fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2474 ]

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2474 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [SPOILERS for NCIS]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So, when does someone become a "person"?

It depends on the person.

this isn't even a moral or ethical discussion; personhood is a legal label and is more or less 100% objective. all human beings who are born, regardless of age, are people.

i mean i get what the op is saying because i feel really disconnected from babies and younger children too. they are really unpredictable and just kinda different in general, and i sometimes catch myself saying things like "people and children" when i mean adults and children, or some such. but personality and behaviour don't denote personhood.

i mean whatever, op can save whichever creature they want. but if the issue is a lack of personality, it calls to question how they view severely disabled adults, or someone who was in a coma or sleeping.

OP here

I meant person in the figurative sense, not the legal sense, but I think you figured that out, lol.

And again, I'd say it depends on the person. Also on the hope of recovery, or how severely disabled they are. If someone is basically a vegetable with zero chance of ever getting better, no. Everything else is a "it depends."

yeah i assumed as much, but if a person who is disabled by some means is expected to get better then in a basic sense it's no different than a child who is expected to grow into an adult. overall i think it's less about the individual's capabilities are and more about something else.

OP here

"a person who is disabled by some means is expected to get better then in a basic sense it's no different than a child who is expected to grow into an adult."

I agree with this.

An baby and a small child are very different things, though. If it's so bad they have no sense of self, identity, object permanence, and all those other things that infants lack, I'd think they'd have ceased (perhaps temporarily) to be a person.

people who are severely disabled, whether temporary or not, still retain their rights of personhood. just because they are not self-aware at the time does not mean they relinquish their right to life, etc., no less when it is guaranteed - provided nothing tragic happens - that the condition is temporary.

i don't necessarily have a beef with your decision to save puppies over human infants, i'm just pointing out that your reasons apply to more than just babies, and it's a slippery slope.

OP here

Already stated it's not about the legal definition, so I don't know what you're arguing. I have no problems with the legal definition or how it is used legally.

you're talking about personhood though. you're basically saying you don't see babies as people and that's why you'd be more inclined to save a puppy. personhood is nothing but a legal construct. if you're stuck on how personable a baby is, then the same would thus apply, for you, to other human beings who, for whatever reason, are mentally equatable to babies. and i'm in turn saying that that mentality is a slippery slope.

OP here

Yes, but I would hardly impose it on others so I don't see what difference it makes. I'm not writing, establishing, or enforcing laws, nor am I pushing my views on anyone. What does it hurt anyone that I cannot relate to babies? Even the babies aren't old enough to understand that I cannot relate to them. If they are advanced enough to understand what that means, they likely aren't babies any more.

Are you suggesting there aren't some people that are mentally equatable to babies?

no, there definitely are people who are mentally equatable to babies, but they are still people regardless, as are babies. you more or less just said so yourself in your wording.

anyway, there is no other definition of personhood except a legal one. you are probably referring to some other construct. it wouldn't be humanity, because that is a biological term. overall it sounds like you are concluding that some human lives are worth less than others and it all depends on their mental workings, structure, etc. so then this definition would thus apply to other mentalities. for instance, i could define a human life as less than another for choosing to rescue a puppy over my young son or daughter. in other words it's entirely subjective and you shouldn't apply it to real-world situations because that is the slippery slope, right there. by applying it to real-world situations you are setting yourself up for making those actions, should they arise. this may not be a problem with you personally but other people who share similar mindsets go on to hold public office and make laws and change lives around them, for better or worse. basically my point is that this line of thinking does have an impact and it's questionable at best.

i don't relate to babies either, that's not the problem. dehumanising someone for being unrelatable is where you run into issues, imo.

Edited 2013-10-12 05:08 (UTC)

I toss the words around because they're casual use. If I were being formal about it I'd probably make one up. What Wikipedia has to say:

"A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places."

Emphasis mine.

My definitions differ from yours and I think that's fine. This figurative meaning of personhood has nothing to do with legalities. Seeing as you don't know how I define it, it's a little presumptuous to sweep it away as a slippery slope. I stated a few examples above in the thread:

"...sense of self, identity, object permanence, and all those other things that infants lack..."

