An egoist opinion: “One part of me holds vehemently that all human beings are of equal value” is self-contradicting.
You are included in the set ‘all human beings.’ But the human being who holds your view (you) is either better or worse than those who do not hold your view (the rest of us). You hold your view correct and thus counter views incorrect. Thus others are not equal to you, and you are better than those who disagree.
What we think about how the world should be, in ways we lack the means to bring about, does not matter. Think what you like.
You claim that one group of people is of a different value from another group of people without giving any reason why a difference in value exists, even though what you’re trying to prove that such a difference is implied by polymathwannabe’s statement.
I cannot think of an example of a claim that does not exclude it’s negation. If the claim is “X is better than Y” then the exclusion is “Y is better than X.” So to claim it is better to think all people are equal is to claim those who think otherwise are making not-better claims. Thus the confusion of ‘all people are equal except those who say all are not equal.’
You’re assuming that having lower-value beliefs lowers the value of the person holding that belief, which is negated by the claim “all people are of equal value”.
An egoist opinion: “One part of me holds vehemently that all human beings are of equal value” is self-contradicting.
You are included in the set ‘all human beings.’ But the human being who holds your view (you) is either better or worse than those who do not hold your view (the rest of us). You hold your view correct and thus counter views incorrect. Thus others are not equal to you, and you are better than those who disagree.
What we think about how the world should be, in ways we lack the means to bring about, does not matter. Think what you like.
You claim that one group of people is of a different value from another group of people without giving any reason why a difference in value exists, even though what you’re trying to prove that such a difference is implied by polymathwannabe’s statement.
I cannot think of an example of a claim that does not exclude it’s negation. If the claim is “X is better than Y” then the exclusion is “Y is better than X.” So to claim it is better to think all people are equal is to claim those who think otherwise are making not-better claims. Thus the confusion of ‘all people are equal except those who say all are not equal.’
You’re assuming that having lower-value beliefs lowers the value of the person holding that belief, which is negated by the claim “all people are of equal value”.