Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

:[

I agree with him though. That is the definition we should use. It will stop the x did y so they are not human.

[dragonshardz]

Ummm.... Why not? Is there some specific subset of humanity that you feel is less deserving of rights such as that?

I'm talking about actual human behavior and he comes along with "well, I think we should go with this definition", completely missing the point.

No, I'm defusing the ability of anyone in this thread to say that a subset of the human race is less than human because they did something.

And anyway, "human" is defined in Webster's as being of the species Homo Sapiens. Whether something a human does is humane or inhumane is an entirely different story.

[Earthquake Damage]

There's a huge difference between "this is" and "this should be".  That's all I'm saying.

[dragonshardz]

Oh? Do explain.

[Earthquake Damage]

Oh? Do explain.

...

I'm done here.

[Zangi]

To elaborate simply without going to where you don't want to go...

"What Is": Whats actually happens as most people subconsciously try to not see and/or rationalize it away... or actively take part in themselves.

"What Should Be": Your dreams, expectations, what you think is happening, whatever it is you are working toward, etc.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Problem:  Define human.

The definition is neither static nor binary.  Outsiders are always less human than members of the tribe (i.e. whatever group(s) matters in a given context), even if they're recognized as human on some level.

Human: Belonging to the species Homo Sapiens. Do we need any other definition?

Yep. Pretty much, although the religious texts aren't that clear.

As for all the nastiness in the world, I didn't say that anyone actually READS their book, just that it says something

But much more important, I WANT THE FOOTAGE!

It seems nobody in the world recorded the actual trial, though the burning was mass covered. I have to question if the mock trial ever even really occurred!

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Oh? Do explain.

...

I'm done here.

oh man do I so understand this statement.

[Criptfeind]

It is pretty hard to defend your view point when people just keep attacking it.

Although, to be more serous, I can understand that after

Oh? Do explain.

[dragonshardz]

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to magically understand the point you're trying to make when you won't even explain what that point is?

I'm not psychic.

[Willfor]

The translation is fairly basic: 'There's a difference between "what is true in the real world" and "what the real world should be".'

[CoughDrop]

The translation is fairly basic: 'There's a difference between "what is true in the real world" and "what the real world should be".'

Disclaimer: What the world should be is subject to scrupulous and varied opinions.

[Strife26]

Not really. A perfect utopia tends to be perfectly unimaginable for all of us.

How the world should be changed is subject to varied opinions.

[SalmonGod]

Hope I'm not too reviled for bringing this back up.  I'm a little late to this thread.  I'm surprised, though, that there wasn't more focus on the intent of the book burners in the earlier debate about how much blame they should receive.  After they received so many warnings, it seems to me like the burning was an intentional provocation.  Whether they physically murdered anyone themselves or not, they knew that their actions would cause murder.  Legally, their freedom of speech was protected, but their intention was not just self-expression but provocation.  If you want to give them the maximum possible benefit of the doubt, it can at least be said that they were consciously willing to sacrifice others for their own freedom of expression, which is still every bit as despicable as a literal murderer.  I am surprised that anyone would absolve them of responsibility just because of legal technicality or the lack of literal blood on their hands.

[Criptfeind]

they were consciously willing to sacrifice others for their own freedom of expression, which is still every bit as despicable as a literal murderer.

Before we start this, I want you to go over the quoted sentence again, and tell me if it is hyperbole.