I don't feel criteria such as these are reaching for much.

what that quote means is that personhood has different definitions, depending on what culture you're looking at. that doesn't take away the fact that it is a legal term and is thus objective when you are looking at each nation-state's laws. saying you don't think a baby is a person is fine i guess but you're objectively wrong in all major industrialised counties.

but anyway you have more or less confirmed that your criteria here is all about one's mental state, which has nothing to do with personhood, so the rest of my previous comment still stands as well.

I never claimed to be correct in all major industrialised countries. I understand "personhood" in legal terms isn't how I'd define a person, but I understand why those laws exist: to protect human beings (not necessarily persons, as in the case of babies). And I agree with protecting human beings.

My entire point is that "person" is not entirely a legal word. It has use in philosophy and many other areas besides law. I reiterate that it's the figurative use and not the legal use. Before we can go further I think you must first understand that.

no, your point was that you don't think babies are people. they are objectively people. there is no time in their existences as living, functioning organisms that they are not people. you are attempting to dehumanise them to justify your philosophical choice.

when personhood is discussed in philosophy it is with legalities in mind. in this case law and philosophy are intertwined, so yes, even in your scenario, it is still a legal term.

So my opinion that I cannot relate to babies as people and don't consider them people is now: dehumanising others to fit my philosophical "choices" as though I can will myself to relate to babies, and I am on the slippery slope to denying them legal personhood because I might get into political office and make laws about it?

Aren't we blowing this a little bit out of proportion, here?

I don't believe this is going any further.

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

saku - 2013-10-12 05:48 (UTC) - Expand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Western_Philosophy

Here are some examples of the use of "person" in a totally non-legal sense, if you would like to look at them.

these examples are all rooted in legalities. there is no need to define personhood without legal implications involved.

even if you wish to debate otherwise, each major philosopher listed in your link defines personhood such that infants would fall under their definition, and there is no need to discuss them unless arguing against the idea that babies aren't people.

overall i just don't see what's so difficult about op owning up to their hypothetical decisions; it seems they have a problem with their own idea, enough that they must dehumanise babies to justify their preference of puppies.

Hmm, I'll bite. This is all confusing me. What exactly are you asking OP to own up to? Making a hypothetical decision? Didn't they do that in the first post?

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

saku - 2013-10-12 06:04 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 06:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

saku - 2013-10-12 06:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 06:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

saku - 2013-10-12 06:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-12 08:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

saku - 2013-10-12 08:25 (UTC) - Expand

'you are concluding that some human lives are worth less than others and it all depends on their mental workings, structure, etc. so then this definition would thus apply to other mentalities... in other words it's entirely subjective'

Absolutely. It's like that for most people. Regardless of the specific criteria, some human lives will be worth more to you than others. Your friends. The people you love. The people you know as opposed to the people you don't know. Your best friend vs. a serial killer. Would you consider them equally valuable? Are they both worth the same?

No matter what, some human lives will mean more to you. That's not inherently a bad thing. And if you claim that you'd value the life of your best friend and the life of a serial killer the same, I will outright call you a liar.

it's obviously natural to value some lives over others; my point, which i clearly stated in my other comment, was that it's subjective, and thus should be treated as such. when talking about personhood, a very objective legality, subjectivity has little to no place.

"I don't see this shirt as gray."
"It's gray, get over it."
"Yes, but I don't see it that way."

Basically your conversation. OP doesn't see babies as people, even though babies are obviously legally people. You can do nothing about this, so why are you still arguing like an idiot?

because it devolved from op not seeing them as people into arguing that they were not in fact people which is less an opinion and more a false statement of fact

eta: i also stopped arguing yesterday, the op and i haven't talked about it in several hours, it's just you coming back and missing the point with every reply you make

Edited 2013-10-12 19:48 (UTC)

anyway, there is no other definition of personhood except a legal one.

No. It is a word that HAS a legal definition, but it also has other, subjective definitions (that in no way affect any legal definition, but nonetheless exist). The word "reasonable" has a legal definition too, but I can still subjectively decide whether something is reasonable or not without recourse to a law textbook.

i clarified elsewhere that any other "definition" of personhood is directly related to legalities. i also stated that even if you wish to argue otherwise, in this instance, right here, babies are people

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only