we hold these truths to be...

[Peter Kropotkin]

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal''

That is perhaps the central point of the American experiment....
that the essential aspect of the American experiment is
equality.... that all men/human beings are equal....
the equation is that equality and justice are the same
thing... equality is the equal administration of justice
to all... but it also has a third meaning...which is tolerance....

we cannot treat others equally if we treat them with
intolerance.... from my handy-dandy dictionary...

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something,
in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that
one does not necessarily agree with....

tolerance makes the concept of equality/justice work....
for we cannot have equality without tolerance...
tolerance is the fluid that allows equality/justice to work...
a democracy must have equality/justice and tolerance....
otherwise, there is no democracy....for equality, the notion
that all men/human beings are created equal, that everyone
has a right to hold to beliefs and values and to EXPRESS
those beliefs and values, just as I have the right to both
hold and express my own beliefs and values.....

tolerance of those expressions of values and beliefs is
expressly stated in the constitution....

the First amendment the guarantees freedoms of
religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition....
that congress cannot, CANNOT prohibit, from restricting
the press, and the individuals right to free speech or religion.....

that is legal tolerance... acceptance of one's right to freely act
and express speech....

to be intolerant, is to reject the basic premises that,
''that all men/human beings are created equal''...

to reject gays from marrying or having sex, is intolerance...
and thus a rejection of the basic American concept of equality..

to prevent people from cross-dressing or having a drag show is
intolerance, and antithetical to the basic idea that ''all people
are create equal''

that we legislate morality must come to a larger point that just
being disgusted by certain behaviors.... in the Middle East,
the public display of kissing is legislated against as being against
public morality.... that is to say, that behavior that is normal
behavior by couples, the public display of affection is also
an act of intolerance..... it is a denial of the ''all men/
human beings are created equal'' that public displays
of affection are an affront to god, is a superstition....
as noted before, people are at very different stages of
the road to becoming human.... to accept that people,
couples are and will continue to express themselves,
by kissing and other acts, is to accept tolerance
of people..... just because you can't/won't do it, doesn't
mean you must prevent others from their own expression
of love by public displays of affection.... that is a violation
of the precept of equality/justice.....

But Kropotkin, people have a right to determine their own fate,
yes, yes they do, but that doesn't mean they have a right to
determine the rights of others by the practice of inequality,
of intolerance.... but Kropotkin, in doing so, you basically
are allowing all types of behaviors... decent and indecent.....
there is no legislation of morals or ethics.... but of course
there are other concerns at work here.....

One of the primary psychological needs of people, is for safety/security....
that is one of the driving forces of human needs.... and that is a need
we must respect..... to ensure safety/security is to legislate
against violence toward people.... I have a right to commit violence
against people is a form of intolerance....but does the act
of public affection a form of a violation towards others?
Not that I can see... it has nothing to do with others watching
public acts of affection..... but violence is a violation of
the safety/security aspect of human existence... but displays
of public affection does not meet that criteria...

thus, you can separate out forms of actions and words
that can be legislated against because they violate
basic human needs....

people having sex on the stairs of city hall is, granted
disturbing, but it doesn't violate any safety/security needs
or for that matter, any other human values....
thus, we can hold that a violation of the basic human needs
either bodily or psychologically, is punishable, falls into
the state of being legislated against...

so, what is morals/ethics? a violation of the basic human
needs that we all have as human beings.... among those
human needs of food, water, shelter, health care, education....
to violate those needs, is worthy of legislation against them...
but also the psychological needs that must be met....
the need for safety/security is primary here...
but the other psychological needs of the esteem of others,
of love, of the sense of belonging... these needs are almost
impossible to legislate....but they are nevertheless vastly
important to human beings.... and must be keep in mind
when ethics/morality/or legislation is pondered.....

