Humanity is Politically defined very narrowly by the UDHR! Do you meet the definition of Article 1?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Explanation: I tend to agree with your analysis of the article itself.

However it is not for me to DEFINE "spirit of brotherhood" and that term should have been also qualified in the document and it isnt specifically.

But one could probably make a case that the rest of the UDHR document details that stuff explicitly.

Personal Disclosure: St*rred!

reply to post by cartenz


Exlanation: St*rred!

If I have misconstrued the intent of the document then I apologize!

However that still leaves us without a narrow definition of what it is to be human!

I am seeking a very political narrow definition (3 sentences or one paragraph ONLY ok) of what it is to be human.

Obviously anybody who doesnt meet the independant standards critera can not be human.

Where is this standard?

What tests can be applied to see if anything at all meets the critera.

Personal Disclosure: My agenda is to divide the wheat from the chaff ok.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I want to be the one who determines what is human. \

I want to be the one who determines what is "free".

I want to be the one who determines what the "brotherhood of spirit" spells out.

Pedophiles are not human, fetuses are human, no "free" human should have to pay taxes. "humans" that kill other humans, are not human.

I will determine who has "human" rights.

HOW DO YOU ALL LIKE THAT!

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: If it was obvious then you would be able to define those traits [all of them] quite simply ok.

Now you just being facetious!

But, in the interests of healthy debate, a human being is a bipedal hominid who's unique features include the shape of our spine which allows such movement, they are largely hairless, the males lack a baculum which is found in all other primates, the males of the species are unique in their ability to grow beards. These are just a few of the unique traits found in a Human being.

Also, like I said, you could just submit yourself for a genetic test which would confirm your humanity.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: Please do so.

No - it is irrelevant owing largely to the erroneous reasoning posited in your OP.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I understand what you're getting at. But to "separate the wheat from the chaff" could result in unintended results...

In Australia, from colonisation until the early 1970's the indigenous population (the traditional landowners) were considered not human, but Fauna--and licences were granted to colonialist to be able to hunt this "fauna". This is genocide, and what the UDHR is designed to stop.

reply to post by stumason


Explanation: Again you confuse the issue of medical definitions and political definitions.

Hitler and or Stalin, under your medical definition, are humans.

Hitler and or Stalin, under the political definition as defined by the UDHR Article 1, are NOT Human.

Now I am sure that if you ask most genocide survivors that they , human or not, would define Hitler and or Stalin as not human and therefor a monster.

To define Hitler and or Stalin as humans ... demeans what it IS to be human!

Personal Disclosure: I am sure everybody has heard the terms "to loose ones humanity!".

If that is factual then it has consequences ok.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Your thread is so freaking confusing , , ,

reply to post by CoolNamesWereTaken


Explanation: Ok ... let me ask you how you define humans in a very narrow way?

What traits do they possess? [note: 3 sentences or 1 paragraph ONLY ok.]

How can these traits be tested for?

What should happen to those who are found to not be human as defined by your standard?

Do you know of any independant standards that explicitly and specifically define what it IS to be human?

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

reply to post by cartenz


Explanation: St*rred!

In Australia, from colonisation until the early 1970's the indigenous population (the traditional landowners) were considered not human, but Fauna--and licences were granted to colonialist to be able to hunt this "fauna". This is genocide, and what the UDHR is designed to stop.

By which independant standard were they "considered not human"?

Please link ok!

Personal Disclosure: Unintended consequences may have arisen due to a lack of an independant standard, which is why we have the UDHR now.

And now that we have the UDRH ... it can be applied to everyone irrespective of what they think is the case.

That document does indeed define politically what humans are!

The document itself may be a falsehood!

If it is a falsehood then that also has many political consequences.

The implications that if we are not all human ... and non-humans are in control ... ARE HUGE!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Whether the person committed brutal acts of genocide matters not to the UDHR - they are still Human and entitled to the same rights as everyone else on this planet.

I see what you're driving at, but it is entirely out of the scope of the UDHR and therefore makes your questions irrelevant.

By which independant standard were they "considered not human"?

Please link ok!

The Constitution of Australia
foundingdocs.gov.au...

Section 127 was repealed in 1967--sorry for my inaccuracy stating earlier that it was the 1970's

Until 1967, official Australian population statistics excluded "full-blood aboriginal natives" in accordance with section 127 of the Australian Constitution, even though many such people were actually counted. The size of the excluded population was generally separately estimated. "Half-caste aboriginal natives" were shown separately up to the 1966 census, but since 1971 there has been no provision on the forms to differentiate 'full' from 'part' Indigenous or to identify non-Indigenous persons who are accepted by Indigenous communities but have no genetic descent.

Source: Wikipeadia

S 127 was superceeded by the introduction of sections 51(xxvi)...

This is quite an important question. With advances in genetic modifications and theories of aliens amongst us around, what it actually means to be human can become quite a complex issue.

There are dogs and other animals around with the ability to reason and be aware of their environment. Does it mean that these animals should get the right to vote and run for office? Does it mean our shape shifting reptilian overloads should be kicked out of their positions and let everything go to hell as there are no qualified humans to take their role? What should happen to the centaur (half horse half man) as the genetic engineers play around in the background? What should happen as evolution continues and the post humans are next in line at the top of the food chain? How do we make sure we get some talent and not some torment as next in charge on planet Earth?

