HoJuSimpson
Junior Member
A woman is like a beer
Posts: 61
|
Post by HoJuSimpson on Jul 30, 2009 17:14:09 GMT -5
So, the question can be posed, are they really human? Or are they dancer?
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 30, 2009 17:20:40 GMT -5
If you take a newborn human child, and give it to apes to raise, it will develop the mannerisms of an ape. If a newborn spends a long amount of time with any animal, they will start to mimic the behaviors of said animal. Like the girl who was raised until seven or eight by dogs. Personally, I think what makes someone human is their ability to act like a loving caring human being.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 30, 2009 18:30:12 GMT -5
This is what I've been trying to tell you people. I've been saying they're not human for years and no one believed me.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Jul 30, 2009 19:36:55 GMT -5
just chiming in to say that this about the dumbest debate in the history of debates
babies are human
and if the quality of interaction were the standard, then many adults wouldn't qualify
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 30, 2009 20:10:26 GMT -5
just chiming in to say that this about the dumbest debate in the history of debates babies are human and if the quality of interaction were the standard, then many adults wouldn't qualify QFT
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 30, 2009 21:41:40 GMT -5
If you take a feral child, and take the time to teach them, they'll eventually catch on to being human. They may never be all there, but they do learn.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 30, 2009 22:19:29 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! They're definitely HUMAN. The worst kind of animal, really.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 30, 2009 22:21:59 GMT -5
If you take a feral child, and take the time to teach them, they'll eventually catch on to being human. They may never be all there, but they do learn. But after a certain age, they are incapable of learning, or have a very limited capacity to learn things like language, which could be said to be a defining characteristic of "human".
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Aug 1, 2009 15:34:46 GMT -5
All humans are human. I refuse to accept all humans are people.
And then there's Ironbite, who I consider to be nothing more than a walking organ bank.
(I kid the Raptor...Or do I?)
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Aug 1, 2009 16:12:56 GMT -5
If you take a feral child, and take the time to teach them, they'll eventually catch on to being human. They may never be all there, but they do learn. But after a certain age, they are incapable of learning, or have a very limited capacity to learn things like language, which could be said to be a defining characteristic of "human". This isn't unique to feral children, of course; most people have difficulty learning languages after a certain age (some people can't at all beyond a few basic phrases, and virtually everyone would find it a challenge), but people raised in human society will already have one or more languages by this point.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Aug 1, 2009 16:16:44 GMT -5
Because it has and hasn't been touched: Alright, let's assume we define a human based upon their genetics. Do you go by the chromosomes? What if they don't have the "appropriate" amount? What about those lacking genes that are expected for their chromosomes, or have genes unexpected for their chromosomes? Would they not count as human? How far of a deviancy in which manners is then acceptable for classification? Or perhaps you go with whether or not they can procreate with others who are determined to be human. What about those who are infertile? Just what distinction would be made?
Furthermore, what about those with multiple sets of genetics? I don't mean small changes such as cancer, but fully different genes and chromosomes. Do they count as two or more humans then? Also you'd run into the problem of identical twins, who share the same genes yet are easily recognised as two separate beings.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Aug 1, 2009 16:38:12 GMT -5
Oriet -- you mean like Chimerism?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 2, 2009 1:58:49 GMT -5
All humans are human. I refuse to accept all humans are people. Your first sentence there is a bit of a tautology, but yeah, of course newborns are human. That's kind of a no brainer to me. They're a member of the species Homo sapiens and are an individual with complex organ systems, clearly human. Whether or not an infant's a person, I have no fraggin' idea.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Aug 2, 2009 10:56:41 GMT -5
Except they don't develop the mannerisms of humans. Nor would a human develop animal mannerisms. Except for the documented cases of the ones that do.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Aug 2, 2009 10:57:41 GMT -5
and if the quality of interaction were the standard, then many adults wouldn't qualify And?
|
|