Name something good religion has caused

AssHatZombie said:
Go fuck yourself, you anti-human monster who can't argue his way out of a sack.

If open minded means, "forgetting what words mean when I don't want to admit an obviously correct conclusion, even though I use that definition in other situations" I want to stay close minded.
Click to expand...
An "oviously correct conclusion" forsooth! Are you familiar with the fallacy of initial predication, by chance?

:lolup:

Could a non-human animal -- or hypothetical alien, or artificial life form -- ever be considered a person? According to you, no. I dispute that idea most vehemently.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
An "oviously correct conclusion" forsooth! Are you familiar with the fallacy of initial predication, by chance?

:lolup:

Could a non-human animal -- or hypothetical alien, or artificial life form -- ever be considered a person? According to you, no. I dispute that idea most vehemently.
Click to expand...


Why don't you explain how that's relevant in the case where some idiot refuses to call racial discrimination racial discrimination.

You can have respect for an alien, or an animal, but that doesn't make them homo sapiens, aka, humans, or people.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not chauvinism. Again, it's understanding what words mean.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it is, Asshopper. The meaning of words is mutable. Concrete is not. This is why being a blockhead is a bad idea.

If something really bizaare happened and I was somehow made Emperor of the Entire World -- believe me, that's probably even more frightening to me than it would be to you -- I'd extend personhood to at least chimpanzees and gorillas. It's been demonstrated time and againg that they both have a sense of self. They can make the simple declarative statement I am, which is all that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd have to give serious consideration to including elephants and dolphins as well.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Oh, but it is, Asshopper. The meaning of words is mutable. Concrete is not. This is why being a blockhead is a bad idea.

If something really bizaare happened and I was somehow made Emperor of the Entire World -- believe me, that's probably even more frightening to me than it would be to you -- I'd extend personhood to at least chimpanzees and gorillas. It's been demonstrated time and againg that they both have a sense of self. They can make the simple declarative statement I am, which is all that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd have to give serious consideration to including elephants and dolphins as well.
Click to expand...


They change over time, sure. But at any given moment of usage, they are INTENDED to mean a given thing. And communication occurs most effectively if people strive to understand the intended usage, instead of asserting other meanings.

And you can have respect for chimpanzees or give them equal rights, without blurring and changing the meanings of words.
 
Last edited:
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.
Click to expand...

What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.
Click to expand...
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.
 
What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?

When someone is asleep, they still have the capacity to reason....???
 
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

In this context, they would be human, but not a human being, with the rights and duties that entails.

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.

Does Corky have the rational capability to fulfill duties as well as exercise rights?
 
AnyOldIron said:
What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?

When someone is asleep, they still have the capacity to reason....???
Click to expand...

I guess that explains most of your posts.
 
AnyOldIron said:
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

In this context, they would be human, but not a human being, with the rights and duties that entails.

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.

Does Corky have the rational capability to fulfill duties as well as exercise rights?
Click to expand...
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.
 
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.

Thank your gods for Damo, someone who can debate...

Ok, Where do these rights originate from? If they are innate in individuals, why are they not exercised in nature? Does a lion consider that a zebra has an innate right to life before pouncing and eating them.

Or do only humans possess this innately and if so, why?
 
AnyOldIron said:
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.

Thank your gods for Damo, someone who can debate...

Ok, Where do these rights originate from? If they are innate in individuals, why are they not exercised in nature? Does a lion consider that a zebra has an innate right to life before pouncing and eating them.

Or do only humans possess this innately and if so, why?
Click to expand...
Who said they were "innate"?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.
 
Who said they were "innate"?

Then Mea Culpa. Shall we say innate potential?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Few humans have the ability to recognise the full potential in other humans?? I'm a little confused by what you mean as potential. Could you expand on this? If I have the potential to maim and kill, do I have this right?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.

In a contractual sense, the only safety net is the retribution of society, but you are right that they are insecure. Rights don't exist in nature, in nature all that exist are will and capability to fulfill that will. Rights are a very human construct....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Who said they were "innate"?

Then Mea Culpa. Shall we say innate potential?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Few humans have the ability to recognise the full potential in other humans?? I'm a little confused by what you mean as potential. Could you expand on this? If I have the potential to maim and kill, do I have this right?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.

In a contractual sense, the only safety net is the retribution of society, but you are right that they are insecure. Rights don't exist in nature, in nature all that exist are will and capability to fulfill that will. Rights are a very human construct....
Click to expand...
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.
 
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.

So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?
 
So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?
Click to expand...

In those same 'rights' of society we recognize their rights as well, and give them the best possible care. As we become more understanding of such illness it increases, not decreases, in care we provide. Responding that they are not "people" or "a person" and thus relagating them to animal is not a response of a modern society.

It isn't retribution, that is vengeance. Vengeance happens on a personal level, a decision that you are more detrimental to the rights of others than you are a benefit doesn't mean that it is from retribution such punishment is meted. The Justice System is not made to provide retribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top