Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
A contextual definition is necessary, and I think an assessment of "agency" has to be included. The primary point of ascertaining personhood comes down determining how the person is to be treated morally, it's got to be a matter of reciprocation. Personhood carries with it rights and responsibilities, do we have the cognitive ability to reflect on how our actions might affect others, can we be held accountable for our actions as morally responsible causal agents?
Thought provoking respond. Perhaps empathy should be a requirement, perhaps even the core requirement. While it would rule out sociopaths from being people, given their treatment towards others, they already set themselves apart from the shared community.
human beings go through stages, different degrees of personhood apply to an individual at different times. So when we are talking about an ape or elephant, are we talking full personhood, partial personhood, how does the ape's personhood relate to a human being's, is it the same relationship to a human child?
I was thinking about this earlier. There's an episode of The Orville where some super advanced aliens run a zoo of various space-faring animals they capture such as humans (which are too privative to be considered people). Differentiating personhood from citizenship may be the start to the right path; we recognize the less developed as people, even while not immediately conveying voting privileges and such.
In what ways is an AI a person, presumably personhood confers rights and responsibilities, if the AI is a person, is it a crime to delete the program, can turning off a computer be murder? The different degrees of personhood makes for incredibly complicated considerations.
My belief is that personhood is ultimately a divisor separating what's unique within (most) humans, from other members of the animal kingdom. Which is to say our minds.
Not that other animals are without minds, your dog for example is smarter than some adult humans I've met; it'd only score a zero on an IQ test, and would not make the whole room dumber for being in it.
So yes, I believe at a certain point an AI should be eligible to be considered a person, so long as the mind shares enough advancement with us for whatever minimal threshold (honestly, if AIs ever start to have rights according to us, it'll probably be longer after they've already surpassed us).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I would say that to define personhood, birth isn't really a definite line we can base that assumption on, given that the vigina of a woman does not designate what personhood is.
Yeah, this became outdated with c-sections... I would not be considered a person due to being delivered via a c-section. Whereas nearly all non-sentient animals would count as people, for having been born the old fashioned way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Personhood: a person.
Circular definitions are gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
A newborn is a person. It’s enshrined n law and been socially, culturally, and psychologically accepted as such for eons.
I live in the USA, where just two hundred years ago they also had to have a skin color within the right ranges. Even today in certain religious fundamentalist areas, you must have a penis to be considered a real person.
So really, there's not a universally accepted standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I believe you misread what oro wrote. He was giving criticism to my idea due to the risk of that being applied to someone in a coma for no longer displaying the criteria I proposed.
Admittedly, I don’t believe a newborn is quite yet a person, even while they and their family are entitled to protections. My core idea is that a mind defines unique personhood.
To use a fallacious example: a cat develops a diet of people. After long enough molecularly we can determine its carbon came from humans. IMO it does not thus attain personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Some humans harm others to an equal or greater extent than the weight of the mere existence of their bio-mass.
Russia trying to start WWIII is massively detrimental to human life (outright risking extinction of humanity). While not every Russian is guilty of that, those who support the war effort are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
A person is anything that is human and that benefits existence of human life.
Plenty of humans do not benefit human life, even taking offense that others do. And some are even detrimental to human life as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The problem with a functional definition is that it implies degrees of personhood, are children and mentally disabled adults less of a person? It also would extend personhood to other species such as Great Apes, dolphins, and elephants for instance, perhaps even some AI programs meet the qualifications of personhood.
Much of my point is that personhood should be considered for other intelligent species, even if the form differs from our own. The Transatlantic Slave Trade was deplorable, as was the Three-fifths Compromise. We should strive to avoid similar mistakes in the future. While I don't believe a dog or a cow should be classified as a person, I don't see an issue with classifying an elephant as one.
The question of personhood is a matter of assigning rights and duties, legally, children are considered to have a lower degree of personhood, they have legal protections of personhood, you can't kill them, but they also have fewer rights than an adult.
While there's plenty of crossover, that sounds more like the distinction of citizenship. Even a foreign child is protected from harm, but by default will never have the voting privileges.
