Are all individuals equal?

[spaceboots06]

Hi,

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal? This isn't supposed to be a racial discussion, but rather a discussion on individuals themselves. I.e. is a crackhead just as valuable as a stock broker? Or, is a little girl who's father died just as important as Paris Jackson, who had approximately 9999999^99x9 people watching her cry over her deceased father? Or what about someone who steals, are they as equal as someone who lives their life cleanly?

[dukebound85]

some contribute more to society than others

[paddy]

Hi,

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal? This isn't supposed to be a racial discussion

Don't think it would have turned into a racial discussion. Why would it?

[spaceboots06]

I'm pretty sure it will be traumatizing for her to have to live with the fact that her grief was made into a national spectacle so people who never even met her father could play mourner as well.

[skunk]

Yes.

[dukebound85]

Yes.

born equal. however, ones actions define their worth imo

with that said, everyone has the same basic rights that need to be protected

but no, not all individuals are equal, far from it

[skunk]

but no, not all individuals are equal, far from itIt depends entirely on your criteria.

[fireshot91]

Mature people are supposed to be treated equal, but alas, they really are not.


I think that everybody is equal.


I mean, if somebody's about to be killed, would you really ponder about if his/her life is well enough to be saved, and you die or if they are better than you? No, the right person would risk his/her life to save the other person, making everybody equal. But, if both people lived, and the person who was originally going to be killed/dying did something bad to mess up his/her life and Person B saw it, then if the same situation would happen again, I doubt that person B would be in his/her right mind to save Person A.

[RITZFit]

I believe that everyone is "uniquely equal". No one person is just like the next, nor are they good at "everything", but I believe that everyone certain talents that they can definitely contribute to society...obviously not everyone does their part but it doesn't mean they aren't capable.

[dukebound85]

I mean, if somebody's about to be killed, would you really ponder about if his/her life is well enough to be saved, and you die or if they are better than you? No, the right person would risk his/her life to save the other person, making everybody equal.

yes i would. unless its my family, i wont offer myself up willingly nor risk it my life unduly.

But, if both people lived, and the person who was originally going to be killed/dying did something bad to mess up his/her life and Person B saw it, then if the same situation would happen again, I doubt that person B would be in his/her right mind to save Person A.
if it was a family member i would

[leekohler]

Are all people equal? Yes, as far as human worth goes. Are they treated that way? No.

[abijnk]

Yes.

QFT

/Thread :D

[mgguy]

We are all different. No one is equal to anyone else. If the question is should they necessarily be treated equally, I would say no to that too.

[leekohler]

If the question is should they necessarily be treated equally, I would say no to that too.

Why do you say that?

[That-Is-Bull]

Of course not. I know most people say that everybody's equal because if you don't you're a horrible person, but seriously, if you had to kill either Adolf Hitler or Jesus Christ, who would you choose? Be honest. You wouldn't say "everybody's equal, so I guess I'll just use my Coin Flip app to decide." You'd kill Hitler, because he had such a douchey mustache. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, all men are definitely not created equal, and not everyone is lucky enough to be capable of leading a decent life and contributing to society by not being lazy. It's popular but ridiculous to believe that.

[mgguy]

Why do you say that?

It's not practical, and it's not the way the world works. The things that make us different will always be factored in for some treatment considerations. Equal treatment for all people will never be a universal reality, and I don't think it should be. People should be treated as individuals, receiving rewards and punishments based on their individual circumstances and past actions.

[leekohler]

It's not practical, and it's not the way the world works. The things that make us different will always be factored in for some treatment considerations. Equal treatment for all people will never be a universal reality, and I don't think it should be. People should be treated as individuals, receiving rewards and punishments based on their individual circumstances and past actions.

Fair enough.

[OutThere]

The quite unfortunate state of the world is that we are neither born into equal situations, nor do we have equal opportunity to make our own success. Some are born into the perfect life to promote success and others are born in squalor and will never have the opportunity to leave.

