[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

[saku]

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.

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

[(Anonymous)]

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]

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

no, but i like your logical fallacy. it's a lovely shade of missing-the-point