So, when asking, on what grounds are we to keep our ethics and
morality on? I would reject god, religions, faith or even laws...
I would suggest that we legislate based on the understanding
of human needs.... we legislate against violence toward people
based on the psychological needs of people because that
is one of the primary needs of human beings... to feel
safe and secure... to prevent people from getting food or water
or shelter is another area of legislation that we can consider...
and the welfare state of countries is just a means of allowing
people to achieve those bodily needs....

every single human being, because they are human,
deserves to have food, water, shelter, health care,
education..... to met those bodily needs is the focus
and basis of legislation... and the psychological
needs of safety/security is one of the primary
functions of a state/society.... we cannot legislate
esteem or a sense of belonging,
but we can legislate safety/security....

but we can allow others who don't hold to our values,
say gays or trans people the same right as we demand,
to love who we want to love... thus any laws restricting
human beings from loving another, is wrong.... but Kropotkin,
you have just allowed minors being sex partners with adults...
not at all....again, what is the safety/security aspect of being
human? that we are safe and secure... to allow adults to
have sex with children doesn't do that.... we know,
from children, that having sex with adults creates
serious psychological issues with children... that is a fact...
and to protect children, to insure their safety/security,
we prevent, we legislate against children having sex before the
age of 18... and adults from having sex with children before
the age of 18.... again, it becomes a question of meeting
our needs and the needs of children.... allowing children to
have sex with adults doesn't meet the needs of children,
although it might meet the needs of adults, we cannot
allow that.... to protect the needs of children we ban
sex with adults.... laws pared with common sense are usually
the way to go...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

One might say, I have the right, based on my own
needs to torture animals... as they are not human,
but that is against animal needs... for we must be prepared to 
offer to animals we demand for ourselves....and why?
They are just animals..... but to a certain extent,
animals have many of the same rights and necessities
that human beings have.... they have the right, by virtue
of being alive, the right to avoid being tortured....
but Kropotkin, what about the torture and killing of
animals, so we can eat?

And that is one of the many cases where we have conflicts between
dueling and competing rights.... much of the world's problem exists
within this area of dueling and competing rights.... whose rights
get priority and whose rights do not? in the case of competing
rights between human beings, the ''tiebreaker'' is the question
of needs.... the right of human beings to love one another regardless
of sexual orentation..... because of the fact that love and the pursuit
of love is one of the primary psychological needs of human beings....
the right to equally love is an equal right, not one right favoring another,
but equal rights... and my right to love a woman is the same, equal
to a person loving a person of the same sex.... but Kropotkin,
what about my right to freely express my religion? which is to
prohibit same sex relationships...... what you are practicing is
not equality, to prohibit something that you claim for yourself,
the right to love... to express disaffection is acceptable,
freedom of speech, but to prevent that, that becomes unacceptable....
to negate that which you allow yourself is not practicing equality....
to practice religion is acceptable, to prevent actions or words, based
on that religion is unacceptable because it violates others needs and rights....

it is a tricky problem but one that can be solved if, if we hold to
certain principles and also practice common sense....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

much of the world's conflicts and drama, comes
from those, people, states, nations, tribes, political
parties, that say their needs out way the needs of others..
if we are equal, and we are, then no one entity needs
outways any other party needs...

that all men/human beings are created equal...

means that our needs and wants are also equal.... my needs and wants
don't outweigh or is less valuable than your needs and wants..
we are equal in needs and wants...

and the conflicts of the world, individually and collectively stem
from those who demand their needs and wants outweigh others....

does a child with cancer needs outweigh your needs?
One could make the argument that no, your needs is less
than a child with cancer based on the idea that a child with
cancer is threatened in terms of ''life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness''

we can judge a case of needs with some common sense and a bit
of rational thought... you want to end conflict, end the
idea that some have greater needs and wants than others, based
solely on some personal belief or value...for the case of needs
and wants, is best judge by a group, a larger faction of people
can clearly and with some justification, case one person needs
and wants outweighs other needs and want, but again,
that is based on the idea that we are equal and have equal
rights and wants.... equality is justice...

Kropotkin

[Age]

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal''

Kropotkin

Written by a "man", in the days when "men" believed that "woman" and "children" were not equal.

Which, by the way, is said, still in the days when this is being written, by "men" with the silent undertone that "women" and "children" are not equal with "men" at all.

