|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 02, 2007 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Everyone can reason some are just not being able to do it, there is a difference between not reasoning and not being able, if you get what I am saying.
I see what you're saying. I wouldn't consider those who can't reason "people", and I don't considier those who can reason but don't "people", either.
Quote:
Following your logic, a computer with an artificial intelligence advanced enough to reason logically would be considered a person, but that would not count for someone of old age, suffering from beginning dementia, or a drunk fellow.
You may think me insane for this, but you have correctly followed my path of logic. Except for the drunk fellow. Drunk people are not permenantly drunk.
Quote:
There is plenty of talk about logic, reason, and intelligence. And what about a human being's soul? Doesn't that count for anything? Do we not have more than the sum of our parts?
I don't believe in a soul. I think that everything is no more than the interaction of atoms.
Quote:
Mvass to say anyone is no longer a "person" because they don't fit your picture of a perfect healthy human being is one of the most offensive things I've seen written here.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I don't mean to offend anyone. I just wrote my opinion. Also, a perfect healthy human being is not necessarily a person. Look at cavemen, for instance. Let us take a caveman, call him "Ug" for example. Ug is healthy. Ug may even be more fit than the average caveman. Yet he blindly follows the commands of his tribal shaman. Let's say, one day, three caveman kids were playing a game, "spit on the holy idol", and the shaman notices. The shaman sentences the kids to death, and commands Ug to kill them. Ug, being a loyal caveman, kills the kids, and feels proud of himself for doing his holy duty. Ug is not a person. Ug is of healthy human stock, but is not a person.
Quote:
My brother is a special needs child - does that mean his life no longer has value? No - he functions at the same capacity as a 7-8 year old (he is 16 now) so yes, he has a mental disability, but he does have some ability. Does that mean that his level of functioning (that of a 7 year old) is not acceptable to achieve "person" status?
I won't respond to this for fear of offending you further.
Quote:
If so, does that mean that children under the age of 8 are no longer "persons"?
Sort of. They are "persons-in-training". However, just because someone is not a person, doesn't mean I support his/her wanton destruction. However, I consider their lives to be worth less than that of a "person".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 08:24 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev, you very obviously have never held a baby and looked into his/her eyes and seen them looking back. If you had, you could never deny that a baby is a person.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 08:30 PM |
|
|
Actually, Binabik, I have just yesterday. There is a difference between a person and a "person". Person = Human. "Person" = one who can reason logically and, perhaps, attempt to conquer instincts. Of course, persons may become "persons", and vice versa. Babies are persons. They would most likely grow into "persons". Not necessarily, though. As for what you said about babies being people, it is simply species survival instinct in you telling you that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 09:08 PM |
|
|
You keep using the ability to reason logically to define "person". Your statements are so illogical that by your definition I have to conclude that you are not a person. But since I don't use your definition, I'll assume you are a person and not an automation sending messages to HC.
Seriously though, how do you know a baby can't reason? Have you ever asked one? Did they answer?
Is the ability to communicate a defining attribute of a person? If someone speaks a different language than you, are they a non-person because they don't answer your question and give you a blank look instead?
Is a baby a non-person because they don't know the words associated with things and ideas? Just because a baby doesn't tell you he can reason, doesn't mean he can't.
Reasoning and the ability to communicate are traits. But are traits what make us people? Eyes are a human trait, but if someone is blind, does that mean they are not a person? If someone is deaf, are they still a person? If they are missing an arm, are they still a person?
Yes, there is a difference between a mature healthy person and an immature or unhealthy person. But the main difference is the adjective preceding the word "person".
The problem I have with your so called logic is that it borders very closely on supporting "genetic cleansing"....in other words, genocide. You are claiming that anyone who doesn't meet your narrow definition of "person" has no right to live.
____________
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 11:31 PM |
|
|
@Consis:
I couldn't come up with the word I wanted to use (or it doesn't exist in English), so I figured abstrahize would do. In long, what I really meant is the ability to consciously make abstraction of situations, objects and ideas. Very little animals can do that, aside from certain primates and some kinds of dolphins and whales.
@Binabik:
I agree, mvass is walking a very thin line there... that's what I meant by the animal farm comment
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 01:02 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Quote:
Your statements are so illogical
How so?
