Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:29 pm A person is always a person, even if everyone else fails, or chooses not, to recognize him as such.

That's good to know, but it helps nothing when you are being systemically denied basic human decency by your fellow persons.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:29 pm Slavery is never about withholding personhood; it's only about denying it (which is pretty friggin' awful).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

That I'm a person, that I recognize this fact, matters, to me if no one else.

That is: it's the distinction makin' all the difference in the world.

#

"Given the choice (if you can call it that) between your personhood being withheld and it being denied which one would you go for?"

As I say: it can't be withheld, it can only be denied.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:46 pm That I'm a person, that I recognize this fact, matters, to me if no one else.

That is: it's the distinction makin' all the difference in the world.

What matters to me is that others recognize me as the same thing they recognize themselves. (Love your neighbor as you love thyself)

Whatever the fashionable word of the century may be. Person, Human, Transhuman, AI, Christian, Atheist - it doesn't matter.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:46 pm "Given the choice (if you can call it that) between your personhood being withheld and it being denied which one would you go for?"

As I say: it can't be withheld, it can only be denied.

Then you wouldn't mind if your government withheld your human rights?

(because I am pretty sure they know how to play the silly word-games just as well as you do)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:49 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:46 pm That I'm a person, that I recognize this fact, matters, to me if no one else.

That is: it's the distinction makin' all the difference in the world.

What matters to me is that others recognize me as the same thing they recognize themselves. (Love your neighbor as you love thyself)

Whatever the fashionable word of the century may be. Person, Human, Transhuman, AI - it doesn't matter.

As you like. I prefer to be recognized as 'me'. How 'I' fit into 'their' scheme doesn't figure into it for me.

#

"silly word-games"

Couldn't stay civil, could you?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:53 pm "silly word-games"

Couldn't stay civil, could you?

What do you mean?

It's not like I am denying you civility. I am merely withholding it.

First, my apologies.

You, Skep, get up my nose in a large way: you argue for the sake of it, not to defend a position or principle; you're a peacock, constantly preening in public; you're a chameleon, constantly shiftin' to be what the other guy expects. You're gutless, two-faced, and pretty much a rotten guy.

None of that, however, is just cause for me to get my back up, throw you in the penalty box, then stomp away like my 13 year old when I tell him 'no'.

Second: "Then you wouldn't mind if your government withheld your human rights?"

I'd mind quite a bit if my employees, without just cause, stripped me of my legal rights, yes sir, I would be mightly pissed about that. But, as much as I would dislike the political/legal neutering, I would still take comfort that I am, no matter what dank hole they deposit me in, a person (cuz my personhood is intrinsic to me).

#

"(because I am pretty sure they know how to play the silly word-games just as well as you do)"

This ticked me off till I realized you meant no insult. For you, it's all silly word games. You can't recognize that, for another, it might be earnest explanation/assertion/defense of principles held dear cuz you stand for nuthin', principles are alien to you. For you, silly word games is the means and method. Other posters, we're just the stepping off point for you to preen and parade yourself. Rhetoric (and wikipedia) are your cosmetics, this place is your stage, and we're supposed to be the audience. You're a diva wannabe.

Realizing, remembering, this about you deflated my ire. Bein' irked with you is like bein' irked with a one month old for soilin' her onesie: she literally doesn't know any better; you literally don't know any better.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:38 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:49 pm Henry

It's queer to me, this notion that freedom or liberty or personhood or self-possession is a bestowed status instead of the obviously intrinsic quality or characteristic it is. Even more peculiar are folks who promote such a queer notion. Sculptor, for example, sez a person isn't a person till he's declared one by others. I can't wrap my head around it.

This is one of the ideas which invite violent secular intolerance. It is denied with such passion that common sense must be excluded.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is why secularism is so adamant with its agenda to transform America into a statism governed by the whims of who the government calls "experts." To become open to the origin of higher values requires opening to the idea of a conscious source for creation and that creation has a purpose served by higher universal values. Naturally this is intolerable for the secular agenda in which the Great Beast has replaced our conscious source.

As you suggest secularism cannot understand the objective meaning of respect for life so defines it subjectively which justifies the destruction of all that secular values believes unworthy of life not serving our whims.. Those open to philosophy and religion as the love of wisdom and the need for the experiential truth of our being sense something lacking in this attitude. They raise intolerable questions in secular society. You seem to sense something lacking with this approach. If you do, consider yourself lucky.

You can see it in this thread: I'm talkin' about what's intrinsic to a person and I'm gettin' appeals to legalisms and society.

Be happy that you are aware of it. The indoctrinated educated mind cannot appreciate the difference between the source of the facts of the world and the source of objective values which gives objective meaning to facts. They assume that more facts reveal meaning which of course they cannot. That is why intrinsic value must be interpreted as legalisms. To do other than that opens the mind to what a society governed by objective values and the results of objective conscience would be capable of. Anyone captive of an indoctrinated mind hearing of such an outrage should insist the offender drink the hemlock for disturbing the peace.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm You, Skep, get up my nose in a large way: you argue for the sake of it

And you don't?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm , not to defend a position or principle

I was literally defending the principle that "personhood" is meaningless without broad social/legal recognition when you decided to tell us otherwise.

