resurrection of the neanderthal

[Spider]

[PoS]

Im sure you can find surrogate mothers who will lend their stomachs for a few bucks.

Go for it. Humanity needs a slave species- until we can create replicants they ought to do.

[John Galt]

[Spider]

The fact that you have now refused to deal with the reasons why this isn't a dictionary matter four times in a row tell me all I need to know about your opinion of the strength of your position.


This is not about etymology, Galt. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

[John Galt]

[PoS]

If anyone wants to be considered a person have them take the Voight Kampff test, if they pass they get all the rights afforded to them, if they fail they get hunted down.

[Spider]

If bonobos could be proven to be self aware, sentient, thinking beings, then obviously they would be people. That much goes without saying. There is still quite a lot of debate on that subject with regard to a lot of other species as well, as well as debates about the relative limits of self awareness as opposed to sentience as oppose to consciousness as opposed to personhood. Gets pretty damn murky. We're talking about a serious philosophical borderline area. Some people think just passing the mirror test is enough. I personally don't.

^But that is all irrelevant, as we're talking about Neanderthals, and there is zero question at all about them.

As to the dictionary...I just don't know what to tell you. The dictionary is not an absolute. It is constantly evolving as things are revealed. The dictionary used to define light as a fluid, and an atom as indivisible. Now we know better, so the definitions have been radically changed. If space aliens showed up tomorrow and started handing out free samples, they would have to alter the definition for person as well, since of course limiting it to only humans would be instantly rendered out of date. *shrug*

Basically, the dictionary is informed by reality. The dictionary does not establish reality. The atom is not indivisible just because in our ignorance we once defined it as such on paper.

There is reality, and then there are words on paper that have proven fatally flawed repeatedly.

I choose reality, whereas your entire position here hinges on the deified infallibility of a book.

[PoS]

[John Galt]

yes, of course it's informed by reality. and reality is, they (neanderthals) are different species. and reality is, people (there i go... i'm talking about humans) refer to "humans" as "people". sure this is just because we're the only ones around, but even if we were not, that's what it would mean. slugs from outer space, to most humans, are not "people". neither are bonobos.

a person is an individual human. people are a group of persons (who are individual humans). i'm saying that i think most people (read: human beings) on this planet would not take an inclusive view. they would take the speciest view, and exclude other species. and i'm saying (where the original question came from, a post by Wizard, supra) that we would need to modify our laws as appropriate because if we didn't someone like PoS would act like how he posts.

still, there is the precedent of non-humans being referred to as persons in the court of law, namely, corporations. but no one thinks they are actual people

also, perhaps we should be using the term sapient instead, as i think that's what we all mean (this would preclude bonobos)

[Darkhorse]