that is why a numnber can be equal with itself, this is basic mathematic. If something is not equal, it must be or higher or lower. An apple is neither higher, neither lower compared to an orange as itself, if we are to measure few parametters, like the amount of sugar, than we can say that one contains in general more sugar. But taking an orange as an all, we can not talk of any equality or unequality when comparing it with an apple, if we do not fix arbitrary parameters.
As expected, you will rely on intellectual intimidations.
You write a long senseless paragraph when all you want to say is that some things are more equal than others, which translates to, there is no such thing as equality. Equality in numbers does not pertain to us, as it is an abstraction, not a concrete, tangible thing. Equality only exists in abstractions, which has always been my point. It is as ideal as the numbers we deal with, and as intangible as the numbers we imagine.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
You are trowing words, you talk to say nothing... that you hypothesis about my character, doesn't support your point, while I answer directly the weakness in your argument, you merly draw a portrait of myself. This is not what, using reason, is. I will repeat again, or you use the mathematical term, or the legal term, everything in between are your erronous definitions of what equality is. To measure the equality between a man or a woman, or we use the legal term, or the mathematical term, but again, it is exactly the same thing as in the cases of apples and oranges... if we do not fix arbitrary parammeters, there is no way to measure any equalities... and even if we decide to be the most unbiased possible, by measuring as much parametters as possibles, which of those is more important. The color of eyes can alone be a parametter... what is higher, a green, a blue, a brown etc. and accoridng to what standard?
You speak of these "parameters" and then fail to define what you mean by them. Then you go on to obfuscate the issue by clouding further with nice words to give it an aura of somehow knowing what you're talking about. When I say "equality" is non-existent, I mean it both on a biological level, as well as a legal level, or anything that encompasses the known temporal world. You will find that some people are more equal than others, and in the case of governments, above the the law, and there goes your notion of "legal equality" As far as equality between men and women, again there is no such thing, as they are of different essences, physiologically, psychologically. It is not up to me to show what "parameters" I am talking about, it is up to you to show how a man and a woman are equal without somehow bringing in a mention of "mathematics". The inequality and differences between man and women are not arbitrary, but purposeful and defined, as we can see even in the most obvious visible traces, such as body mass, or voice, or physical strength, let alone getting down to the chromosomes and the inner workings of the human body.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Stop fooling yourself that you are actualy making a point, obviously you are not, and I will ask you to refrain judging me and stick in answering the points I bring, something you never did. This is not about whom is more intelligent, not about whom uses reason, this is about bringing arguments to support a theses... and I am awaiting you to bring me arguments to show me that a man and a woman are not equal... and if you are to use parametters, tell me why those are more important than others, and in some cases, like colors, body shape, etc. you can even place numbers.
If I am fooling myself, then why are you taking me seriously, much less bothering to spend time addressing the points I raise? If you do not want me to judge you, it would only be fair for you to stop judging me. But it appears that you do not like to apply the rules to yourself, as it was you who started the "intellectual intimidation" because how dare anyone pop the bubble we call your ego. As far as the above paragraph, you again cloud the issue with many conflicting topics, bringing in race, gender, "parameters" and trying to lay the burden on me to prove how we are supposedly equal, when I have always asked for those like you who assert the supposed fact, to do so. It appears you are the one using silly tactics to evade the point, and hurl it back at me somehow. It is far more convenient to rely on the "I am waiting for you to offer proof/arguments" than to actually make a point.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
On the other hand, there is the legal term for equality, everyone are equal in the eyes of the law, at least, the are supposed to be. Since the mathematical equality can not be applied, we are forced to use the legal term... so yes! man and woman are equal, because as I said, to be able to place equality in the mathematical senses, there should be chances as well to find > and <, if not, there can be no equality, this is how it works. Being different doesn't necessarly mean that two things are not equal, it simply means that they are different. An apple is different from an orange, they're different, but as an all, you can not say that they are equal or not without placing any arbitrary parametters.
Again, this is irrelevent to the discussion, I am awaiting you to tell me which parametters to measure to claim they are not equal, and tell me why those parametters and not others. Stick to that point, because it is arguments that will support your theses, and not intellectual intimidations.
