|[IRL] Didn't we already win this fight?

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes indeed. Now let's determine what "human" is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK. You brought it up, give me your definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those sapient beings who have not deliberately and actively
>>> chosen to significantly violate my rights or those of the people
>>> under my protection. (i.e., they can THINK about it all they want,
>>> and even TALK about it all they want, but they'd better not DO
>>> anything.) Once they step over that line (initiating violence being
>>> the most common and obvious method), they have forfeited their
>>> expectation for consideration on MY side. If I happen to be in a very
>>> strong position, I may be magnanimous. But they'd better not count on
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The being you just described would still be a human.
>
>
> Not by my definition. Or at least, they would have temporarily --
> and quite deliberately -- given up any claim to be TREATED as human.

You can not ever give up that claim. Other's can decide that they
consider you unworthy of human rights of course. But they (and you)
would be wrong.

>
>> They seem to be someone that you consider undeserving of human rights.
>
>
> They have already decided that *I* am undeserving of human rights.
> Why in the world should they expect that I would think THEY do,
> especially when they're directly endangering in one way or another me,
> or those under my protection?

Because you are better than they are of course. Because you refuse to
stoop and consider them less than human. Because *you* refuse to limit
your humanity. You will note that much of this is about you not
degrading yourself.

>
>> As I said before, down that path leads madness.
>
>
> I am quite sane, thanks.

Not if you start putting human beings into categories that let you
treat them as less than human. That is madness. And it self Godwin's you
in a heartbeat.

>
>> You need a broad, inclusive definition of human being.
>
>
> Mine is very broad. Any sapient being that does not actively and
> deliberately significantly violate my own rights. That covers not merely
> biologically human beings, but aliens, elves, and artificial
> intelligences, as long as they don't try to kill me, my friends, or do
> severe damage to me in other ways.

Once you start thinking that it's OK to treat 'some' people as
non-human, you endanger your own humanity.

>
>> So that those in power don't decide that *you* don't make the cut.
>
>
> I'm making the definition. Those in power can make their own. And
> will. And most likely it will be MUCH more restrictive than mine. The
> ones we use now certainly are.

I guess I should just be happy that you currently aren't in power.

I have a great deal of respect for you Sea Wasp. Let's declare a truce
and end this before it gets ugly.

>
>
>
>


--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP