Paul Mitchum
Feb 27, 2007, 2:53 PM
Reportar Abuso
|
Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:46 pm, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > Al Smith <caddyshack...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > [.]
> >
> > > If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being,
> > > scientists are better equipped than politicians and clergy to
> > > determine what a human is.
> >
> > First of all, that doesn't follow.
>
> Who do you think would be least biased and make the most accurate
> assessment of what a human being is:
>
> 1) A politician like George W. Bush
> 2) A theologian like Jerry Falwell
> 3) A scientist like Stephen Hawking
It doesn't follow, Al. Let me walk you through it, OK?
"If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being, scientists
are better equipped than politicians and clergy to determine what a
human is."
You have a premise which defines murder as the unjust killing of a human
being.
And from that, somehow, you extract a conclusion: Scientists are the
best at determining whether something is human or not.
With me so far?
Your premise does not contain anything that even hints at why a
scientist would be better equipped to make that judgement.
Since we're talking about murder, which is a legal term, it's the
judicial system which makes that judgement at the moment. So you have to
explain why scientists should be the gatekeepers of the definition of
humanity, rather than a judicial system which is publically accountable.
But before you do, I suggest you rent a few of science fiction movies
and watch them through a couple times. Start with 'THX 1138.'
> > But second of all.... Are you nuts?
>
> What I find nuts is for non-heterosexuals to leave the decision of what a
> human is to politicians and/or theologians when in certain cultures that
> exist today their sexual preference indicates they are something less than
> human and are put to death.
Who said non-heterosexuals are leaving the decision of what a human is
to politicians and/or theologians?
Your argument is flawed on a couple of different levels.
There will always be disagreement. And that's good, because it means
that the fundamental philosophical question -- what it means to be human
-- is left for all to answer on their own. I don't want Bush, Falwell,
*or* Hawking to dictate to me what's human and what isn't. I'll listen
to their ideas and come to my own conclusions. That's freedom. And I'll
be engaged in the political process, which means my ideas stand a better
chance of benefiting everyone, if there's benefit to be had. And that,
my friend, is the benefit of a democratic process.
--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson
|