The big legal question of personhood is in the abortion debate of course, and a functional definition like this just doesn't provide any guidance to temporal demarcation. Including the "potential" for these functional developments makes some sense but still gives no guidance for at what point in time that potential applies, and including "potential" further complicates the demarcation between species and AI.
IMO AIs at a certain point should be both people, and (if contributing to society) citizens. Heck, corporations are already considered people for legal purposes.
As for abortion: I don't believe there is anything special about human DNA if not connected to a mind. If we grow brainless human husks for organ harvesting, I don't see any moral issue as no harm is experienced by any being even capable of awareness.
Take the old trolly problem of saving embryos or a smaller number of actual children: the choice to save the children is universal, because they're people, even while both groups are human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A person is an individual human.
I believe we are approaching a time when that is too restrictive a definition.
If we recreate someone’s mind as software (such as in the show Upload, where rich people have a digital afterlife) that AI would not be human but should still be considered a person.
If we ever come across extraterrestrial intelligence, while they would most certainly not be human in form, but they would nonetheless be people.
We already have a very troubling history of maltreatment towards anyone who doesn’t look like us. So I believe a definition which is not so easily abused by xenophobes would be preferable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'd raise the example of an adult in a coma.
Great point. While I’d argue a body truly brain dead kept alive by machines isn’t that person anymore, for any likely temporary condition they still are that person.
Similarly, a drunk does not cease to be a person just because they currently fail at tool usage.
Created:
Posted in:
Curious how other people believe it ought to be defined?
I personally believe it should reside with three pillars:
- Significant recognizable intelligence,
- Demonstratable sentience, and
- Awareness of self.
While biology is the most common precursor we've seen for these, I do not believe that is ideal long term as a requirement. While it's a comedy, the movie Ted showcases the horrors to which a human standard leads (intelligent sentient beings who are aware of themselves, being kidnapped, mutilated, and murdered without any legal protections).
A potential drawback to my definition, is a lack of an empathy requirement. Narcissistic assholes are still people, even if we would rather they not be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I am yet to see some save an unknown stranger from a third world country over their own child, yet you wouldn’t use this intuition as a means of dehumanising the impoverished would you?
Not sure how you're making that leap. That we value friends and family above those we have not met, does not mean we believe those we have not met are not people. I volunteer at the red cross frequently, even while I'll probably never meet the people I help.
Zero people know the unborn.Is it conceivable to you that a woman who has tried her entire life to conceive a child would value their unborn more than some child who she does not know?
I'm not discussing forced abortions against the will of the pregnant women.
In saying this it seems that you are implying that there is some difference between a first trimester and third trimester unborn in terms of moral worth. Could you identify what defines such a difference? If you believe abortion is slavery, shouldn’t you object to it at every stage?
It is not until sometime in the third trimester that a fetus is developed to the point where it could feel pain. That late in, there's at least a discussion to be had on harms potentially experienced.
And I do not believe abortion is slavery. I have been clear that I believe placing women into indentured servitude for use against their will as medical devices is slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
So although I would choose the dozen kids, were I given a some modified thought experiments, I would be churning out answers that are not strictly moral.
There are many other trolly problems, and different people would give many different answers to most of them. In the case of saving the unborn vs saving a lower number of actual people, I have yet to meet anyone who would stand by their beliefs that the unborn are of equal value and in turn save the greater number of them.
As for knowing someone making them worth more than not: That only heightens the divide. Zero people know the unborn. Zero people experience harm in them not being nurtured at the expense of the unwilling.
For clarity, I am not referring to the exceptionally rare late term abortions. Rather I'm referring to birth control thru the end of the second trimester.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Semantically killing a human being, sure.I don't understand the need to specify "semantically" - it's like if a Nazi were to say "were ok fine we are semantically killing people but...". Why oughn't we just accept that abortion kills a human period?
Jumping the gun to Reductio ad Hitlerum, nice to see Godwin's Law in effect.
I've encountered a thought experiment I would be interested in having your feedback on.Suppose you are a camp instructor and you were bringing 3 kids onto a camping trip for 1 month. You sign the contract that you'll keep them safe, give them their resources and teach them about the wild life etc. In the fine prints, there is also the stipulation that in the case that an avalance occurs, you will be given access to a safehouse with food and resources, and you must sustain the lives of the children. This of course means you lose liberty (you cannot go away, you cannot leave the children, you eat and sleep bad, you are forced into certain acts of care etc). So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?