This is ultimately, I think, where we can effect some true change, in helping to ensure that future generations at least start out on a relatively even playing field. We as people are inherently all different to an extent, and it is a foolish person who feels that we can ever truly achieve a classless society...yet providing everyone an equal platform to jump off of as children will let the true stars rise to the top, whether they were born into privilege or not. How can you attempt to provide an equal starting platform and opportunity for everyone? Excellent and properly funded schools everywhere for everyone, government healthcare, strong social welfare. In this system those with true drive, ambition, intelligence and innate ability are given the opportunity to rise to their potential.

How many potential doctors, poets, engineers and mathematicians are born into families of 8 in rural West Virginia, only to work in a coal mine and develop a painkiller addiction? How many grow up in the inner city and join a gang? How much potential is there in the children of Africa, lost to disease and abject poverty?

[spaceboots06]

See, I personally think Robin Hood and people like him who are "vigilante social workers" who work for the community are bad people, simply because they are unfairly taking from people who earned their money one way or another.

I also believe that people who are functional drug users are not necessarily bad people. Just because one's addicted to a drug doesn't make them a bad person.

Another example: A person growing up in the "projects" decides to steal something from another to enhance/make better his/her life. I would consider he/she to be a bad person.

[blackfox]

I think there is a natural human tendency to define oneself (at least partially)in relation to others. This tends to promote inequality in at least perception, if not practice.

In a certain way, all humanity is equal - but due to the multiplicity of people and subsequent criteria used for definition, for practical purposes they are not.

Humanity is just not that ecumenical - after all, Capitalism is built on at least the implication of inequality. If it were natural to treat everyone as equals, we wouldn't need to codify equality in law(s).

[Desertrat]

The only equality is of one's rights under the law--and even that is affected by one's position and wealth.

Otherwise, there is no equality, whether mental or physical. Insofar as one's moral-value equality, again, no, except possibly in the abstract.

A criminal has rights but no value. A homeless person is regarded by most people as having no value--which is quite democratic, really.

Which all goes to prove the value of honesty and the work ethic: One gains value in the eyes of others, as well as the personal satisfaction of independence and self-sufficiency.

[Ugg]

The only equality is of one's rights under the law--and even that is affected by one's position and wealth.

Otherwise, there is no equality, whether mental or physical. Insofar as one's moral-value equality, again, no, except possibly in the abstract.

A criminal has rights but no value. A homeless person is regarded by most people as having no value--which is quite democratic, really.

Which all goes to prove the value of honesty and the work ethic: One gains value in the eyes of others, as well as the personal satisfaction of independence and self-sufficiency.

So, by that definition, social position is fluid. Bernie Madoff was the world's best friend for a long, long time. He had a lot of value to society as long as his pyramid scheme held up.

I think the same can be said for all those shirts on wall street. For a brief moment in time, they had value, now they're little more than scum. The color of one's collar has nothing to do with their value to society.

[LethalWolfe]

It depends entirely on your criteria.
I agree. For example, many people would probably assume Steve Jobs is 'worth more' than a survivalist living in the backwoods of Montana, but if I was going to get marooned on a lonely island I'd much rather get marooned w/the survivalist than w/Jobs.

Of course not. I know most people say that everybody's equal because if you don't you're a horrible person, but seriously, if you had to kill either Adolf Hitler or Jesus Christ, who would you choose? Be honest. You wouldn't say "everybody's equal, so I guess I'll just use my Coin Flip app to decide." You'd kill Hitler, because he had such a douchey mustache. There's nothing wrong with that.
Killing either would radically alter history from that point forward so no one could ever say w/any certainty that killing Hilter would be better or worse than killing Christ.


Lethal

[CorvusCamenarum]

Don't think it would have turned into a racial discussion. Why would it?

You should look up HBD, or Human Biodiversity.

[djellison]

I've been thinking about this.

