All men are equal before God
but all men are not equal in Grace and calling

rationalmind:
It's fair and just because it goes in line with the definition of what being fair and just is.

What is the definition of fairness and justice and how does giving unequal people equal rights satisfy this definition?

We've been talking about the treatment of humans equally/unequally by humans. If therefore I allude to any law, I'm alluding to human law, the law of the land.

Who made the law?

Humans

So if humans made this law, they can also change it and therefore are not subject to it. So you really have no basis to condemn a man as being unjust if he decides that the weak have less of a right to life than the strong and thus proceeds to kill them off since for all you know he can change the law that says that unequally humans should be treated equally.

I promised to show why these sort of questions aren't necessary.

Mr A- Why did you eat?

MR B- Because I was hungry.

Mr A- Why were you hungry?

Mr B- Because I haven't eaten for long.

Mr A- Why haven't you eaten for long?

Mr B- Because there's no money.

Mr A- Why don't you have money?

And then, Mr A goes on and on trolling Mr B with the question "why".

Except that I have only really asked one question from the onset of this thread which is "Why is it fair (as you claim) to treat the unequal as if they were equal?" You need to properly answer that question first before assuming that I would troll you with endless whys.

The moment one starts asking the question why, one gives the impression he isn't ready for a serious discussion.

On the contrary it shows that such a person is trying to learn something. The fact that you are uncomfortable with the question why is because you really haven't critically thought through your position. You hold it based on blind faith and not reason. If you actually had well thought out reasons, you would have given them by now instead of criticizing me for wanting to understand your position.

Again I'll have to go with the sort of answer befitting these sort of questions. It's unfortunate because it goes in line with what's being defined as unfortunate. Feel free to ask why what is being defined as unfortunate is unfortunate.

I know what the definition of unfortunate is but that is not the question I am asking you. The question I am asking you is why is it unfortunate that humans are unequal (as per your claim)?

Just in case you don't understand why I'm asking you the question, let me break it down for you.

When you say that something is unfortunate you are really saying that it would have been better if it were not so. So when you say that being unequal is an unfortunate occurrence, what you are actually saying is that it would have been better if all humans were equal. So my question -when you really think about it- is: Why is equality better than inequality? Perhaps your answer to this question will help you explain why you think it is better to treat the unequal as if they are equal as opposed to treating them according to their different ranks.

I posit that, that which is self evident needs no explanation. You can proceed to show how itls wrong. It's like asking you to explain how you couldn't have given birth to your father.

I completely agree with the part in bold. That is why I posit that All men are created equal in essence and are given by their creator; certain inalienable rights.
You deny that all men are equal but you want them to be treated equally claiming that it is fair, so my question remains Why is it fair to treat unequal men equally? I believe this is a valid question to ask.

which truth are you talking about?

You claim that it is true that all men are unequal, why then should we uphold that which is untrue by pretending they are not unequal and treating them as if they are equal?

MrAnony1:
What is the definition of fairness and justice and how does giving unequal people equal rights satisfy this definition?

I think you're beginning to forget where we came from. The bone of contention was my premise which stated that it's neither fair nor just making one suffer consequences of action he couldn't have prevented. You asked why it's fair and just and I said it's because it goes in line with what is defined as just and fair.

Fair: Just or appropriate in the circumstances

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fair

Just: (Of treatment) deserved or appropriate in the circumstances:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/just

you: So if humans made this law, they can also change it and therefore are not subject to it. So you really have no basis to condemn a man as being unjust if he decides that the weak have less of a right to life than the strong and thus proceeds to kill them off since for all you know he can change the law that says that unequally humans should be treated equally.

This is like saying there's no basis to convict shekau of any wrong doing when caught because the law with which any one will do that is made by humans and subject to change.

you: Except that I have only really asked one question from the onset of this thread which is "Why is it fair (as you claim) to treat the unequal as if they were equal?" You need to properly answer that question first before assuming that I would troll you with endless whys.

Not true.

Your initial question was why everyone should be treated equally despite being unequal only for you to start asking "why is it fair?" "why is it just?" " why is it unfortunate" after I replied you.

you: On the contrary it shows that such a person is trying to learn something. The fact that you are uncomfortable with the question why is because you really haven't critically thought through your position. You hold it based on blind faith and not reason. If you actually had well thought out reasons, you would have given them by now instead of criticizing me for wanting to understand your position.

Everyone, you inclusive, clearly understands what fairness and justice is. There shouldn't be any need, asking why what is by definition fair is fair and why what is by definition just is just.

Doing so clearly shows you're not interested in accepting my reply. You're more interested in dismissing it at all cost even if it involves playing the "why" and definition game.

you: I know what the definition of unfortunate is but that is not the question I am asking you. The question I am asking you is why is it unfortunate that humans are unequal (as per your claim)?

Just in case you don't understand why I'm asking you the question, let me break it down for you.

When you say that something is unfortunate you are really saying that it would have been better if it were not so. So when you say that being unequal is an unfortunate occurrence, what you are actually saying is that it would have been better if all humans were equal. So my question -when you really think about it- is: Why is equality better than inequality? Perhaps your answer to this question will help you explain why you think it is better to treat the unequal as if they are equal as opposed to treating them according to their different ranks.

lol... I'm really struggling to contain my laughter.

The summary of this whole epistle is like asking why it's unfortunate for one to be born blind or perhaps, born deaf.

Who bothers answering these sort of questions?

And you're expecting I don't interprete this as trolling with the question "why"?

you: I completely agree with the part in bold.

Realy?

Didn't you just ask why it's unfortunate for one to be born blind?

you: That is why I posit that All men are created equal in essence and are given by their creator; certain inalienable rights.
You deny that all men are equal but you want them to be treated equally claiming that it is fair, so my question remains Why is it fair to treat unequal men equally? I believe this is a valid question to ask.

I have answered this severally. Again, because unequal men are so due to circumstances they couldn't have prevented and treating them differently from the equal is like rubbing salt in their wounds which doesn't qualify as fair or just.

you: You claim that it is true that all men are unequal, why then should we uphold that which is untrue by pretending they are not unequal and treating them as if they are equal?

It has been severally answered

MrAnony1:
Really? Well let's test that assertion.

Matter is anything that has a mass and occupies space.

Now all you need to do is pick any software like Microsft Word or Windows media player or Angry Birds e.t.c. and tell us it's mass in kg and also tell us it's cubic metric volume (m³)

Once you do this and we can objectively verify it, then I'll concede the point to you and we can all leave satisfied.

The material medium which carries such softwares are CDs, flash drives and hard-drives; I also note that softwares can exist as photons when downloaded thru fiber-optic cables. Softwares physically exist as an pits in CDs, electrons in flash drives and magnetic states in legacy hard drives.