Human Beings, Humans, And People

Asshat, terms are not fixed, they are by mutual agreement between the speaker and the listener. But that is a side issue.

In relation to what differs a human from a human being is a question that has been worked on by philosophers since thought began.

Simply stating that a human being is a human is far too straightforward.

Go back to the original thread, where I have gone into in more detail.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Asshat, terms are not fixed, they are by mutual agreement between the speaker and the listener. But that is a side issue.
Click to expand...
But once they're agreed upon, they're assumed to be fixed for the duration of the discussion.
In relation to what differs a human from a human being is a question that has been worked on by philosophers since thought began.

Simply stating that a human being is a human is far too straightforward.

Go back to the original thread, where I have gone into in more detail.
Click to expand...

It's a useless debate strictly designed to justify murder, in this case.
 
But once they're agreed upon, they're assumed to be fixed for the duration of the discussion.

Depending on the context they are used.


It's a useless debate strictly designed to justify murder, in this case.

Ha ha ha! Is that you running?
 
Person to contrast it with human has a legal sense to it. For example in many nations laws grant corporations personhood even though they are not human. Some suggest that great apes be made legal persons even though they are not humans.

It is likely if we encountered an advanced extra terrestrial race that they would be granted personhood status within our society.
 
AnyOldIron said:
But once they're agreed upon, they're assumed to be fixed for the duration of the discussion.

Depending on the context they are used.


It's a useless debate strictly designed to justify murder, in this case.

Ha ha ha! Is that you running?
Click to expand...

The two could agree to two different meanings in different context. True. But that never happened. He kept asserting I was using a different meaning when I was not. And i kept telling him that. And he continually used the phenomenon of words having different meanings as proof that I was using a different meaning, which I was not, in this case. He's an idiot.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Person to contrast it with human has a legal sense to it. For example in many nations laws grant corporations personhood even though they are not human. Some suggest that great apes be made legal persons even though they are not humans.

It is likely if we encountered an advanced extra terrestrial race that they would be granted personhood status within our society.
Click to expand...


No. this is how you want words to be redefined. It may be correct to say that corporations are given the same rights as people in some circumnstances, that doesn't mean they are given personhood. Same with apes. If you want to make one president, that still doesn't make it a human, or person, it's an ape with the same rights as a human. quit blurring your own mind.
 
No. this is how you want words to be redefined.

My desires have little relevancy in something as large as a language. I say this based on common concensus and what our society practices.

It may be correct to say that corporations are given the same rights as people in some circumnstances, that doesn't mean they are given personhood

You may not agree that they ought to be but within the scope of the law they are. The 14th amendment has been construed to mean that the 'persons' mentioned in the law include corporations.

Asshat I would assert there are not true synonyms in the English language. Every word is differentiated by degree and nuance. Person and Human are not 100% synonomous.

Do you notice that when speaking of rights not granted by governments we say "Human rights" not "person rights". This is generally because person is seen as being more of a legalistic term than person. Thus saying human rights it a call for recognition of something superceding the decree of the state.
 
IHateGovernment said:
No. this is how you want words to be redefined.

My desires have little relevancy in something as large as a language. I say this based on common concensus and what our society practices.

It may be correct to say that corporations are given the same rights as people in some circumnstances, that doesn't mean they are given personhood

You may not agree that they ought to be but within the scope of the law they are. The 14th amendment has been construed to mean that the 'persons' mentioned in the law include corporations.

Asshat I would assert there are not true synonyms in the English language. Every word is differentiated by degree and nuance. Person and Human are not 100% synonomous.

Do you notice that when speaking of rights not granted by governments we say "Human rights" not "person rights". This is generally because person is seen as being more of a legalistic term than person. Thus saying human rights it a call for recognition of something superceding the decree of the state.
Click to expand...


But it's not an ape, or a corporation.

The slow change of meanings over time does not grant us license to abuse language to deceptive ends.
 
Last edited:
IHateGovernment said:
Person to contrast it with human has a legal sense to it. For example in many nations laws grant corporations personhood even though they are not human. Some suggest that great apes be made legal persons even though they are not humans.

It is likely if we encountered an advanced extra terrestrial race that they would be granted personhood status within our society.
Click to expand...

NOt very likely they would either kill or ignore us if very advanced and we would try to kill them out of paranoia.
Heck we can't even get along with those of other religions or skin pigmentation.
But we will give aliens personhood ? Get real.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But it's not an ape, or a corporation.

The slow change of meanings over time does not grant us license to abuse language to deceptive ends.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why the phrases "unborn child" and "reverse discrimination" are intrinsically evil at this point. People who use them are deliberately exploiting linguistic ambiguity to deceive others.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Which is exactly why the phrases "unborn child" and "reverse discrimination" are intrinsically evil at this point. People who use them are deliberately exploiting linguistic ambiguity to deceive others.
Click to expand...

I have never used the phrase reverse discrimination. I've called discrimination against whites in the work place discrimination. Just plain old discrimination.

The phrase "unborn child" is evil? That's pretty judgemental for a moral relativist idiot like yourself.
 
Which is exactly why the phrases "unborn child" and "reverse discrimination" are intrinsically evil at this point. People who use them are deliberately exploiting linguistic ambiguity to deceive others.

I would expect better of you to avoid calling such things with loaded terms like evil.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Which is exactly why the phrases "unborn child" and "reverse discrimination" are intrinsically evil at this point. People who use them are deliberately exploiting linguistic ambiguity to deceive others.

I would expect better of you to avoid calling such things with loaded terms like evil.
Click to expand...


With ornot, lowered expectations are the best policy.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Which is exactly why the phrases "unborn child" and "reverse discrimination" are intrinsically evil at this point. People who use them are deliberately exploiting linguistic ambiguity to deceive others.

I would expect better of you to avoid calling such things with loaded terms like evil.
Click to expand...
The term is loaded, yes, but I also think it's appropriate. When else would you use it? We're talking about a deliberate, conscious misleading of people into actions contrary to their own morals.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The term is loaded, yes, but I also think it's appropriate. When else would you use it? We're talking about a deliberate, conscious misleading of people into actions contrary to their own morals.
Click to expand...

WHich one of those terms is a deliberate, conscious misleading of people into actions contrary to their own morals? "unborn child" Or "reverse discrimination"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top