A murderer is not the equal of a genius surgeon.

A corporate fraudster is not the equal of a brilliant teacher

But these are what people have become. What are they before that.

Are we born equal? I thought perhaps we were. But to be honest, I don't think so. Someone born into a family with £500M in the bank can have or do anything they like. They can achieve anything they desire. The best healthcare, the best education, every single option open to them and every possible resource to chase any dream they might have.

Someone born into a council estate to a single mum on 40 marlboro a day and an occasional drinking problem and £-2500 in the bank (that's her overdraft limit). Living, day to day, on benefits. Sad though it is, despite the help the state provides, that child is simply not going to have the options, the pathways open, the resources and support to do the same things.

BUT then, we hear of people who've made it to the top of the world, having been born at the bottom of it. We hear of people who become billionaire philanthropists from nothing.

So perhaps we ARE born equal? Or we can work to become the equal of others.

But what of health? Some are born with a genetic predisposition for cancer or parkinsons or some other dreadful disease. Some are not. Some are born with a bad metabolism meaning a healthy diet and plenty of exercise is needed just to keep their weight under control and their hearth healthy. Some are born with that innate health. That's not equality.

So after all this going back and forth I've come to the one correct answer.

I dunno.

Interesting thinking about it though.

[BoyBach]

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal?

I'd like to think so, but as Orwell so memorably put it: "Some animals are more equal than others."

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx

SNAFU.


See, I personally think Robin Hood and people like him who are "vigilante social workers" who work for the community are bad people, simply because they are unfairly taking from people who earned their money one way or another.

I know it's slightly off topic, but... the money that Robin Hood - if he really existed - would have stolen would not have been "earned". Hood's victims would have been members of the landed gentry who were taxing their serfs into oblivion.

[WinterMute]

Equality is an illusion developed by societies who need their members to believe that they are equal.

Skunk's comment on criteria is telling, your personal worth to your society is measured by the means of that society, that we are all born equal is a fallacy, a deformed baby in a pre-historic society would likely be killed or die of it's deformity, the same child born in Great Ormond Street has every chance of living and fulfilling it's potential.

We are all born with equal potential these days because of the privileged society we live in, after that the roll of the dice and our own choices alter the equation.

That all individuals have equal rights only accrues in our society (and others like ours) but you don't have to travel too far to find societies where this assertion is patently not true.

[spillproof]

born equal. however, ones actions define their worth imo

with that said, everyone has the same basic rights that need to be protected

but no, not all individuals are equal, far from it

I have to agree. A crackhead is not just as valuable as a stock broker. The crackhead might help the drug market, but how far does that go in the end.

[tobefirst]

Intellectually, I believe that each person I meet (and even those I haven't) is equal and deserves to be treated that way. However, in practice, I often fail to follow through on that which I know to be true.

[Rt&Dzine]

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal? <snip> I.e. is a crackhead just as valuable as a stock broker?

By equal, you are asking if everyone's lives have the same value to society?

See, I personally think Robin Hood and people like him who are "vigilante social workers" who work for the community are bad people, simply because they are unfairly taking from people who earned their money one way or another.

You are equating "bad" with lesser value? So someone's value is based on the perception of whether they are "good" or "bad."

Some believe the vigilante social worker-types are actually good because they are helping society (and helping the rich people get into heaven.) Even if it is unfair to the rich, the overall result might positive to society.

[imac/cheese]

As skunk put it... it definitely depends on your criteria.

Physically: No we are not equal. Some people are stronger, faster, more attractive, and healthier than other people.

Mentally: No we are not equal. Some people are smarter, wittier, wiser, and more gifted than other people.

Financially: No we are not equal. Some people are born into rich families while others are born into extreme poverty.

Opportunities: No we are not equal. Some people born into families that show love and teach their children well while others are born to neglectful parents that abuse their children.

Rights: No we are not equal. Some are born in the US and others are born in North Korea.

Value: This gets a little tricky and it is based on who is valuing the person. A child's father is much more valuable to that child than a celebrity would be. My friends and family are more valuable to me than to people who do not know them. A doctor is more valuable to a patient that a drug dealer would be (in most cases). Still we are not equal.

Personally, my view is that god created all of us in his image and he loves us all. Therefore I should treat every person as someone to be loved and cherished. Though our circumstances and abilities differ, we are all human and deserving of love.

[mscriv]

In terms of Absolute Truth we are all equal in that we have inherent value and potential. Beyond that we are left with human truth and everything becomes subjective opinion and individual perspective. Sad but true, we humans tend not to cohabitate well. :(

[adamerr]

In terms of Absolute Truth we are all equal in that we have inherent value and potential. Beyond that we are left with human truth and everything becomes subjective opinion and individual perspective. Sad but true, we humans tend not to cohabitate well. :(

Could that not be attributed to primal instinct?
To outdo one another?

To be, as they say, "top dog."

It's a shame.. but I doubt there will ever be total equality.

[NT1440]

I'd say yes, unless that person is doing things to take away from the well being of others (any others) then I consider them less than others.

[abijnk]

It's not practical, and it's not the way the world works. The things that make us different will always be factored in for some treatment considerations. Equal treatment for all people will never be a universal reality, and I don't think it should be. People should be treated as individuals, receiving rewards and punishments based on their individual circumstances and past actions.

I agree with you. However, we should all have the same "jumping off point," if you will. Since we can't control the circumstances into which we are born we should not be punished or rewarded for them.

[Shivetya]

Hi,

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal? This isn't supposed to be a racial discussion, but rather a discussion on individuals themselves. I.e. is a crackhead just as valuable as a stock broker? Or, is a little girl who's father died just as important as Paris Jackson, who had approximately 9999999^99x9 people watching her cry over her deceased father? Or what about someone who steals, are they as equal as someone who lives their life cleanly?

No.

Some are born not equal and some choose not to be equal in ability.


As for Paris Jackson, shameful use of a child. Never seen a funeral where the kids were paraded around like show pieces.

[djellison]

Though our circumstances and abilities differ, we are all human and deserving of love.

Even a pedophile rapist?

[skunk]

Even a pedophile rapist?Especially a paedophile rapist.

[imac/cheese]

Especially a paedophile rapist.

Seconded.

[Malfoy]

Nope

[spaceboots06]

I'd like to think so, but as Orwell so memorably put it: "Some animals are more equal than others."

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx

SNAFU.




I know it's slightly off topic, but... the money that Robin Hood - if he really existed - would have stolen would not have been "earned". Hood's victims would have been members of the landed gentry who were taxing their serfs into oblivion.

I guess. But the money is in their hands and does, although not technically, belong to them.

By equal, you are asking if everyone's lives have the same value to society?



You are equating "bad" with lesser value? So someone's value is based on the perception of whether they are "good" or "bad."

Some believe the vigilante social worker-types are actually good because they are helping society (and helping the rich people get into heaven.) Even if it is unfair to the rich, the overall result might positive to society.

Yes, but this eliminates the rich people's choice of what they want to do with their money. I don't think a man should be allowed to be the decider in how money would be best spent--- especially mine.

In terms of Absolute Truth we are all equal in that we have inherent value and potential. Beyond that we are left with human truth and everything becomes subjective opinion and individual perspective. Sad but true, we humans tend not to cohabitate well. :(

Not at all! Although this seems snotty and rude, I'm infinitely more capable and have so much more potential than someone who's mentally challenged or someone who is comatose and just vegetating on their deathbed. (Except for the savants who could kick my ass any day in math or science.)

[Rt&Dzine]

Yes, but this eliminates the rich people's choice of what they want to do with their money. I don't think a man should be allowed to be the decider in how money would be best spent--- especially mine.