It's a neat thought experiment. I do believe it to be an apples to oranges comparison (or more like seeds vs fruit).
You're talking about someone literally signing a contract, with the lives of actual people at stake. Presumably these kids will eat canned food, rather than being vampires who will feed on their caretaker. The caretaker will further be rewarded as the hero who saved these children, rather than be punished with such things as lower income (our society seriously does this to mothers).
A thought experiment I use is a variety of the trolly problem, in which building catches fire and you have a choice of which to save: The hundreds of fertilized embryos from the fertility clinic, or the half dozen kids in the daycare.
Everyone would save the people, and no one would hold them at fault for letting hundreds of human beings die. This exemplifies that it is self evident that personhood and the protection of people is of higher value than the mere fact of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. Earlier you were referring to mere zygotes.
Please clarify which week of pregnancy forward you are opposed to ending it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't get to chop off my own arm by myself at home just because of my own convenience. I could argue that is a violation of "my body my choice".
Your arm, so your choice. However, no one else has a right to deny you use of your arm for an extended period against your will, even if it would save a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How is making abortion illegal enslaving women.
Lose of their freedom of autonomy, to instead become property for use as medical devices. Adding to it, they are not paid for their time and hardships in this, and have committed no crime to warrant the state doing this to them.
And most obviously, slavery and similar forms of forced servitude are outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your argument is that deadbeat dads should not have to pay child support because it's slavery
Not my argument. If you scroll up you can plainly see I have given no commentary on issues of child support, nor on the various other unrelated arguments you've brought up as a strange kritik and obvious slippery slope fallacy to the subject.
What you've done, would basally be like if I accused you of advocating legalizing kidnapping people for organ harvesting. While technically some parallels can be drawn, your opinions on one issue are not assured to reflect on any others; nor are mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The problem is no actual person is harmed.95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being.
Still not a person. People have minds with self awareness, etc. Our innate understanding of the increased value of personhood, is why we're able to have a meat and diary industry.
Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.Would you argue that forcing a deadbeat dad to provide for his kids is akin to slavery? Would you argue a conjoined twin keeping their twin alive without their consent is akin to slavery? If not, how could you argue that forced pregnancy is slavery?
You may argue those are akin to slavery, but forcing women to lose their freedom of autonomy and become property for use as medical devices is actual slavery.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
But at least they did them democratically, unlike the DNC.That has the odd implication that the Republican Party is more democratic that the Democratic Party. Meaningless, but funny.
As counterintuitive as it is, yes, they actually are.
For the RNC anyone registered as republican may vote for whomever they want in their primaries. That’s how we got Trump in 2016.
On paper the DNC has looks similar, except they have something called superdelegates who decide where the votes go regardless of which candidate was voted for. Which ironically is how we got Trump in 2016.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
They set themselves firmly against conservative values when they nominated him to begin with. But at least they did them democratically, unlike the DNC.
tl;dr: both major parties suck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
An argument could be made that he did not intend to, but the objective fact is he did.
No Trump, no one rioting at his behest.
Created:
Posted in:
1908 vs 1500.
I don't remember the ELO calculation, but I'm guessing it'll be no more than a 5 point shift (my gut says 2 points).
Still, endlessly farming Mall will get him there in only a little more time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Semantically killing a human being, sure.
The problem is no actual person is harmed. Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you're interested in doing some kind of moderation do it if not don't fucking bother me.
As you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
11/30/2022
Moderator: Barney
Polytheist-Witch has been banned for 60 days, for a continued pattern of extravagant lies.
e.g.,
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8185-the-catholic-church-is-a-cult?page=4&post_number=99
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8185-the-catholic-church-is-a-cult?page=5&post_number=124
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You claim someone threatened to kill someone else. That is a serious allegation. When moderations ask for details, you respond with pure toxicity.
If the claim is true, offer details so that whomever it was may be banned. Otherwise we'll be left with the conclusion you're lying as a desperate plea for attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Threatening other board members with death is ok when your an atheist. Mods are based fuck heads.