While some people may feel guilty in getting caught rather than in their actions, is this still not some form of conscience? While this post may have some unreasonable elements in it, it still taken some level of reason to form the question and explore the issue?

Looking for a clear, simple black and white definition of humanity that everyone can agree on does not sound easy. I currently like the principle of the informed vote for where the political arena starts.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I have been looking for a definition in law for "human being" one example I found in case law in the US is:

SHAWMUT BANK, N.A. v. VALLEY FARMS (Supreme Court of Connecticut)

Section 52-352b, which is part of chapter 906, entitled "Postjudgment Procedures," exempts from postjudgment procedures certain "property of any natural person." Although the term "natural person" is not defined in chapter 906, it clearly means a human being, as opposed to an artificial or juristic entity.

Source

thanks

I know there were asked in a rhetorical way, but I will for the sake of conversation answer them in IHO

There are dogs and other animals around with the ability to reason and be aware of their environment. Does it mean that these animals should get the right to vote and run for office?

No, we should not let animals in politics and all current animals serving as members of parliament will "go live on the farm"

Does it mean our shape shifting reptilian overloads should be kicked out of their positions and let everything go to hell as there are no qualified humans to take their role?

No, without the reptilians in government and corporate media we would not have mindless television to distract us from reality

What should happen to the centaur (half horse half man) as the genetic engineers play around in the background?

He will have to do pr0n to feed his family. (rule 34 anyone?)

What should happen as evolution continues and the post humans are next in line at the top of the food chain?

We H+, or "post-humans" as you label us; consider Homo Sapiens to be animals and due to their over-population and limited resources we will be forced to hunt them as game. They are not suitable for pets.

How do we make sure we get some talent and not some torment as next in charge on planet Earth?

Either is good.

While some people may feel guilty in getting caught rather than in their actions, is this still not some form of conscience?

Yes, we should all be conscious not to get caught

While this post may have some unreasonable elements in it, it still taken some level of reason to form the question and explore the issue?

Yes, your post is reasonable, but my response was not

Jokes aside...

Looking for a clear, simple black and white definition of humanity that everyone can agree on does not sound easy. I currently like the principle of the informed vote for where the political arena starts.

I fully agree

Hitler and Stalin were human, however the atrocities committed under their watch although seemingly inhuman and
obviously demeaned humanity cannot take away from the fact they were born human.
Reason and conscience were also things that they seemed to lack, no different than your standard child molester,
drug peddler, rapist, murderer etc.
So are they still classified as human, sadly yes. maybe humanity should be split into a few different classes.......
No wait, we already do that which I think is a big problem in society, having different classes.
I dont think any single sentence, no matter how cleverly written will distinguish humans from monsters or aliens.
Psychological tests may have proven Hitler and Stalin to be flawed humans but humans none the less.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by cartenz

 

Explanation: St*rred!

In Australia, from colonisation until the early 1970's the indigenous population (the traditional landowners) were considered not human, but Fauna--and licences were granted to colonialist to be able to hunt this "fauna". This is genocide, and what the UDHR is designed to stop.

By which independant standard were they "considered not human"?

Please link ok!

Personal Disclosure: Unintended consequences may have arisen due to a lack of an independant standard, which is why we have the UDHR now.

And now that we have the UDRH ... it can be applied to everyone irrespective of what they think is the case.

That document does indeed define politically what humans are!

The document itself may be a falsehood!

If it is a falsehood then that also has many political consequences.

The implications that if we are not all human ... and non-humans are in control ... ARE HUGE!

Ahh, I wondered if this would be where you are going with this, and yes, indeed, those implications are absolutely huge. I agree with you completely.

reply to post by cartenz


Since you are on a roll...

What about artificial intelligence? Neural networks are already common with image and audio processing, what happens as this machine capability continues to grown in deeper and more meaningful reason and conscience?

Then the metaphysical side? What happens if some post death spiritual aspect of awareness does exist? Do ghosts get to vote? What about the rights of our ancestors? Is a will a valid document or contract as the person is dead and unable to posses any reason or conscience that we are able to detect.

These are not standards to be met. This is not a set of criteria to establish humanity.

This document in spirit is a declaration of human rights .

The definition is in the dictionary under homo-sapiens .

reply to post by kwakakev


If a ghost can hire a lawyer, I have absolutely no doubt they can contest a will.

Glad you bought up AI, it was something I hadnt thought about. With AI we have the turning test to give a human score...

en.wikipedia.org...

I personally dont think AI is a possibility; not until we can reach human intelligence first...

EDIT: An AI "bot" would not fulfil the definition "naturally human" so I doubt they could contest a will... tho I will one day be proven wrong on this.


EDIT AGAIN: (in WA) If the ghost was deceased prior to the commencement of the Wills Act 1970, then the Act is not applicable... Tell your ghost to hire a real lawyer

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: Humanity IS politically defined very narrowly by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Hi OL!
Animals don't vote?

Since I will not enforce my own policy upon the heads of my brethren, I will follow the majority of the human herd...?

Your threads rock!