Freethought & Rationalism Archive

long winded fool · 03-30-2003, 09:57 AM

Well Psychic, that is a very interesting philosophy, but it has no basis in law. According to law, membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens grants an organism the inalienable right to life. If you think it ought to be changed that's a legitimate opinion, but until it is changed, it obviously ought to be followed to the letter lest the word "law" lose it's authority. It's fun to make up laws we think will work better than the laws already in effect. (Indeed, this is the only way to make better laws.) It is a crime to follow these laws above the laws already agreed upon and enforced by the majority. It is courageous to try to get your laws into effect, but it is not logical to keep two contradicting laws on the books. Since this is what has occured with legalized abortion, either legalized abortion or equal human rights must be sacrificed. You can't claim equal rights for most but not all types of human beings without throwing out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Am I a "specieist?" Only to the extent that all species are!

dk · 03-30-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychic
(snip)
these ill effects of an unwanted child are grave to the couple, and it�s gonna surely put a burden on them. You might say now: why didn�t they think of this when they were in bed, or why did they allow the pregnancy to proceed?
I�ll say, the wife or the husband lost its job, there house was confiscated. Something happened that they don�t want a child anymore.
Now all this I�ll give it 50 NLEU (Negative Life Events Unit)
So who decides what is more 20 LU or 50 NLEU? I think this is up to the couple! A very simple math.

If people inherit their value from their parents or govenment, then you are correct, most people aren't worth the effort.

Dr Rick · 03-30-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
According to law, membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens grants an organism the inalienable right to life.

That's not true; your assertion is a lie.

There is not one single law that "grants" anything of the sort that you claim. In fact, I dare you to find just one single law that ever even mentions homo sapiens sapiens.

You won't do it because you can't do it.

You're wrong. You're making stuff up and prefacing it with "according to law,..."

If you disagree, then you will easily prove me wrong: just show us one law mentioning homo sapiens sapiens.

Rick

dk · 03-30-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychic
just i thought
How many LU Do I cost?
I don't know from where my mind comes with these things, I guess it the genes, cause environment can't do this!

to be fair with myself I think I make 220 LU!

How about you guys?

Psychic you've reduced yourself to an object, by putting price on your own head. That makes you a victim waiting to happen. Whatever makes you happy, hey did your mother teach you that?.

long winded fool · 03-31-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
That's not true; your assertion is a lie.

There is not one single law that "grants" anything of the sort that you claim. In fact, I dare you to find just one single law that ever even mentions homo sapiens sapiens.

You won't do it because you can't do it.

You're wrong. You're making stuff up and prefacing it with "according to law,..."

If you disagree, then you will easily prove me wrong: just show us one law mentioning homo sapiens sapiens.

Rick

Quote:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Human being (noun): Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.

Homo erectus
Homo soloensis
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis

Dr Rick · 04-01-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
Human being (noun): Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.

Homo erectus
Homo soloensis
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis

Still waiting...

dk · 04-01-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
Human being (noun): Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.

Homo erectus
Homo soloensis
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis

You need to find a credible source of information and it helps to name the source.

Quote:

Hominidae
chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans

Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae.

Thus constituted, the Hominidae includes 4 genera and 5 species. Its nonhuman members are restricted to equatorial Africa, Sumatra and Borneo. Hominid fossils date to the Miocene and are known from Africa and Asia.
----- The University of Michigan - Museum of Zoology

long winded fool · 04-01-2003, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
You need to find a credible source of information and it helps to name the source.

I was simply going by the common dictionary definition. I should have included, "of the group homo."

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
Still waiting.

How about:

Human being (noun): Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae specifically of the group homo.

Homo erectus
Homo soloensis
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis

Dr Rick · 04-01-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

challenge by Dr Rick ...I dare you to find just one single law that ever even mentions homo sapiens sapiens.

Quote:

answer by long winded fool
[various irrational concepts that, if accepted, would lead us to conclude that chimpanzees are entitled to human rights under the UN charter, but no evidence that there is any law that mentions homo sapiens sapiens despite his false claim that "According to law, membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens grants an organism the inalienable right to life."

Brilliant arguments, lwf, just brilliant

Rick

long winded fool · 04-01-2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

challenge by Dr Rick ...I dare you to find just one single law that ever even mentions homo sapiens sapiens.

answer by long winded fool
[various irrational concepts that, if accepted, would lead us to conclude that chimpanzees are entitled to human rights under the UN charter, but no evidence that there is any law that mentions homo sapiens sapiens despite his false claim that "According to law, membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens grants an organism the inalienable right to life."

Brilliant arguments, lwf, just brilliant
Rick

I don't understand. How does inalienable human rights apply to chimpanzees? Since all examples of the species homo sapiens sapiens are human beings, and since all human beings are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is it not logical to conclude that all homo sapiens sapiens are protected under the UDHR? Please help me out here. If I'm wrong I need to know why so I don't make this mistake in the future.

(By this syllogism, it is also logical to conclude that all "persons" have inalienable rights, all scuba divers have inalienable rights and all fetuses have inalienable rights. Membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens automatically grants said being the right to life. In actual fact, mere membership in the group homo grants the right to life.) Please show me exactly where I've made this nebulous logical mistake that you keep referring to yet never identify.

View Poll Results: Abortion, terminate when?
Never	19	12.18%
Up to one month	5	3.21%
Up to two months	7	4.49%
Up to three months	42	26.92%
Up to four months	14	8.97%
up to five months	7	4.49%
Up to six months	25	16.03%
Up to seven months	1	0.64%
Up to eight months	17	10.90%
Infanticide is OK	19	12.18%
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2003, 09:57 AM	#221
long winded fool Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,113	Well Psychic, that is a very interesting philosophy, but it has no basis in law. According to law, membership in the species of homo sapiens sapiens grants an organism the inalienable right to life. If you think it ought to be changed that's a legitimate opinion, but until it is changed, it obviously ought to be followed to the letter lest the word "law" lose it's authority. It's fun to make up laws we think will work better than the laws already in effect. (Indeed, this is the only way to make better laws.) It is a crime to follow these laws above the laws already agreed upon and enforced by the majority. It is courageous to try to get your laws into effect, but it is not logical to keep two contradicting laws on the books. Since this is what has occured with legalized abortion, either legalized abortion or equal human rights must be sacrificed. You can't claim equal rights for most but not all types of human beings without throwing out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Am I a "specieist?" Only to the extent that all species are!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.