7 ms·

The equality of humanity is not an empirical judgement. It is a value judgement. It rests, not on scientific grounds, but on ideological grounds.

by Dove 15y ago

richardw 15y ago
Not in basketball or sprinting. There are huge differences between women and men [1] [2]. Not everyone is equally equal beautiful snowflakes, and that's fine with me. Do the best you can with what you have. [1] http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-at-everything/ http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-a... [2] http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm?
- thom 15y ago
  When someone talks about 'equality' in terms of values, they're probably talking more about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and less about ability at basketball or sprinting.
  - pazimzadeh 15y ago
    Men take more risks, they are more at the top and at the bottom of society because it's in their nature to be slightly more extreme. Wouldn't you say that that applies to life outside of sports?
    - thom 15y ago
      Again we seem to be at cross purposes. One type of equality might be described thusly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The other like this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women!) are absolutely inseparably as good as each other at sports, that they are endowed by their Creator with a complete knowledge of the rules of basketball" The latter would be an absurd thing to say, but would be easy to judge empirically. The former is a statement of a certain set of values - widely held, I'd hope, but nevertheless impossible to justify experimentally, beyond the fact that (again, I'd hope) most people have experienced in their lifetimes that it's nice when we all get along with one another. Either way, they use the concept of 'equality' quite differently. I felt Dove actually captured this very succinctly, which is why I'm surprised it's been misconstrued twice now.
      - richardw 15y ago
        Let's go back to the post Dove was replying to, for context. There are many people who would happily grant the abovementioned rights to all, while still considering a subset of the population somehow less inherently able. The parent comment was talking about one type of equality, Dove another (why?), me again the first, you again the second, and then you tell us twice that we're not getting it.
        thom 15y ago
        I find your interpretation of that post equally astonishing.
- jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
  performance != value
reinhardt 15y ago
This is an empirical judgement: http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/evolution5.jpg http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/evolution5.jpg
- wearefriends 15y ago
  I think there are numerous examples of ancient architecture from even before the age of Rome found in Africa. Particularly northeast-africa. Africa is just too big and diverse too be lumped into one category. However I did get a good chuckle out of the jpeg. I do have to agree with the some of the sentiments here. There are examples of Africans who also have the Neanderthal presence in their DNA, again, east-africans. Probably explains why they're so different to other Africans. Though I still don't know whether they're considered sub-saharan africans or not. They are genetically very distinct from surrounding Africans.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    "Particularly northeast-africa." I hesitate to say this since I had been planning on staying away from this conversation, but northeast africa is not part of sub-Saharan Africa which this article seems to be concerning (at least according to the Discover writeup, which I only skimmed). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sub-Saharan_A...
    - wearefriends 15y ago
      Ah ha! Thank you for that,it was enlightening. I have heard before that East-Africans are considered caucasians. Though I don't know this for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race Wikipedia for 'caucasian' seems to suggest they are though. Strange!
  - okal 15y ago
    Hey. Just a point of correction - East Africans are just as black as people from the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. You may find communities along the coasts, such as the Swahili, with significant Arab ancestry but most inland tribes are not different from their Western or Southern African counterparts. The greatest differences occur between language groups. Take the Nilotes for instance - the linguistic group which my tribe, the Luo, belongs to - we tend to be relatively tall and thin, with very dark skin, as compared to the more stout, lighter skinned Bantu groups. These distinctions also exist between the Western African branches of Nilo-Saharan (the Nilotic parent group) and the Bantu communities in the region. Southern African communities are largely Bantu though. In short, the vast majority of East Africans are what you'd call black, no different from any other black populations. PS: "Sub Saharan" is rather long. We really don't mind "Black" Africa.

The equality of humanity is not an empirical judgement. It is a value judgement. It rests, not on scientific grounds, but on ideological grounds.

by Dove 15y ago

The equality of humanity is not an empirical judgement. It is a value judgement. It rests, not on scientific grounds, but on ideological grounds.

richardw 15y ago

Not in basketball or sprinting. There are huge differences between women and men [1] [2]. Not everyone is equally equal beautiful snowflakes, and that's fine with me. Do the best you can with what you have. [1] http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-at-everything/ http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-a... [2] http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm?

thom 15y ago
When someone talks about 'equality' in terms of values, they're probably talking more about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and less about ability at basketball or sprinting.
- pazimzadeh 15y ago
  Men take more risks, they are more at the top and at the bottom of society because it's in their nature to be slightly more extreme. Wouldn't you say that that applies to life outside of sports?
  - thom 15y ago
    Again we seem to be at cross purposes. One type of equality might be described thusly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The other like this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women!) are absolutely inseparably as good as each other at sports, that they are endowed by their Creator with a complete knowledge of the rules of basketball" The latter would be an absurd thing to say, but would be easy to judge empirically. The former is a statement of a certain set of values - widely held, I'd hope, but nevertheless impossible to justify experimentally, beyond the fact that (again, I'd hope) most people have experienced in their lifetimes that it's nice when we all get along with one another. Either way, they use the concept of 'equality' quite differently. I felt Dove actually captured this very succinctly, which is why I'm surprised it's been misconstrued twice now.
    - richardw 15y ago
      Let's go back to the post Dove was replying to, for context. There are many people who would happily grant the abovementioned rights to all, while still considering a subset of the population somehow less inherently able. The parent comment was talking about one type of equality, Dove another (why?), me again the first, you again the second, and then you tell us twice that we're not getting it.
      - thom 15y ago
        I find your interpretation of that post equally astonishing.
jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
performance != value

reinhardt 15y ago

This is an empirical judgement: http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/evolution5.jpg http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/evolution5.jpg

wearefriends 15y ago
I think there are numerous examples of ancient architecture from even before the age of Rome found in Africa. Particularly northeast-africa. Africa is just too big and diverse too be lumped into one category. However I did get a good chuckle out of the jpeg. I do have to agree with the some of the sentiments here. There are examples of Africans who also have the Neanderthal presence in their DNA, again, east-africans. Probably explains why they're so different to other Africans. Though I still don't know whether they're considered sub-saharan africans or not. They are genetically very distinct from surrounding Africans.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "Particularly northeast-africa." I hesitate to say this since I had been planning on staying away from this conversation, but northeast africa is not part of sub-Saharan Africa which this article seems to be concerning (at least according to the Discover writeup, which I only skimmed). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sub-Saharan_A...
  - wearefriends 15y ago
    Ah ha! Thank you for that,it was enlightening. I have heard before that East-Africans are considered caucasians. Though I don't know this for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race Wikipedia for 'caucasian' seems to suggest they are though. Strange!
- okal 15y ago
  Hey. Just a point of correction - East Africans are just as black as people from the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. You may find communities along the coasts, such as the Swahili, with significant Arab ancestry but most inland tribes are not different from their Western or Southern African counterparts. The greatest differences occur between language groups. Take the Nilotes for instance - the linguistic group which my tribe, the Luo, belongs to - we tend to be relatively tall and thin, with very dark skin, as compared to the more stout, lighter skinned Bantu groups. These distinctions also exist between the Western African branches of Nilo-Saharan (the Nilotic parent group) and the Bantu communities in the region. Southern African communities are largely Bantu though. In short, the vast majority of East Africans are what you'd call black, no different from any other black populations. PS: "Sub Saharan" is rather long. We really don't mind "Black" Africa.