There are also, in those days, still those who believed that not all are, nor were, created equal at all. Which shows and proves just how abused and ill-taught some really were.

[Harbal]

Written by a "man", in the days when "men" believed that "woman" and "children" were not equal.

Did all men believe that "woman" and "children" were not equal, in the days when this was written?

And what do you mean by equal?

[Age]

Written by a "man", in the days when "men" believed that "woman" and "children" were not equal.

Did all men believe that "woman" and "children" were not equal, in the days when this was written?

I do not know.

Do you class 'you' as a "man"?

If yes, then do you believe that "woman" and "children" are, or are not, equal with 'you'?

And what do you mean by equal?

Being the same in status, quality, quantity, size, degree, value. worth, rights, or ability.

And, although this might it more confusing, at first, to me, every one is as different equally as they are the same.

[Harbal]

Written by a "man", in the days when "men" believed that "woman" and "children" were not equal.

Did all men believe that "woman" and "children" were not equal, in the days when this was written?

I do not know.

Do you class 'you' as a "man"?

Yes

If yes, then do you believe that "woman" and "children" are, or are not, equal with 'you'?

I can't answer that without some specific context. Equal with me in what way?

And what do you mean by equal?

Being the same in status, quality, quantity, size, degree, value. worth, rights, or ability.

Again, those things don't mean much without context.

[Age]

Did all men believe that "woman" and "children" were not equal, in the days when this was written?

I do not know.

Do you class 'you' as a "man"?

Yes

If yes, then do you believe that "woman" and "children" are, or are not, equal with 'you'?

I can't answer that without some specific context. Equal with me in what way?

If you are aware of ways that 'they' are, and are not, equal with you, then you can express them if you do would like to.

Being the same in status, quality, quantity, size, degree, value. worth, rights, or ability.

Again, those things don't mean much without context.

Okay.

[Harbal]

I do not know.

Do you class 'you' as a "man"?

Yes

If yes, then do you believe that "woman" and "children" are, or are not, equal with 'you'?

I can't answer that without some specific context. Equal with me in what way?

If you are aware of ways that 'they' are, and are not, equal with you, then you can express them if you do would like to.

We are equal in that we are equally human beings, but that applies to men as much as women and children.

[Alexiev]

The implication in the Declaration is that all "men" (humans) are equally endowed with the stated "unalienable rights".

This was not the case in monarchies, where such rights were "endowed" (if the were endowed) by the king.

Taking the quote out of context is like the cut and respond methods of some of the posters here.

[Age]

Yes

I can't answer that without some specific context. Equal with me in what way?

If you are aware of ways that 'they' are, and are not, equal with you, then you can express them if you do would like to.

We are equal in that we are equally human beings, but that applies to men as much as women and children.

I agree, absolutely and totally, that you human beings are equal in being human beings, and that this applies to all of you human beings, equally.

[Age]

The implication in the Declaration is that all "men" (humans) are equally endowed with the stated "unalienable rights".

This was not the case in monarchies, where such rights were "endowed" (if the were endowed) by the king.

Taking the quote out of context is like the cut and respond methods of some of the posters here.

Believing that the 'implication', which one has been made privy to, or is savvy of, also never means that 'that implication' is the exact True, Right, Accurate, and Correct one. Unless, of course, one has had direct clarification and verification from the one or ones who said and/or wrote the 'very thing' that was 'being implied'.

Is there absolutely any possibility at all that 'the context' that you have for 'that quote', here now, could have been 'taken out of context' somewhere else or sometime prior to hitherto?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world'?

Also, what is the so-called 'cut and respond method', exactly?

And, who are some of the posters here, exactly, who, supposedly, use 'this method'?

By the way is every way you 'take' 'a quote' never ever 'out of context' in any way, shape, nor form?

Also, and furthermore, I just said and wrote here that 'that' was written by a "man", in the days when "men" believed that "woman" and "children" were not equal, and that, still, in the days when this is being written there are, still, those of you who believe that 'you', human beings, were and are not created 'equal'.