It's interesting that twice as many people consider themselves to be more intelligent than others, but don't think they're 'better'. I'm curious if this is due to their modesty, or to the value they place on intelligence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
It's interesting that twice as many people consider themselves to be more intelligent than others, but don't think they're 'better'. I'm curious if this is due to their modesty, or to the value they place on intelligence.
Or is it that they cannot place themselves in a place referred to as 'better', due to some belief of all people being equal? I can see things I am better at compared to certain others, yet I cannot call myself better, as I view it as a nonsensical word used in such context.
Or is it that they cannot place themselves in a place referred to as 'better', due to some belief of all people being equal? I can see things I am better at compared to certain others, yet I cannot call myself better, as I view it as a nonsensical word used in such context.
Who's naive enough to believe that everyone is equal? Granted, it's vague, but surely you have some opinion on what's more valuable to you.
I'll ask you another question, and I ask that you be sincere.
Whose life is/was worth more: Stephen Hawking or someone with a mental retardation? Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa? Friedrich Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas? If you can make an evaluation about people on opposite ends of a spectrum, can you not make the same evaluations of people who aren't as extraordinary?
You must have come to some conclusions about the people that frequent this website since you've already made two generalizations about your peers. What's one more?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
Who's naive enough to believe that everyone is equal? Granted, it's vague, but surely you have some opinion on what's more valuable to you.
I'll ask you another question, and I ask that you be sincere.
Whose life is/was worth more: Stephen Hawking or someone with a mental retardation? Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa? Friedrich Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas? If you can make an evaluation about people on opposite ends of a spectrum, can you not make the same evaluations of people who aren't as extraordinary?
You must have come to some conclusions about the people that frequent this website since you've already made two generalizations about your peers. What's one more?
This man explains well what I mean about the use of the word "better" despite how insensitive it comes off as.
Who's naive enough to believe that everyone is equal? Granted, it's vague, but surely you have some opinion on what's more valuable to you.
I'll ask you another question, and I ask that you be sincere.
Whose life is/was worth more: Stephen Hawking or someone with a mental retardation? Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa? Friedrich Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas? If you can make an evaluation about people on opposite ends of a spectrum, can you not make the same evaluations of people who aren't as extraordinary?
You must have come to some conclusions about the people that frequent this website since you've already made two generalizations about your peers. What's one more?
I suppose I should reword what I had said, but I am too sleepy at this point to know how to reword it. I admit a man with a mental illness would be worth less in society than such as Stephen Hawkins. Adolf is a strange case, I understand his hatred, caused by war, but he seemed much too close-minded. I would assume such a close-mindedness, and a feeling of betrayal would drive someone to certain degrees, yet he was way over the top. If not for being in WW1, Hitler could have been a normal person.
Don't get me wrong, I hate his guts, but you can't always judge by the basics of history, if you can judge by history at all.
I'm sure I was no where near answering your question here, but, as I said previously, I am about to fall asleep in my chair.
No one's equal.
No one will ever be equal.
No one has ever been equal.
Not when it comes to rights, not when it comes to physical or personality aspects. It's just a saying and a principle.
People can be equal, given the correct circumstances. Some should never be considered equal, due to past actions, but I wouldn't go as far as to say no one will ever be equal. I won't argue anything else.
I feel as if the whole pollers part of this thread has been obliterated.
The "better" issue is skewed because we don't know if Feryll means intrinsically or extrinsically better. It seems he means extrinsically, but to be on the safe side I'd prefer to vote no on that question.
Yes, no, no. I'm never as open minded as I should be, and any one of you could turn me inside out. I do feel the I am very intelligent, and I am more intelligent than half my class, so I went with my gut.
This thread is designed to uncomfortably shoehorn you into "yes" or "no" on the above questions. Most of the time in real life regarding others you'll be able to tell if someone is generally more intelligent than someone else, whether someone is a little more open-minded than someone else, and after enough time whether someone is just "better" (whatever you define that as) than someone else.
I urge all of you to vote in this, despite if you're undecided or feel arrogant for voting this way. Try also not to look at the break-down of who voted what until after you vote.
That word. I. LOVE. IT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sometimes I dress up as Slender Man and sneak up on people at night.
Or is it that they cannot place themselves in a place referred to as 'better', due to some belief of all people being equal? I can see things I am better at compared to certain others, yet I cannot call myself better, as I view it as a nonsensical word used in such context.
Who's naive enough to believe that everyone is equal? Granted, it's vague, but surely you have some opinion on what's more valuable to you.
I'll ask you another question, and I ask that you be sincere.
Whose life is/was worth more: Stephen Hawking or someone with a mental retardation? Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa? Friedrich Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas? If you can make an evaluation about people on opposite ends of a spectrum, can you not make the same evaluations of people who aren't as extraordinary?
You must have come to some conclusions about the people that frequent this website since you've already made two generalizations about your peers. What's one more?
This man explains well what I mean about the use of the word "better" despite how insensitive it comes off as.
I suppose I should reword what I had said, but I am too sleepy at this point to know how to reword it. I admit a man with a mental illness would be worth less in society than such as Stephen Hawkins. Adolf is a strange case, I understand his hatred, caused by war, but he seemed much too close-minded. I would assume such a close-mindedness, and a feeling of betrayal would drive someone to certain degrees, yet he was way over the top. If not for being in WW1, Hitler could have been a normal person.
Don't get me wrong, I hate his guts, but you can't always judge by the basics of history, if you can judge by history at all.
I'm sure I was no where near answering your question here, but, as I said previously, I am about to fall asleep in my chair.
People can be equal, given the correct circumstances. Some should never be considered equal, due to past actions, but I wouldn't go as far as to say no one will ever be equal. I won't argue anything else.
I feel as if the whole pollers part of this thread has been obliterated.
You heard that, green and red.
Now that being said. Ponies.
That word. I. LOVE. IT.
Let's have a tussle.
You're a robot human.
So that means your a Botman.