Who threated to kill who, and in which post did it occur?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
From the title of this thread: “no exceptions.“
I’ve merely listed the most common time an exception is needed to not kill the mother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Some abortions are necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
If you believe it's a baby from the moment of conception, then your stance is even against aborting ectopic pregnancies.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
birth control pills and IUDs sometimes cause a zygote to die
These are choices and actions against becoming pregnant to begin with. That in rare cases a fertilization still occurs but the egg then fails at implantation, does not mean the mother has actively destroyed a fertilized egg. Rather, it is passed out of the body harmlessly. IMO it's not an abortion, because no pregnancy was ended, merely one did not begin.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not the issue of your hyperbole.
~25% of men surveyed within those states have that magical belief. So yes, I think basic education ought to be better given that it utterly failed such a large proportion. If you have a different theory for why they're so mentally exceptional, please do share it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That anyone believes it's not rape if you get her pregnant,Now this is beyond hyperbole. You really need a constructive hobby dude. Fanfiction like this isn't.
We've discussed this before, and I've shown as much as the state of Missouri exists, this is an actual belief held by some ultra conservatives, to include claimed 'scientists.' And from the data set we were just looking at, please review question 36.
You're welcome to challenge me to a debate over this if you actually think I'm inventing it.
...
On a similar note, I strongly dislike antifa. I however don't claim you're writing fan-fic when you say they exist, no matter how much I would prefer if they did not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Mharman
There's a presentation of one data point I find highly misleading (and calling people assholes isn't the way to change minds), but the data itself and data driven conclusions check out.
Sure, I'd love a state wide survey in each one of those, but 3000 is enough to see major problems. That anyone believes it's not rape if you get her pregnant, says so much sad about the poor state of education in this country.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let's not forget that to some avoiding pregnancy to begin with equals abortion.
Have you read the results of CAH's poll? 25% of them surveyed believe the mother literally avoiding dying should be illegal. https://abortionpoll.cardsagainsthumanity.com/
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Gender is a personal identity thing which society mandates people choose. With there biologically being more than two sexes, is it really surprising that something subjective to the person isn’t somehow more restrictive than that?
Created:
I’d support ELO decay.
Similarly, I’d support there being a half dozen different rating scales (from a data mining perspective, it could be a treasure trove!).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Oh gosh, I still remember the time Nightwing killed the clown, and Batman used his magical powers to bring him back to life...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
You might enjoy reading this ultimately unused debate setup and R1:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Coreyinthehouse
FYI, being a vigilante is a very useful power. I personally would not have voted you if I knew you had a night kill available.
Further, a second night kill is exceedingly rare for mafia, so two deaths in the night would have confirmed you as town.
Created:
Posted in:
I had a feeling that would end it. Obviously wasn’t going to say anything at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
As always, thank you for doing a great job!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
Wylted and Supa both confessed yesterday; and opted for a free StarBucks tactic.
To lynch Mafia instead of town, literally every non-scum would have to vote to lynch Wyted. You and Pie are opting to vote off town (instead of even voting not to lynch). So we might as well just call it a day and vote me off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@SirAnonymous
@crystalynx
Since you're all unwilling to lynch Mafia, please just lynch me to get this over with.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think that would be a great policy. It would create more competition to get to those top spots. It would also allow entrance into college based on merit. A small issue I could perceive is that some high schools are much better than others, but as long as it is just an offer to pay for college and not a mandate that they are let in, it wouldn’t matter.
The differential in high schools is actually a benefit to it. A high school in a rich area, is less likely to use that offer. Whereas one in a poor area, the best students from each class have an additional means of escaping the circumstances of their birth.
So yes, I would have it be entrance too... Bare in mind, I am not saying Harvard has to accept them, just a local college. And even then, if they can't cut it, the school isn't forced to keep them. There's always some washouts anyways.
As a reminder, I am not talking about just any student, not even good students, but the crème of the crop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
From the Catholic perspective, the rest of Christianity could be a cult for rejecting the oldest form of it... Of course, from the Jewish perspective, every other form of Abrahamic faith could be viewed as a cult...
Granted, Scientology probably proclaims everyone who doesn't worships aliens to be cult members.
Granted, Scientology probably proclaims everyone who doesn't worships aliens to be cult members.
Created: