There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!
--
--

Perhaps God DID make it that way, but then along came the Fall and nature became corrupt. At least that's the view of lots of Christians.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 00:35:10 UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!
--
--

Perhaps God DID make it that way, but then along came the Fall and nature became corrupt. At least that's the view of lots of Christians.

Did God intend sex equality before The Fall? Hypothetically.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:40:11 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 00:35:10 UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!
--
--

Perhaps God DID make it that way, but then along came the Fall and nature became corrupt. At least that's the view of lots of Christians.

Did God intend sex equality before The Fall? Hypothetically.

Well, sure. Isn't the unequal position of women punishment for Eve's role in the Fall?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

Curious leap from equality in Nature to rights and equality
__under_the_law__. Of course there is Jusnaturalism which some
seem inclined towards but I'm skeptical of labeling it as natural.

In fact, it seems rather unnatural to me. If the high minded
principles of Lock were natural, why are they so hard to implement,
and so often discarded? Why are they asserted to be natural
in humans but not observed across all primates?

My cynicism inclines me to think of Law as something that helps
overcome aspects of Nature that tend to produce Injustice. Of
course if you disagree, you do you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

Curious leap from equality in Nature to rights and equality __under_the_law__. Of course there is Jusnaturalism which some
seem inclined towards but I'm skeptical of labeling it as natural.

In fact, it seems rather unnatural to me. If the high minded
principles of Lock were natural, why are they so hard to implement,
and so often discarded? Why are they asserted to be natural
in humans but not observed across all primates?

My cynicism inclines me to think of Law as something that helps
overcome aspects of Nature that tend to produce Injustice. Of
course if you disagree, you do you.

Where exactly did I reduce rights and equality under the law to nature?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:55:11 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

Curious leap from equality in Nature to rights and equality __under_the_law__. Of course there is Jusnaturalism which some
seem inclined towards but I'm skeptical of labeling it as natural.

In fact, it seems rather unnatural to me. If the high minded
principles of Lock were natural, why are they so hard to implement,
and so often discarded? Why are they asserted to be natural
in humans but not observed across all primates?

My cynicism inclines me to think of Law as something that helps
overcome aspects of Nature that tend to produce Injustice. Of
course if you disagree, you do you.

Where exactly did I reduce rights and equality under the law to nature?

[Matt] There ain't no equality in Nature.
...
[Hemi] I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

I responded to the OP regards "no equality in __Nature__".
Your retort to my response was to that you were thinking about "rights and equality under the law". That you challenged my response to a post about
"no equality in Nature" to you thinking about "right and equality under the law"
implies a comparison between the two.

I can understand if you would want to maintain a distinction between
these. I certainly would want to. However, your response seemed to
be attempting to diminish any such distinction. Otherwise, I don't
understand why you appeared to be objecting to the distinction I
was drawing between the OP and my example.

In particular, the OP teases the question of what is "equality". In the
context easily presumed in a newsgroup focused on evolution, one
can easily leap to questions of "fitness" and relative fitness versus "equality". Are all men, or mice, or lice created/born "equal"?

Equal in what sense? Fitness sensu Darwinian fitness?

Skipping through what I assumed was an obvious undercurrent,
no. We are not born equally fit. So what the hell does "equal" mean?

You likely incorporated some significant portion of this and hewed
North, I hewed South, substituting North and South for arbitrary
vectors on a ill-defined coordinate scheme.

Meanwhile, grasping back towards the tangible, the OP asked about
the legitimacy of "equality" in nature. The question has enough
troubling presumptions that I was inclined to respond with a joke.

I guess the joke didn't connect with you based on your response.
I replayed the joke in responding to you, guessing you'd get it.
I was wrong. Seemingly, you didn't. My sense of humor may be too
cryptic. Oh well, at least I entertained myself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:55:10 PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:40:11 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 00:35:10 UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

There ain't no equality in Nature.
And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!
--
--

Perhaps God DID make it that way, but then along came the Fall and nature became corrupt. At least that's the view of lots of Christians.

Did God intend sex equality before The Fall? Hypothetically.

Well, sure. Isn't the unequal position of women punishment for Eve's role in the Fall?