Quote:
Seriously though, how do you know a baby can't reason? Have you ever asked one? Did they answer?
Let us follow a simple logic pattern.
1. Children grow more intelligent, reasonable, and logical as they age. Compare a 4 year-old and a 10 year-old. The 10 year-old (in the vast majority of cases) will be much more intelligent.
2. Thus, a baby would be at the beginning of the process of becoming a person. It is a "person-in-training". How do I know that a baby can't reason? Simple. When children begin to talk, they only posess the barest rudiments of logic, perhaps the same as our caveman "Ug". Babies are even less advanced.
Quote:
Is the ability to communicate a defining attribute of a person? If someone speaks a different language than you, are they a non-person because they don't answer your question and give you a blank look instead?
Ideally, it is not. However, it is difficult to determine the reasoning ability of something that cannot communicate at all. If someone speaks a different language than me, they are still "people", assuming that they are able to reason. I would, theoretically, be able to learn their language, or they mine, and we could communicate and determine wheter we are "persons".
Quote:
Is a baby a non-person because they don't know the words associated with things and ideas? Just because a baby doesn't tell you he can reason, doesn't mean he can't.
Can't talk =/= can't reason. But, see above.
Quote:
Reasoning and the ability to communicate are traits. But are traits what make us people?
It depends on what you mean by people. There are several possible meanings. You could call any living thing people. You could call all animals people. You could call all primates people. You could call all Homo species people. You could call all Homo Sapiens Sapiens organisms people. Or you could call everyone who can reason and attempt to overccome instincts people. In the context of this thread, I will use people to refer to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and "people" to the reasoning ones. The traits you mentioned are not necessary to make Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but the first (reasoning) is necessary to be a "person". The second is not, but is desirable, for it would be far easier to determine "personhood" if one can communicate.
Quote:
Eyes are a human trait, but if someone is blind, does that mean they are not a person? If someone is deaf, are they still a person? If they are missing an arm, are they still a person?
Eyes and communication are quite different traits. If someone has the genetic makeup of a Homo Sapiens Sapiens individual, then they are a person, no matter if they are blind, deaf, missing an arm, or brain-dead. However, a "person" can still be blind, deaf, or missing an arm, but cannot be brain-dead.
Quote:
Yes, there is a difference between a mature healthy person and an immature or unhealthy person. But the main difference is the adjective preceding the word "person".
There are two kinds of health: physical health and mental health. Some might argue that there is also a "spiritual health", but I won't go into that. A "person" does not have to have good physical health to be a person. However, low mental health would hinder or even cause the removal of "personhood". On the other hand, even a blind, deaf, deformed, limbless, brain-dead mass not capable of moving is a person, provided it is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Quote:
The problem I have with your so called logic is that it borders very closely on supporting "genetic cleansing"....in other words, genocide. You are claiming that anyone who doesn't meet your narrow definition of "person" has no right to live.
Genetic cleansing? No. I would not support genetic cleansing. However, I do support cloning and genetic modification, so traits that reduce mental health could be prevented, and so that every person could be a "person". As for genocide, it is the destruction of a certain race. I do not support the extermination of any races. I do not support the extermination of anyone, even those who are not "persons". However, if I had the choice between saving a "person" or a non-"person" person, I would save the "person". That does not mean I want to kill the person, however.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 03, 2007 02:33 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 02:36, 03 Jan 2007.
|
A Note:
I would simply like to say that this entire argument is not about Mvassilev, Binabik, Nidhgrin, Pandora, William, or Consis. This entire argument is so completely epic in scale and definition that we might try to understand, not simply our own opinions, but also those of the countless millions of people who support both sides of this debate. I say there are millions of people who believe as Mvassilev does, but also millions of people who believe as Pandora, Binabik, and myself do.
Simply because Mvassilev is outnumbered 3 against 1 here in this small insignificant internet message board does not in any way signify that he is losing in some form or fashion. On the contrary! I say we have barely touched the tip of the ice berg.
I don't speak for the rest of you but as for myself . . . I am trying my best to listen to as many points as Mvassilev is offering. I know he represents a very large portion of the world's population whom feel much as he does. He is indeed following a very clear line of logic whether we disagree with him or not. That much I can respect. And I also will continue to submit my very opposing side of the argument.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 02:42 AM |
|
Edited by william at 03:00, 03 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
Simply because Mvassilev is outnumbered 3 against 1 here in this small insignificant internet message board does not in any way signify that he is losing in some form or fashion. On the contrary! I say we have barely touched the tip of the ice berg.
I know that is not the case, but would that apply in real life aswell?
If you are outnumbered 3 to 1 and the other 3 are bullying you, would that mean you are losing?
I applaud Mvassilve's comments on this, but I strongly disagree with them, for reasons that people have already said before I got the chance to.
Mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
Actually, Binabik, I have just yesterday. There is a difference between a person and a "person". Person = Human. "Person" = one who can reason logically and, perhaps, attempt to conquer instincts. Of course, persons may become "persons", and vice versa. Babies are persons. They would most likely grow into "persons". Not necessarily, though. As for what you said about babies being people, it is simply species survival instinct in you telling you that.
Now, what you are saying I disagree.
What do you mean by saying "Not necassarily though?
All babies have the potentiall to become person's, ifact Babies are persons.
All Humans regardless of mental illnesses or special needs, they are also persons's.
Just because something cannot reason does not mean that it is not a person.
Now you have said that younger people are persons in training, now that is not true.
They are still person's they are still being developed, by the growth of them, there smartness (being taught at school), being able to walk and talk at an early age, that is all part of growing up, but every single human is a person regardless of age.
Now to my post regarding this particular thread.
Yes I do think that Abortion is wrong, why? Because it is killing the person before it has even been born, that is murder!
That person could be one of the greatest people that has ever lived, yet for our own greed we kill it, that is a disgrace!
I will not support Abortion, as it is totally inhuman and wrong, it is like a murderor killing another adult or child, you are basically doing the same thing by killing the unborn child.
That is wrong!
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by saying "Not necassarily though?
I mean that the babies might have mental problems.
Quote:
All babies have the potentiall to become person's, ifact Babies are persons.
All Humans regardless of mental illnesses or special needs, they are also persons's.
Just because something cannot reason does not mean that it is not a person.
See
Quote:
It depends on what you mean by people. There are several possible meanings. You could call any living thing people. You could call all animals people. You could call all primates people. You could call all Homo species people. You could call all Homo Sapiens Sapiens organisms people. Or you could call everyone who can reason and attempt to overccome instincts people. In the context of this thread, I will use people to refer to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and "people" to the reasoning ones.
Humans with mental deficiencies are persons, but are not "persons". Those humans who cannnot reason are persons, but not "persons".
Quote:
Now you have said that younger people are persons in training, now that is not true.
They are still person's they are still being developed,
All right, training, development, whatever you want to calll it. Actually, thanks. "Developing person" is a better term than "person-in-training".
Quote:
there smartness (being taught at school),
Well, being taught at school... this is not the thread to debate the education system, except to say that it does little to asssit developing persons into becoming "persons".
Quote:
being able to walk and talk at an early age, that is all part of growing up,
Of course. Except for those who can't walk or talk.
Quote:
, but every single human is a person regardless of age.
Person, but not "person". At least, so says my opinion.
Quote:
Because it is killing the person before it has even been born, that is murder!
How do you kill something that hasn't been born? If it hasn't been born, how can you say that it's alive?
Quote:
That person could be one of the greatest people that has ever lived,
Or it could be a druggie who would spend his/her life on the street. Actually, that is more likely, because, probably, those who get abortions are more likely to be unable to support the child. Thus, the child and the family would be poor, and probably have to live among the poor, where there is much more crime and drug use. One could argue that it's better not to live than to live a life like that. I'm not saying that all poor people are criminals or drug users. The vast majority aren't. Still, there is a higher crime rate among the poor than among the middle class.
Quote:
yet for our own greed we kill it, that is a disgrace!
Consider this. A single mother with a low income is living with two children. She gets pregenant with a third. She can barely support herself and her two children. To support the third, she would have to turn to crime. Think about the example it would show the other children. They might become criminals, and shot in a gang battle or b the police. Think about it. If there was an abortion, two would live and one would (arugeably) die. If not, all three might die and would certainly live worse.
