KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend"

simple

(expetive deleted)

Hans equality in rights does not mean
one gives up the right to the be different

You have that part right --- equality in rights is a fine thing, and we all
agree with it.

Most people, anyway. Recall that it wasn't until many years after the
USA was founded that it became illegal for some people to own other
people as property, and even more years until both genders had the
right to vote.

But I wasn't talking about "rights". I was talking about the flawed notion
that "all men are CREATED equal".

And there's the problem.

The phrase "all men are created equal" is too often taken as a
stand-alone, without the context of the rest of the document and the
times when it was written. The equality that was meant in the original
document was equality of rights - and rights only! It was meant to
dispel once and for all any claim to inherited privilege, nobility,
title, or monarchy. No more and no less. This was a truly radical
concept at the time, when almost all of western civilization had
"nobles" and monarchs, and the average person had few if any rights
that were guaranteed simply by being a human. The "endowed by their
Creator" part is meant as a direct contradiction to the idea that some
monarchs were given their authority by one divinity or another.

(for a truly brilliant deconstruction of the concept of monarchy, see
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail", and the scene where Arthur
encounters Dennis.)

We all have different physical attributes,
different levels of intelligence, different native skills and abilities, etc.,
etc., etc. Clearly we are NOT created equal.

Not that way, anyhow. And even if we *were*, we all don't develop the
same way. The differences observable in identical twins are proof of
that.

As an example, you may have a
great sense of pitch and rythm along with a good voice, so might become afamous
singer. I on the other hand, can't carry a tune in a tow sack. Clear to all
but deaf observers, we are NOT equal. The same analogy can be applied toany
human attribute you wish to examine, yet politicians (even though they don't
practice it themselves) still feed the masses this "created equal" myth, and the
masses still buy into it.

What they do is to substitute equality of *outcome* for equality of
*rights*.

Or to put it another way, what was meant by "created equal" was that
there should be equality of *opportunity*, but not necessarily equality
of *results*.

If you want to explore the results of real human equality,
read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron"
at http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

It's a great story, showing the enforcement of mandatory equality of
results.

There are many road races where anyone who can pay the fee and who will
sign the waiver can enter, start at the same starting line and starting
signal, and run/walk/jog the course.

That's equality of opportunity.

What Harrison Bergeron describes so well is a society where everyone
has to *finish* together, regardless of their actual ability.

why since the line of "Reasoning" is GIGO

I recommended it because KV does a much better job than I in illustratingthe
issue.

Yep. One of the greatest American writers, if not *the* greatest.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Welcome To The Monkey House"

"Who made you king? I didn't vote for you!"