You first, and I'm only being polite. Otherwise stop forcing your contradicting BS to others by yourself arguing that it's the truth, but without sufficient justification that supports your own claims.

I believe that all humans should have equal rights; so in a sense, yes we can be equal.

However, strictly looking at if we are actually the same; then I'd have to say no. There are many interpretations to this question.
Genetically I would say no, but we are similar. But not equal.
We all have different shapes of noses, colors of hair, etc.
And out mentality is different too. We each have different opinions and beliefs; though sometimes we can agree on them.

Well every human should have basic human rights, in reality we don't, even though we should.
The answer could be yes or no depending on how you set your standards for "equal".

So being made of the same race, same matter, same species and intelligence superior to other animals, we're equal in that sense. As Christians put it "We are all made in the image of God", all created equally. We're all human, all equal beings.

But if you look at the standards set by people of today, like standards for appearance, intelligence, etc. Then no, we are not all equal.

No, Like a drug addict goes to jail for about 10years for possesion of cocaine

Lindsey Lohan ( or any other celeb ) Gets a warning, or goes to rehab and does no jail time

------------------------------

A regular gangsta goes to jail for violating a probation and carrying a weapon..for about 3-5 years

T.I serves about 6months and does community service ._.

In this world right now? no we are not.
But I hope we would one day be equal were no one is bias over anything whether its sex, race, sexual orientation, our looks, personality, and etc.
If this happen, more peace to this world!

If we stick to our own then yes we are equal but when we try to copy one another than no, for example the western cosplayers who try to copy Asians facial & body form are not equal but inferior towards the Asians they try to copy, simply a copy will always inferior towards the original.

Really? Is a copy always inferior to the original, I believe there are probably hundreds of examples that proove that statement is wrong, Besides, on what values are you judging copys?

Why don't you just say 1 example that proves a copy are not inferior towards the original.

Well for starters, the first car, it was the original, the cars that drive around now all are copys from the first one, and I'm sure you agree with me that these cars are ''better'' then the original one.
SImply put your statement about a copy always being inferior is silly since there are always exceptions to your self-made rules

You still haven't show any example and also you seems to have no idea what a copy is.

A copy = something made 100% look the same or function the same based on an already existing one.

Did all the cars that were made today look or function exactly [ 100% ] the same as the 1st made car? I'm sure no, if you believe yes then you should report this to the respective peoples because they will thank you for copyright infrigment report.

Also if you believe all the cars today exist because of the 1st cars then you believe all human brains are connected with one another so if one human not think it then the other human will not think it aswell, mwahahaha

Ohhh, I see, yes you are completely right.

Not so fast, keep in mind that since her definition of a "copy" is "something made 100% look the same or function the same based on an already existing one." Then by default the first Asian cosplayer of any anime character is an inferior copy, because no real human can ever looked nor function like an abstract symbol that is anime.

I see your point, but how does that weaken the argument that "a copy is always inferior"

Although I do not entirely agree with that theory myself, I think what she was trying to say is that a copy is always inferior to that which is being copied - even if that which is being copied is itself a copy.

This is an interesting topic although it may be slightly off topic....

That's not the point I was trying to defeat, but rather this: "If we stick to our own then yes we are equal but when we try to copy one another than no"

There's a contradiction with her definition of inequality and what a copy is. She claimed that "western cosplayers who try to copy Asians facial & body form are not equal but inferior towards the Asians they try to copy." So I rebuked her own claim by myself pointing out the fact that according to her definition of what a copy is, Asian cosplayers are equally inferior as the Western ones.

Ah I see. That makes sense if (like you said) both the Western cosplayers and the Asian cosplayers are directly copying anime - without any influence on each other. However, I am inclined to think (I may be putting words in her mouth though) that she is implying that Western cosplayers are copying asian cosplayers who are in turn copying anime. So in that case a copy of a copy would be more inferior -- going by her definition (which again is questionable...) -- than simply a copy of the 'original' (whatever that might mean...)

But I would agree with you in assuming that the Western cosplayers are imitating anime (not their Asian counterparts).

EDIT:
The paradox within her statement is in the first clause: "If we stick to our own then yes we are equal." Assuming she means "if we act like ourselves then we are all equal," she is implicitly stating that "We are all equal in our uniqueness (aka inequality)." However this paradox has little relevance on the second clause: "when we copy one another we are not equal."