So what principle/position were you defending? Oh right... intrinsic personhood/rights.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm you're a peacock, constantly preening in public; you're a chameleon, constantly shiftin' to be what the other guy expects.

Well, I am not quite sure that's true.

Did you expect me to call you out on your bullshit you drew a silly distinction between "withdrawing" and "denying" personhood?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm You're gutless, two-faced, and pretty much a rotten guy.

Says the guy who is engaging in slavery apologetics.

Gutsiness comes with putting your actual ass on the line for what you believe in, not from lip-service on a philosophy forum.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm None of that, however, is just cause for me to get my back up, throw you in the penalty box, then stomp away like my 13 year old when I tell him 'no'.

Second: "Then you wouldn't mind if your government withheld your human rights?"

I'd mind quite a bit if my employees, without just cause, stripped me of my legal rights, yes sir, I would be mightly pissed about that. But, as much as I would dislike the political/legal neutering, I would still take comfort that I am, no matter what dank hole they deposit me in, a person (cuz my personhood is intrinsic to me).

Seems my parody of your very own "principles" went over your head.

Why do you mind your rights being withdrawn, Henry? It's not like they are being denied? Exactly like personhood can't be withdrawn, only denied.
Why do you care if you are "stripped" of your rights, Henry? They are intrinsic! Surely something intrinsic can't be taken away from you?

Perhaps you are failing to recognize that I am using your own words to mock you, Henry?

Those dearest principles of yours are worth fuckall if the society you live in doesn't recognise and uphold them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm You can't recognize that, for another, it might be earnest explanation/assertion/defense of principles held dear cuz you stand for nuthin', principles are alien to you.

For you, silly word games is the means and method.

It's precisely your principle (the idiotic distinction between the denial and withdrawal of personhood) is what I am mocking. Henry.

That is the silly word game I am mocking, Henry. If you don't want me to mock your silly word games - stop playing them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm Other posters, we're just the stepping off point for you to preen and parade yourself.

Indeed. It's your sophistry that I am putting on parade.

Your ignorance is a teaching moment, if I wanted to parade myself I'd tell you my real name and home address. So you can stroke my "narcissistic ego" with your love (or hate) mail. That's how backwards you got me "figured out".

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm Realizing, remembering, this about you deflated my ire. Bein' irked with you is like bein' irked with a one month old for soilin' her onesie: she literally doesn't know any better; you literally don't know any better.

It's precisely because I know better (that there's no fuckin' difference between your rights; or your personhood being withdrawn or denied), is why I am mocking you.

The asshole (me) is also a sanctimonious p****. Wouldn't you know?

Be happy that you are aware of it.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am My eyes are brown. Even if you scoop 'em out with a spoon, blend 'em up, and drink 'em down, you can't make my brown eyes blue. You can deny my brown eyes. You can scoop 'em out or lock me away or bury me deep. You can ram through legislation declaring 'Henry's eyes are blue'.

But no matter what, my brown eyes are brown eyes.

Get it?

Probably not.

But I can REMOVE your eyes. For shits and giggles - I can deny you your eyes, withhold your eyes.

Exactly like I can REMOVE/deny/withhold your rights, dignity, personhood, life etc.

The color of your eyes is about as inconsequential as it gets.

Get it? Certainly not.

You can strip me of rights (legal privilege), but not of personhood.

The first is bestowed, the second is intrinsic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:53 am You can strip me of rights (legal privilege), but not of personhood.

The first is bestowed, the second is intrinsic.

The legal privilege is all there is to "personhood" - protection of your individual rights under the law. Recognition by society that your life matters.

If you don't pick my cotton as good as I tell you to, I'll give you a signed declaration in recognition of your "intrinsic personhood", I'll put a sign around your neck that says "intrinsic person" while I whip, quarter and hang you as a lesson to the other cotton-niggers.

"The legal privilege is all there is to "personhood" - protection of your individual rights under the law. Recognition by society that your life "

I say personhood is intrinsic and not just legal privilege. Wars have been fought over less weighty matters.

You and Belinda declare a man meat who must be recognized as person.

I say a man is a person without your recognition.

Come, put me to work in your fields, if you can: let's see how it plays out.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:15 am I say personhood is intrinsic and not just legal privilege. Wars have been fought over less weighty matters.

Obviously you SAY it. But words don't fucking matter. Just because you SAY you are immortal doesn't make you so.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:15 am You and Belinda declare a man meat who must be recognized as person.

It's not about the declaration either - the declaration is also just words. Words on paper.

It's about people willing to honour the intended meaning of those words.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:15 am I say a man is a person without your recognition.

For the sake of making my point - I gave you my recognition anyway.

You are an intrinsic person, Henry, but you don't pick that cotton so good. *CRACKS WHIP*

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:15 am Come, put me to work in your fields, if you can: let's see how it plays out.

Stronger, younger and more numerous men than you were enslaved. Your argument is reduced to sterile intimidation.

"Obviously you SAY it. But words don't fucking matter. Just because you SAY you are immortal doesn't make you so."

Two way street: you declarin' personhood only a legal privilege, just words.

#

"Stronger, younger and more numerous men than you were enslaved."

True. So come collect me, slaver.