Quote:
a murderor killing another adult or child, you are basically doing the same thing by killing the unborn child.
See my above example. We are improving and, perhaps, saving lives of the living by preventing the appearance of new living. Don't think of it as killing. Think of it as a prevention of existance, as opposed to killing, which is a permanent ending of existance.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:31 AM |
|
|
I think you failed to see the message I was trying to get across.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:43 AM |
|
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:44 AM |
|
|
Why don't you reread my post again instead of asking me, surely you would be able to understand it.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:50 AM |
|
|
I read your post. I reread it. I commented on it in my post. You say I didn't understand it. Well, explain it, then. How is my understanding of it flawed? And answer the questions in my post and answer the points that I have made in it, instead of telling me that I don't understand your post.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 03:52 AM |
|
|
I said that before you edited your post to include all those points, so don't give me that Mvassilev, thankyou.
I will quote all of your stuff shortly.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 04:27 AM |
|
|
I didn't add much to my post when I edited it, actually.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 05:46 AM |
|
|
A woman has thier own right to make thier own decision may it be right or wrong.
Us men have no say so.
Were not harboring this baby after all.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 02:01 PM |
|
|
I agree, Acu. Despite all I have said, it is the mother's choice whether to abort or not. The man's opinion matters, though, if he is the main breadwinner.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 03, 2007 06:56 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 18:57, 03 Jan 2007.
|
William,
I would appreciate it if you didn't rush to post immediately after Mvassilev. You might recall that I have a bad habit of making a post first, posting it, and then re-reading through it to make changes for editing. I do this 90% of the time. I can recall more than one occasion when you have caught me in between AND QUOTED ME before I was finished editing my post for grammatical/punctuation errors. Please stop doing that! You made your point to Mvassilev and he made his to you. Now let the rest of us give our take on the way we see things. Mvassilev is posting with self control while YOU ARE NOT.
I am no moderator and there is no rule that requires you to listen to me or do anything that I ask. I simply want to appeal to your sense of manners and courtesy. I would consider it a very courteous act if you would please not be so hasty in your responses.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 03, 2007 10:13 PM |
|
|
As I mentioned before kids dont know the true feelings of issues like this.
Thier beliefs may be as true as snow but sometimes considerations may be more harsh then you think.
No us men dont have any say so at all MVass.
Even if we are the supportive type.
In times past & even now some of the men support the woman.
We not dealing with the BS of being pregnant.
It's the womans right & no matter how Messed up it seems.
It's the womans decision if she decides she wants no compromises.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 02:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I would appreciate it if you didn't rush to post immediately after Mvassilev. You might recall that I have a bad habit of making a post first, posting it, and then re-reading through it to make changes for editing. I do this 90% of the time. I can recall more than one occasion when you have caught me in between AND QUOTED ME before I was finished editing my post for grammatical/punctuation errors. Please stop doing that! You made your point to Mvassilev and he made his to you. Now let the rest of us give our take on the way we see things. Mvassilev is posting with self control while YOU ARE NOT.
I am no moderator and there is no rule that requires you to listen to me or do anything that I ask. I simply want to appeal to your sense of manners and courtesy. I would consider it a very courteous act if you would please not be so hasty in your responses.
Alright Consis as you wish, but remember that I am a very fast poster and if I quickly post something that has to do with everything a particular member has said then is that really so bad?
Look, if I post everything that has to do with one member's post and then that member decided to edit in some stuff shortly or later after I make my post, then who's fault is that?
I do not think that posting so fast is unpolite or a lack of manner's, I am simply posting or quoting what a particular member said.
But if this quick posting of mine is offending or unpolite or whatever to you or to some other member's then I will slow my posting down a notch and not be so hasty.
If you have a problem with my posting, deal it through HCM, this is how I post, and I have posted like this since the day I joined although I have improved quite a bit,.
If you do not want someone quoting a post when you have made errors then maybe say something in your post like:
"Do not quote this immediately" or something.
Not everything can go your way you know, but this once since you asked nicely I will stop quoting people's messages before they have finished editing them.
For everyone out there that I have done this too, I am sorry.
~william
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