If I use your logic, anyone who decides how my money is best spent is "bad." I didn't want to pay for the Iraq invasion, but those bad people decided for me.

[spaceboots06]

If I use your logic, anyone who decides how my money is best spent is "bad." I didn't want to pay for the Iraq invasion, but those bad people decided for me.

Yes, I would consider someone who was taking my money and relocating it to things I didn't approve of to be a bad person. Yes, I have to pay taxes, yes I have to pay fees for whatever but everyone else does too, and it's the law.

[Rt&Dzine]

Yes, I would consider someone who was taking my money and relocating it to things I didn't approve of to be a bad person. Yes, I have to pay taxes, yes I have to pay fees for whatever but everyone else does too, and it's the law.

Okay. In your opinion all politicians are bad people. I guess my definition of a bad person is different than yours.

[Badandy]

Especially a paedophile rapist.

Because he'll be cured if people are nice to him!

[Rt&Dzine]

all democratic (and maybe some republican) politicians are bad people.

Well earlier you said this:

I don't think a man should be allowed to be the decider in how money would be best spent--- especially mine.

That would include republicans as much as democrats.

[NT1440]

.

Oh, at least we're keeping it bias free :rolleyes:

[mscriv]

Not at all! Although this seems snotty and rude, I'm infinitely more capable and have so much more potential than someone who's mentally challenged or someone who is comatose and just vegetating on their deathbed. (Except for the savants who could kick my ass any day in math or science.)

Thanks for making my point about human truth being based on subjective opinion and personal perspective. Potential is not simply measured by what you are actively capable of doing, but in how you influence, inspire, and affect other people. Sometimes those of us who are the most challenged or unfortunate shine the brightest and touch the lives of others in ways that forever change them for the better.

I guess by judging the "mentally challenged" to not be capable you have also proven my point about humanity tending not to cohabitate well. Do me a favor and go do some volunteer work with individuals that are developmentally delayed and see if you don't come away from the experience humbled, inspired, and thankful for the simple things in life that you take for granted. You'll be a better person for it. :)

[bobber205]

Because he'll be cured if people are nice to him!

There's nothing to cure. That person has a mental illness that he needs to deal with and love can only help. It's not a wart on his face or something.

[spaceboots06]

Thanks for making my point about human truth being based on subjective opinion and personal perspective. Potential is not simply measured by what you are actively capable of doing, but in how you influence, inspire, and affect other people. Sometimes those of us who are the most challenged or unfortunate shine the brightest and touch the lives of others in ways that forever change them for the better.

I guess by judging the "mentally challenged" to not be capable you have also proven my point about humanity tending not to cohabitate well. Do me a favor and go do some volunteer work with individuals that are developmentally delayed and see if you don't come away from the experience humbled, inspired, and thankful for the simple things in life that you take for granted. You'll be a better person for it. :)

Vegetables themselves can't do that. Their image can. I also don't appreciate your suggestion and half-baked internet lecture that I do more volunteer work because I've done my fair share for the past three years throughout all of New York City. I have seen and dealt with mentally challenged people firsthand for the last two and I will continue to stand by my statement I made before how their image may influence people, not the person himself/herself.

[Badandy]

There's nothing to cure. That person has a mental illness that he needs to deal with and love can only help. It's not a wart on his face or something.

So there are no bad people? They all are mentally ill?

[blackfox]

So there are no bad people? They all are mentally ill?

Well, sociopathic and psychopathic behavior is documented in psychiatric text(s). I've also read some compelling arguments that "evil" can be defined as a specific set of criteria and perhaps be classified and treated as a mental illness.

[bobber205]

So there are no bad people? They all are mentally ill?

Yes. Either that or they have had circumstances in their life that led to their behavior. Of course this doesn't absolve them from responsibility. But no one just decides one day to be a "bad person" and to start killing.