There is no "legal equality" unless you care to offer evidence. In theory, everyone
ought to be equal in the eyes of the law, but what about those who institute and apply the law? Who is there to apply the law to them? They are above the law. Or as the O.J. Simpson trial showed how the law does not treat everyone equally, or Martha Stewart. The only one placing arbitrary parameters of dodging arguments is yourself. For you to be able to make your case, you must first define the vague word "equality". As Webster's dictionary defines "equal" it means:
1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotationWhat between man and woman can you point to that meets this criteriea? We aren't talking about the number of legs, fingers, or eyes, or any other thing of such nature. Monkey's have 10 fingers, yet no one would seriously consider calling them "equal" to man, unless of course they are really desperate to defend your position.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Simple, again, this depend on whatever or not you will be able to show me they are not equal by using arguments... If there is no way to say that one is "inferior" to another as a person, there is no reason for them to not be equal in the sense of the law... therefore, we are forced to conclude that everyone is and should be equal in the eyes of the law. Bring me arguments and not intimidations to support your position, and I will then, maybe consider it as a valid possibility.
You are asking what is akin to a court case, in which the prosecution calls on the defense to somehow prove that their client did not murder someone. In effect, if you are the prosecution, and I am the defense, you are asking me to offer evidence of my client's innocence. However, your lack of legal knowledge is also telling, for the burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the fact, and in this case you are asserting the mantra of "equality", not I. I cannot prove the non-existence of what inherently does not exist in nature, such is a logical fallacy.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
Circular logic at its best. You are now bringing an argument against your own theses just to contradict me, don't backtrack it. Equality is always similar, but similar is not always equal... so similarity does not necessarly means equal. My example with Eve, was just to show you that there are many parametters, and from some parametters are I closer to one than the other... I was simple, and yet you complexify this only to try answering my point and contradict it. You never denied this, but your theses actualy IS a denial of it, your theses if taken as an argument would regect this argument if taken as a theses. And it's you that say using reason?
I have already addressed this point, to be equal, according to the definition is to have same qualities, essences, nature, amount, etc. Similar is not equal, which is why we use the term to denote similarities and not equalities and as I pointed out, we speak of it in generalities, e.g. "He is very similar to his father", or "Her nose is similar to yours". We do not say "He is very equal to his father", or "Her nose is equal to yours".
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
You further show why it is a paradox, reread what I said, you are in no way showing me that my arguments are wrong, you are just talking about another issue. When talking about inequalities between underdevelopped countries and the West, we are not saying that someone from the West is supperior as a human, we are talking about JUSTICE, the legal term, we are talking about the non-respect of their foundamental rights under the UN charter. Every person has the right to live, if I kill someone, the act of killing doesn't make that person inferior to me, just because his right to live has not been respected. And in the same way, just because an African doesn't eat as he should, doesn't mean that he is inferior, it just mean that we are not respecting the equality principle. As for man and woman, I am again awaiting you tell me which parametters you measure and why those.
When we are saying that the Spanish were superior to the Aztects, we are saying they were superior in every sense of the word, not just "legal". It was superiority in their civilization which allowed for them to conquer people who had inferior technology that could not match theirs. It was the superiority of the Mongol hordes that allowed them to conquer over the more inferior peoples who could not meet their match. It was European superiority, that enabled them to conquer much of Africa and enslave its population. I do not care if such is a "sensitive" issue, for how else do we describe the nature of conflicts if not for the use of such adjectives. To mend history for the sake of political correctness and "sensitivity" is an insult. Such sensitivity regarding the use of words such as "inferior" and "superior" in our everyday vernacular as value judgements in history is now seen as a crime, because it is "sensitive". Why else bother having such a word in the English language? If you really want to be upholding "sensitivity" as your defense, you are better off arguing for the elimination of those two words from the language.
QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 21 2005, 09:16 AM)
First of all, I already have shown that what you say isen't true, they did creat, but you don't call it civilisation according to your own standards. Second, I can decide to separate two group of white people, and wait the one of those two creats civilisation, after that the first do, I decide to paint the people that did not in black... both were whites, but one did not creat it, the other did. The fact that those that I painted black are black has no relevency on the "why" when trying to answer why they did not creat a civilisation. Not every White people have created high civilisation, in fact, if we go through those last milleniums, only a minority of them created what from your standards are high civilisations.
Again, I am awaiting those parametters.
Domino, I honestly did not expect this sort of simplicity from you. If I mimic your pattern of argument I would state, "Oh wow Domino I have already shown that what you say isn't true, therefore what I say is right", end of debate. If that is the case, then why are you still coming back? If I am "fooling myself" and you have "already shown what I say" to be untrue, then I suggest to stop responding and redeem your integrity.