Also, you're moving away from the debate. You've brought the question of legality into it, making the depressingly common attempt to take "legal" and "good"/"moral" together, when the two have zero bearing on one another
Replace 'legal' with 'moral' then. Same principle applies. You're focusing on technicalities like a redditor.
And self-awareness is an intersting metric to consider, but even that paltry standard disqualifies huge swathes of people across the globe from personhood, let alone my preferred standard of self-actualization. Think about the average "doctor, lawyer, engineer" who dindu nuffin, or the average pajeet, or the average "refugees welcome" leftist. Many of them would, I think, at least be able to look in a mirror and identify the self and how the self differs from the not-self, but how many have a proper internal monologue, or the ability to imagine and rotate the apple, or even to comprehend the idea of second order effects, let alone predict them?
Again, this whole distinction of human vs. person exists entirely in your head based on what appears to be some arbitrary IQ threshold you've invented.
I would say I'm astounded at your willful dismissal of the core aspects of philosophical disagreement as "technicalities" instead of recognizing them as the critical distinctions that underpin theories of mind, but I would be lying. This type of pompous, self-aggrandizing stupidity is actually quite common and widespread.
No, the same.principle does not apply. You cannot swap out legal for moral and make the same point. Many things are legal that are not moral, and many things that are moral are illegal. Reformulate your arguments from a purely moral perspective, support your moral suppositions, and we can go from there. I've already done so for my position.
Finally, I begin to suspect that you may be taking offense here because you yourself don't meet the metric of personhood. You deny the need to differentiate between a human who doesn't know why the ceiling bird chirps or what it would be like if he hadn't had breakfast that morning and one that does, and pretend that catering to the former at the expense of the latter hasn't been an absolute, objective destructive influence on human society at large.
What is it about humans that supposedly makes them special? We're not fast, not strong, can't heal well, don't live that long, don't have sharp senses, etc. But we do have the minds that out oversized brains can generate as the fruit of many years of growth. Since it is these minds that gives humans our long-fought dominion over the Earth, by what right do those sharing our DNA but absent these minds claim themselves to be those special humans with inherent worth?
And so is the human/person divide illustrated. A human may become, through talent or effort, a person, but personhood is not solely contingent on humanity, nor is humanity the sole criterion for personhood.
This type of pompous, self-aggrandizing stupidity is actually quite common and widespread
It certainly is in this thread, in which you've typed out various walls of text focusing on semantics and technicalities that serve no purpose other than to stroke your own ego and waste time.
Some people are dumb (you may include me in this category if you wish). That doesn't deprive them of personhood.
It genuinely saddens me that you look at this minute expenditure of my time and effort and see it as some great artifice made purely for self-aggrandizement. It is not. I am legitimately trying to communicate, and this is how I normally do it.
I know most folks nowadays seem to think writing more than three or four sentences is some herculean effort worthy of song, but understand that this is not so.
Understand also that what you try to dismiss as semantics the the core of philosophy, and philosophy is the crux of what we are debating here.
Replace 'legal' with 'moral' then. Same principle applies. You're focusing on technicalities like a redditor.
Again, this whole distinction of human vs. person exists entirely in your head based on what appears to be some arbitrary IQ threshold you've invented.
I would say I'm astounded at your willful dismissal of the core aspects of philosophical disagreement as "technicalities" instead of recognizing them as the critical distinctions that underpin theories of mind, but I would be lying. This type of pompous, self-aggrandizing stupidity is actually quite common and widespread.
No, the same.principle does not apply. You cannot swap out legal for moral and make the same point. Many things are legal that are not moral, and many things that are moral are illegal. Reformulate your arguments from a purely moral perspective, support your moral suppositions, and we can go from there. I've already done so for my position.
Finally, I begin to suspect that you may be taking offense here because you yourself don't meet the metric of personhood. You deny the need to differentiate between a human who doesn't know why the ceiling bird chirps or what it would be like if he hadn't had breakfast that morning and one that does, and pretend that catering to the former at the expense of the latter hasn't been an absolute, objective destructive influence on human society at large.
What is it about humans that supposedly makes them special? We're not fast, not strong, can't heal well, don't live that long, don't have sharp senses, etc. But we do have the minds that out oversized brains can generate as the fruit of many years of growth. Since it is these minds that gives humans our long-fought dominion over the Earth, by what right do those sharing our DNA but absent these minds claim themselves to be those special humans with inherent worth?
And so is the human/person divide illustrated. A human may become, through talent or effort, a person, but personhood is not solely contingent on humanity, nor is humanity the sole criterion for personhood.
It certainly is in this thread, in which you've typed out various walls of text focusing on semantics and technicalities that serve no purpose other than to stroke your own ego and waste time.
Some people are dumb (you may include me in this category if you wish). That doesn't deprive them of personhood.
It genuinely saddens me that you look at this minute expenditure of my time and effort and see it as some great artifice made purely for self-aggrandizement. It is not. I am legitimately trying to communicate, and this is how I normally do it.
I know most folks nowadays seem to think writing more than three or four sentences is some herculean effort worthy of song, but understand that this is not so.
Understand also that what you try to dismiss as semantics the the core of philosophy, and philosophy is the crux of what we are debating here.
You're an autistic faggot