[mscriv]

Vegetables themselves can't do that. Their image can. I also don't appreciate your suggestion and half-baked internet lecture that I do more volunteer work because I've done my fair share for the past three years throughout all of New York City. I have seen and dealt with mentally challenged people firsthand for the last two and I will continue to stand by my statement I made before how their image may influence people, not the person himself/herself.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "their image may influence people not the person himself/herself." Developmental delay is measured on a spectrum. Not everyone with this condition experiences it the same way. People that suffer from these challenges are first and foremost people. They are not pictures or anecdotal images that don't have thoughts, feelings, dreams, or desires.

I'm glad that you have done some volunteer work in this area and had the opportunity to interact with this special group of people. However, I must say if you have had these experiences then I'm very surprised at how you are classifying, devaluing, stereotyping, and dehumanizing them.

As for not appreciating my "half baked lecture," I am sorry if I have offended you as that is not my intention. I simply disagree with your argument and offered my thoughts on how to have an experience that might alter your perspective. I think everyone should take the time to do volunteer work of this kind to both give back and expose themselves to a growth opportunity. My use of "you" in the second paragraph of the post was more meant to be universal in that anyone and everyone who interacts with the mentally challenged or disabled population will be better off for the experience.

Finally, keep in mind, you started this thread and asked people to share their opinions. So, please don't be overly sensitive ;) and take this for what it is, a free exchange of ideas.

[MacNut]

How do you define equal? Does that count everyone at birth or once you turn 18? Can you say that a child is equal to a adult?

[P-Worm]

How do you define equal? Does that count everyone at birth or once you turn 18? Can you say that a child is equal to a adult?

I think you have to judge people in age groups.

P-Worm

[skunk]

I think you have to judge people in age groups.I absolutely disagree. There are many on this very forum half my age and twice as wise.

[djellison]

I absolutely disagree. There are many on this very forum half my age and twice as wise.

And far more twice your age and half as wise. You exhibit far more than average intelligence in this place.

[P-Worm]

I absolutely disagree. There are many on this very forum half my age and twice as wise.

I never said I thought people were equal, just that when you are judging whether people are equal or not, you need to judge them in similar periods of life.

P-Worm

[rasmasyean]

Hi,

Do you guys think that all individuals are equal? This isn't supposed to be a racial discussion, but rather a discussion on individuals themselves. I.e. is a crackhead just as valuable as a stock broker? Or, is a little girl who's father died just as important as Paris Jackson, who had approximately 9999999^99x9 people watching her cry over her deceased father? Or what about someone who steals, are they as equal as someone who lives their life cleanly?

One person born in a particular civilization can have value in that environment but not in another civilization. The society and the leaders guide what those values are. If MJ and Paris were born in Iraq would MJ’s “talent and eccentricity” have brought him such a following? Or would he have been executed a long time ago. Not sure if that’s the best example but you get my drift.

If you were a great thinker and really smart in medieval Europe, you’d likely be shunned by the community and possible killed. Fast forward a couple of hundred years and into another country, you might become like Einstein.

The main point is that…No, not everyone is equal. It depends on what is determined by the respective culture what a person’s “worth” is. And furthermore, individuals even have their own opinions of course.

[Queso]

In the grand scheme we are all the same. We are born, we live for a bit, we die. The rest all gets forgotten very soon afterwards.

One day nobody will remember you ever existed, whoever you are.

[Badandy]

In the grand scheme we are all the same. We are born, we live for a bit, we die. The rest all gets forgotten very soon afterwards.

One day nobody will remember you ever existed, whoever you are.

Unless you're Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates.

[Rt&Dzine]

Unless you're Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates.

Even they will be forgotten. Humans have only existed for a relatively short period and won't exist forever.

[Wotan31]

The sanctity of human life is universal and applies equally to all humans. That said, some people contribute more to society than others, and are therefore more valuable to society.

A garbage collector is certainly an essential person to society. Modern civilization would cease to function if all the trash collectors all of a sudden disappeared. But if one trash collector disappears, his position can be readily and easily replaced with another trash collector, and no one would even notice. If Albert Einstein had suddenly disappeared during his life time, we'd be living in a different world today.