Isn't it even more radical than that? Sex and gender roles are a result of the Fall, before that they were not just equal but identical
The Godhead is neither male nor female but both, as both man and woman are created in its image. The syntactic structure of Genesis 1. 27 "male and female He created them" is best understood non-distributively, akin to "tall and handsome h created them" (
each being both tall and handsome)

This is even clearer in Genesis 2, where the original Adam clearly is both, and has to be torn in half (it isn't "rib", tsela also means "side"), so a cloning that creates one more of the same thing.

Genesis 3.7 "And the eyes both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked" is not about being in a state of undress, that would just be silly. Rather, it's a euphemism for seeing the other for the first time as an opposite (opposite sex),
and thus essentially separated and different. The Fall there for is both: alienation/separation from God, and also alienation/separation from each other.

That gets affirmed in Genesis 3.16: it is only after the fall that a woman has sexual desire for a man (and becomes capable of having children if in pain) . - sex and sexual dimorphism as I said being a consequence, not a precondition, of the Fall. And
as you said, the other gender roles - child bearing and nurturing for her (Genesis 3.16) physical labour for him (Genesis 3: 17) also only occurs as punishment for the Fall.

Genesis 3.20 concludes this with "And Adam named his wife Eve," a new name (and that means in the context of Genesis and the "naming" arch, an identity, not just a label) is only assigned then, before, there was no need for a separate identity, they
were indistinguishable.

So in the state of sin, we are separated from God and each other, which was however reconciled in the resurrection. Or with other words, in heaven we will all be NBs again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:55:11 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00:09 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote: >>>>>> There ain't no equality in Nature.

And there doesn't need to be.
If there needed to be, then
God would have made it that way!

We are all essentially equally likely to be killed
in a sharknado or a crashing extra-terrestrial
flying saucer. So there's that.

I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

Curious leap from equality in Nature to rights and equality
__under_the_law__. Of course there is Jusnaturalism which some
seem inclined towards but I'm skeptical of labeling it as natural.

In fact, it seems rather unnatural to me. If the high minded
principles of Lock were natural, why are they so hard to implement,
and so often discarded? Why are they asserted to be natural
in humans but not observed across all primates?

My cynicism inclines me to think of Law as something that helps
overcome aspects of Nature that tend to produce Injustice. Of
course if you disagree, you do you.

Where exactly did I reduce rights and equality under the law to nature?

[Matt] There ain't no equality in Nature.
...
[Hemi] I was thinking rights and equality under the law, but ok. You do you.

I responded to the OP regards "no equality in __Nature__".
Your retort to my response was to that you were thinking about "rights and equality under the law". That you challenged my response to a post about
"no equality in Nature" to you thinking about "right and equality under the law"
implies a comparison between the two.

I can understand if you would want to maintain a distinction between
these. I certainly would want to. However, your response seemed to
be attempting to diminish any such distinction. Otherwise, I don't
understand why you appeared to be objecting to the distinction I
was drawing between the OP and my example.

In particular, the OP teases the question of what is "equality". In the context easily presumed in a newsgroup focused on evolution, one
can easily leap to questions of "fitness" and relative fitness versus "equality". Are all men, or mice, or lice created/born "equal"?

Equal in what sense? Fitness sensu Darwinian fitness?

Skipping through what I assumed was an obvious undercurrent,
no. We are not born equally fit. So what the hell does "equal" mean?

You likely incorporated some significant portion of this and hewed
North, I hewed South, substituting North and South for arbitrary
vectors on a ill-defined coordinate scheme.

Meanwhile, grasping back towards the tangible, the OP asked about
the legitimacy of "equality" in nature. The question has enough
troubling presumptions that I was inclined to respond with a joke.

I guess the joke didn't connect with you based on your response.
I replayed the joke in responding to you, guessing you'd get it.
I was wrong. Seemingly, you didn't. My sense of humor may be too
cryptic. Oh well, at least I entertained myself.

I would have replied to the OP but no, because I wanted to abide by a
certain peculiar sense of what censorship means (mental killfile). I had a whole thing about how rights and equality are created and not discovered (social constructions) in opposition to the OP bias but opted instead for brevity. Loquaciousness is not in the cards lately.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)