|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Jul 29, 2009 14:29:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Jul 29, 2009 14:32:51 GMT -5
Well according to the bible you don't count unless your a male, and over a month old.
Personally, I think it's idiots grasping at one badly worded sentence. Newborns aren't exactly socially interactive.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Jul 29, 2009 15:02:46 GMT -5
Just newborns? I've met a bunch of full-grown adults that I'd hesitate to classify as human.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 29, 2009 15:20:40 GMT -5
If you take a newborn human child, and give it to apes to raise, it will develop the mannerisms of an ape.
So the real question is, what makes a human being?
Is it purely genetics, or is it the ability to behave as a 'human animal'?
I rather think it's both. I think there is a certain standard of behavior one must meet to be considered a 'human being'. Very young children are 'humans in training', which is why they are treated differently from 'full humans', and have things like bed-times, time-outs, etc...
Others never achieve status as humans. These are rapists, murderers, pedophiles, creationists, and birthers.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 29, 2009 15:55:29 GMT -5
The article read like, "Here's the arguments they keep using, here's why they don't work."
The comments were just fucking retarded. First one whipped out the "look at all this empty space!" "global warming is a scam!" and "don't teach FACT as THEORY!" gems, all with randomly capitalized WORDS.
Then later on, someone quoted some shit that might or might not have been said by Obama, & said that he viewed fetuses as a burden.
I think my brain imploded.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jul 29, 2009 17:25:20 GMT -5
I prefer to put it in terms of human vs. person. A newborn is human, and so is a foetus. But belonging to a specific species is not a huge merit, exactly. Personhood is a completely different matter.
Of course, this is merely semantics.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 29, 2009 17:31:34 GMT -5
Newborns are humans, just look at their DNA. What other freaking species would they belong to?
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 29, 2009 17:50:58 GMT -5
They aren't speaking about humans just genetically though sgt. noodles. It has to do with Keresm hit on. Namely, enculturation, if you human is raised by something other than humans, or just locked in a room for their whole childhood, they won't be able to speak, they won't know how to interact with people, if raised by animals, they will act like the animal that raised them. Sure, genetically they are human, but in every other aspect they aren't. So, the question can be posed, are they really human?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jul 29, 2009 20:33:39 GMT -5
For the love of all that is vaginal, why in the seven hells must they fixate on things from the bleeding SEVENTIES??? People are saying much stupider things now, and those comments aren't even considered to be 'dated'. If you're going to make idiotic arguments, at least do yourself a favor and pull your crap from sometime in the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 29, 2009 20:42:07 GMT -5
They aren't speaking about humans just genetically though sgt. noodles. It has to do with Keresm hit on. Namely, enculturation, if you human is raised by something other than humans, or just locked in a room for their whole childhood, they won't be able to speak, they won't know how to interact with people, if raised by animals, they will act like the animal that raised them. Sure, genetically they are human, but in every other aspect they aren't. So, the question can be posed, are they really human? Yes, yes they are. "Human" just refers to the species, it isn't a cultural or behavioural term. Besides, if you're going to make that argument, it would have to work both ways. If a human raised by another species is going to be considered a part of that species rather than the homo sapiens, then domesticated animals would need to be considered human, after all they are raised by humans. Twisting definitions, particularly scientific ones to try and make a philosophical or ethical point is something that shits me to no end.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 29, 2009 20:44:53 GMT -5
then domesticated animals would need to be considered human, after all they are raised by humans. Except they don't develop the mannerisms of humans.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Jul 30, 2009 7:08:08 GMT -5
I prefer to put it in terms of human vs. person. A newborn is human, and so is a foetus. But belonging to a specific species is not a huge merit, exactly. Personhood is a completely different matter. Of course, this is merely semantics. Very useful semantics, I find. It helps me for instance to articulate my position on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. "How can you believe a fetus isn't human?" "I don't." For the love of all that is vaginal, why in the seven hells must they fixate on things from the bleeding SEVENTIES??? People are saying much stupider things now, and those comments aren't even considered to be 'dated'. If you're going to make idiotic arguments, at least do yourself a favor and pull your crap from sometime in the last decade. See also: William Ayers.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 30, 2009 13:16:17 GMT -5
then domesticated animals would need to be considered human, after all they are raised by humans. Except they don't develop the mannerisms of humans. Nor would a human develop animal mannerisms.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Jul 30, 2009 13:38:45 GMT -5
I dunno...the whole "human raised by animals" thing isn't relegated just to the realm of fiction. There haven't been anything like Mowgli, where they adapted completely to human society again, but there have been documented cases of children being found after having been lost or abandoned at a young age and being adopted by local wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 30, 2009 16:42:15 GMT -5
Others never achieve status as humans. These are rapists, murderers, pedophiles, creationists, and birthers. Heyyyy, now! You're giving the rapists, murders, and pedophiles a very bad name with comments like these!
|
|