One's value to society is defined through one's own achievements. But all human life is sacred.

[skunk]

And far more twice your age and half as wise.Nice of you to say so, but there is not a man alive twice my age... :)

[MacNut]

If Albert Einstein had suddenly disappeared during his life time, we'd be living in a different world today.You don't think that somebody after him would have made the same discoveries?

[Rt&Dzine]

The sanctity of human life is universal and applies equally to all humans. That said, some people contribute more to society than others, and are therefore more valuable to society.

A garbage collector is certainly an essential person to society. Modern civilization would cease to function if all the trash collectors all of a sudden disappeared. But if one trash collector disappears, his position can be readily and easily replaced with another trash collector, and no one would even notice. If Albert Einstein had suddenly disappeared during his life time, we'd be living in a different world today.

One's value to society is defined through one's own achievements. But all human life is sacred.

Do unknown or unintentional achievements make the person as valuable?

For instance, the trash collector may have unintentionally caused an event or a series of events to occur (or not occur) that resulted in a major societal benefit. Nobody knows the part he played, not even himself.

Or let's say that someone invents a very beneficial vaccine, but someone else comes along and gets the credit. The "real" inventor knows his achievement, but most of society doesn't.

[skunk]

Nobody knows the part he played, not even himself.Absolutely spot on.

[LizKat]

born equal. however, ones actions define their worth imo

with that said, everyone has the same basic rights that need to be protected

but no, not all individuals are equal, far from it

I have to agree. A crackhead is not just as valuable as a stock broker. The crackhead might help the drug market, but how far does that go in the end.

Wow. With the unfortunate exception of drug-addicted newborns, the addicted person is not born that way. He might have been a stock broker before he was a crack addict. He might have been a neurosurgeon. He could have been a productive worker at any trade or profession until his untreated substance abuse made him unemployable.

Through intervention and treatment, and with appropriate aftercare, any addict (including the addicted newborn) may recover. In recovery, he can again or for the first time become a productive member of society and a valuable person to himself, family and friends.

On the question of the thread: all humans warrant the same respect for their humanity. Their behavior is a different story, and certainly becomes a differential in how I relate to other people. We do not get to choose to whom we're born, in what country, in what circumstances. Opportunities and environments affect us all, make us stronger or weaker, more or less successful in the conventional sense. So of course we don't all end up "equal" in any tangible sense. It's impossible (and unwise) for me to respond in the same way to a homeless woman shaking a cup in my face, and to a uniformed police officer idly twirling his baton on the next corner. I do make an effort not to assume that he's a nicer person than she is just because he's got a job, but I'm not always able to do that.

[rasmasyean]

Unless you're Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates.

Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan would not be in the same class as Bill Gates though. It’s like saying Gregory Peck and Rockefeller. Most kids would not have a clue who Gregory Peck is but they would know at least something about Rockefeller’s existence. In general, the “arts” effect more of the generation that they are in and are noticeable most within a short time after their passing. However, people who “really” make a difference in world economies / politics are often written down in the “history books” while you would hear of most entertainers only if you studied the arts in their field.

[rasmasyean]

You don't think that somebody after him would have made the same discoveries?

Perhaps not for a long time after if anything. The difference between Einstein’s “discoveries” and others like penicillin, computing, and other “accidental / evolutionary” discoveries is that his ideas are completely radical for his time. Sort of like Charles Darwin. Even to this date, most people can’t accept the theories of Einstein if you told them what they are. It’s only when we started using sophisticated equipment to look at the stars and build GPS systems can we “prove” for ourselves that Einstein was actually spot on. And without him, there definitely would not have been the effort to build an atomic bomb and subsequently nuclear reactors. One can reasonably speculate that WW III would have occurred between US and company and USSR and company without the deterrent in the way.