-->
@Benjamin
What is personhood?
Posts
Total:
46
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Before birth we know that it definately isn't a person. Furtermore, the rights of the mother are more important. After birth they start accumulating personhood. So it makes sense to apply human rights at birth.
-->
@Benjamin
After birth they start accumulating personhood.
It takes over a year to develop the first signs of moral behavior.
Why not apply human rights at 1 year old or 2 years old if you don't believe dogs are people? (they have similar intelligence as a 2 year old they say)
-->
@Mall
When a dog is equipped with protection, that dog is not defenceless. The opposite is true for a person.
Hmmmmmm.
Please clarify, with examples.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And you accuse me of mushing.
The main problem with human interaction with canines and associated human expectations, is the assumption that canines can be trained to do and think in the same way that humans do and think.
So if you can get your dog to sit, and in a praising voice you say good boy and reward with a tasty treat. Then the dog will remember and repeat. Though a dog has never learned, and never will learn the definition of good boy.
So similarly, a dog can be trained to be either aggressive or non-aggressive. But the dog will never learn the definition of right and wrong relative to it's behaviour.
Whereas a person can be trained either voluntarily or involuntarily, and at all times consider and understand the rationale of the exchange.
-->
@zedvictor4
And a dog may not be trained at all, and still be aggressive or non-aggressive.So similarly, a dog can be trained to be either aggressive or non-aggressive. But the dog will never learn the definition of right and wrong relative to it's behaviour.
Whereas a person can be trained either voluntarily or involuntarily, and at all times consider and understand the rationale of the exchange.
What humans can do has nothing to do with what dogs can't do.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I stated, a dog will respond instinctively relative to it's circumstances.
So yes, either aggressively or non-aggressively.
What humans can do has nothing to do with what dogs can't do.
As it stands this is a somewhat daft statement.
Please exemplify so that I can understand it's relevance.
-->
@zedvictor4
A dog that has their owner standing over them ready to use a gun from another dog about to attack is not a defenseless dog. The dog has a defense.
A person that is defenseless that has not a gun or anything used to defend themselves is you guessed it, defenseless.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you think it's wrong for a suffering dog or person to continue breathing?
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated, a dog will respond instinctively relative to it's circumstances.
...but not purely instinctively, like humans.
As it stands this is a somewhat daft statement.
It has been explained. I'll try in fewer words:
If morals are values abstracted and logically inferred, then one could argue that only humans have the abstraction required to perceive morals.
It is not rational to claim that humans are the only beings with values more complicated than mechanistic instinct. If we can perceive their values, we can infer the morality appropriate to them regardless of whether they can. Furthermore they have some capacity for abstraction, so rather than an absolute it would almost certainly be more accurate to say they are capable of only the least abstract morals.
You appeared to be implying that since humans philosophize, dogs can't be conscious of their own values. This does not follow. There is no inferential relationship. It's a non-sequitur.
-->
@Mall
Do you think it's wrong for a suffering dog or person to continue breathing?
The choice there is whether to commit suicide, not really to cease breathing.
It's not wrong to choose to continue living in suffering. We all do to some degree.
For a dog, we have here an example of where their inability to manipulate abstract concepts as well as humans would limit their choices compared to a human. I am not sure they know they can kill themselves. However this is a nearly impossible subject to study since so very few living beings try to kill themselves, that instinctual framework and all.
I have seen the claim made that dolphins have been observed committing suicide. Again, hard to prove; but better evidence than a dog ever doing it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Suicide and to stop breathing is one in the same. You can't have one without the other.
-->
@Mall
Suicide and to stop breathing is one in the same. You can't have one without the other.
You can't stop breathing as a purely voluntary action. If someone could somehow fight their instincts for long enough to pass out they would simply start breathing again. That is all I meant.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We know that in all instances before birth, a fetus has NO personhood. Meanwhile, after birth, they gain pernshood gradually. It makes sense to give legal rights to born children, especially since we cannot draw a line in the sand and say at this age personhood is aquired. But we definately know that it occurs after birth in all cases.
-->
@Benjamin
We know that in all instances before birth, a fetus has NO personhood.
How?
You said: "You cannot draw a line in the sand where on one side you have no personhood but on the other side you have full pershood."
Doesn't seem like something susceptible to precise quantification.
since we cannot draw a line in the sand and say at this age personhood is aquired
Why?
But we definately know that it occurs after birth in all cases.
Again, how?
-->
@Benjamin
a fetus has NO personhood.
Stil, it is a non-breathing human and organism of the pregnant woman who has personhood, that, them and all of their health care assistence workers are being attacked by religious and political nutters for some years now.
A dog has genetics intsincts that kick in when they see another dog, etc.
A dog has genetics intsincts that kick in when they see another dog, etc.
These nutter humans have human created, moral principle that kicks in and they use that as justification for their uncalled for attacks and moral disrespect of a breathing person { person hood }.
These people are sic-n-head, virtural rapist sticking their virtual noses int pregant womens bodies, without their consent.
Egg cell { life } >< Spermazoa { life }
Egg cell { life } >< Spermazoa { life }
Fetus cell { non-breathing human life } > fetus/baby { non-breathing human life }
Born out { breathing individual human } and pregnant has now transformed into mother of a child { breathing personhood }
Born out { breathing individual human } and pregnant has now transformed into mother of a child { breathing personhood }