Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 01, 2021, 07:52:00 AM
-
Are you fully human if
1:you have prosthesis ?
2:You lose a tooth?
3: You have all your teeth and a pacemaker?
4: You are a master criminal?
5You are PolPot?
-
Are you fully human if
1:you have prosthesis ?
2:You lose a tooth?
3: You have all your teeth and a pacemaker?
4: You are a master criminal?
5You are PolPot?
You're fully human if, and only if, that is all you are: which is what 'fully' implies irrespective of teeth or limbs, or the lack of them, or any personal traits.
-
You're fully human if, and only if, that is all you are: which is what 'fully' implies irrespective of teeth or limbs, or the lack of them, or any personal traits.
So what you are saying is that you are only fully human if you are fully human.
Thanks for that Gordon.
-
So what you are saying is that you are only fully human if you are fully human.
Thanks for that Gordon.
It was you that asked a self-defeating question, Vlad: in that by using the term 'fully', and in giving the examples you did, you excluded (whether you meant to or not) any option that humans might be partly composed of something that has characteristics that are identifiably non-human and unrelated to the genus Homo.
-
I was going to reply but your inclusion of "fully" causes problems.
Definition: completely or entirely; to the fullest extent.
So if we don't have the musical genius of Mozart, or the wit of Wilde, the literary talent of Dickens, the wisdom of Solomon then we aren't fully human. By that definition Pol Pot is fully human as he took genocide to it's fullest extent and I am, therefore not fully human as I don't really excel at anything.
I have to say it seems to me that it was a crap decision to include "fully" in your descriptor and also defines you as not fully human.
-
It was you that asked a self-defeating question, Vlad: in that by using the term 'fully', and in giving the examples you did, you excluded (whether you meant to or not) any option that humans might be partly composed of something that has characteristics that are identifiably non-human and unrelated to the genus Homo.
Any question aimed fully or partly at certain posters is self defeating since they cannot be relied on to address the questions properly.
That said there are a lot of things I excluded here....that does not though invalidate what was included.
It may be that I come to the point you make about human/ other species hybrids....in fact let's deal with this now. If they were able to transplant pig organs into people, would those people not be fully human?
-
Any question aimed fully or partly at certain posters is self defeating since they cannot be relied on to address the questions properly.
That said there are a lot of things I excluded here....that does not though invalidate what was included.
It may be that I come to the point you make about human/ other species hybrids....in fact let's deal with this now. If they were able to transplant pig organs into people, would those people not be fully human?
I'm just picking up on what you said, Vlad: your use of 'fully' was perhaps unwise of you if you intended to leave the door open for the possibility of some form of hybrid than comprised part Homo and part something else.
If it got to the point of using pig organs for transplant then that raises an interesting scenario, since then a human would contain a functioning non-human organ. I've no idea if that alone makes them a hybrid, but I suspect not in that they weren't born/bred that way, any more than someone becomes a hybrid if they require a prothesis after amputation or, indeed, any other kind of bodily additive, where dental fillings are perhaps the most common example.
What are your thoughts, since you raised this issue?
-
If it got to the point of using pig organs for transplant then that raises an interesting scenario, since then a human would contain a functioning non-human organ. I've no idea if that alone makes them a hybrid, but I suspect not in that they weren't born/bred that way, any more than someone becomes a hybrid if they require a prothesis after amputation or, indeed, any other kind of bodily additive, where dental fillings are perhaps the most common example.
I think that person is fully human. It would be interesting to talk to some one who thought they were not part pig and full human.
-
Vlad,
Any question aimed fully or partly at certain posters is self defeating since they cannot be relied on to address the questions properly.
Thank you for this. Every now and again a story emerges that beautifully describes a term. I’ll give you an example: “chutzpah” has been described as the boy who kills his parents and then pleads with the court for mercy on the grounds he’s an orphan.
So I’ve been thinking about the term “hypocrisy”. For most everyday purposes it describes adequately the practice of “do as I say, not as I do” well enough. Every now and again though an example of hypocrisy so jaw dropping, forehead smacking, ”dear god, did he really just say that?” utter disbelief at the galactic scale of the hypocrisy involved emerges such that all of a sudden the term cannot begin to do it justice.
And then you of all people turn up with the complaint that “certain posters… cannot be relied on to address the questions properly”! You? YOU!!! Seriously though, YOU? Someone who has never knowingly addressed any question at all, let alone properly – preferring instead to ignore, misrepresent, divert from and otherwise try every tactic he can conceive of not to answer any question that has the EVER been put to him actually has the Bognor Regis scale front to complain that other people don’t address question properly???!!!???!!!
It’s not often that I’m lost for words, but now I’ve heard everything…
...I think I need to lie down.
-
If a person is fully God can they be even a little bit human?
-
If a person is fully God can they be even a little bit human?
All I know is I'm a little bit country and also a little bit rock and roll
-
If a person is fully God can they be even a little bit human?
God could be able not to use his abilities. I find the idea of God forced to make a song and dance, giving it the max whenever and wherever uncontrollably rather funny.
-
I was going to reply but your inclusion of "fully" causes problems.
Definition: completely or entirely; to the fullest extent.
So if we don't have the musical genius of Mozart, or the wit of Wilde, the literary talent of Dickens, the wisdom of Solomon then we aren't fully human. By that definition Pol Pot is fully human as he took genocide to it's fullest extent and I am, therefore not fully human as I don't really excel at anything.
I have to say it seems to me that it was a crap decision to include "fully" in your descriptor and also defines you as not fully human.
Pol Pot obviously had a few strategic bolts missing.
This post disturbs me no end and wonder whether you could slaughter people for ''frankly not being Picasso or Nureyev''
Blowing the smoke from a pistol and saying ''Call that a fucking pas de deux.''