And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Betruger]

Viciousness is as good as inevitable. A growing pain. But whether or not you (general you) agree with such a definition, the statistical history is pretty hard to ignore. IOW if you want to do more than peacefully get killed, para bellum.

[Diogenes]

My boundary for "sapient rights" which most folks are parochial enough to call "human rights" begins at the beginning of sapience, not "life", nor even "life with a "human" genome". Sapience. Show me the graph for that, please.

If sapience is the condition necessary for you to grant rights (and don't forget, you are presuming that your subjective opinion on this matters to people other than yourself) then it is a comfort to the world to realize that people who don't measure up to a certain level of intelligence can be considered to be "non-persons."

This just suggests you have confused sentience with sapience. Intellegence level is NOT sapience.

For the intents and purposes of your differentiation they are. Sapience is the ability to exercise judgement. Non sapience is your threshold for killing.


But for the sake of argument, what is your methodology for deciding that one microsecond a zygote is not sapient, and the next microsecond it is?

Show me that sharp boundary between the one condition and the other so that we may clearly define it by law.

[williatw]

Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07gcUhK ... e=youtu.be

Maybe/or not this isn't the right topic area place to post this...I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway but interesting however.

It sort of defines humanity as intrinsically vicious. Ghandi was presumably non-human. I've always wondered if gun lobby supporters have an innately low opinion of themselves. I'm not of course arguing they are wrong...

I mean, you would not say the right have artificial killing aids strapped on was the bovine right of a bull. Would you? And most people can no more make guns than bulls can make armoured spikes...

Given the history of mass murder of governments frequently against their own citizens think it is obvious people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Sometimes called "democide" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM 262 million in the 20th century alone, more than actual battle deaths. Sure the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto would have loved to have had more/better arms. Wonder how many lives would have been saved in Germany if they had been generally armed. Or recently the Tutsi in Rawanda.

[Diogenes]

Pluripotent stem cells and cancel cells are not so very different.

And that raises a difficulty with the "system capable of developing into a human" argument.

Let us add the qualifier "without external and intentional intervention."
i.e. "in the course of nature. "

Suppose you harvest adult stem cells. We are now near the understanding which allows us to turn these into embryonic stem cells, and therefore clone a human.

Every cell contains a copy of the complete program. The issue isn't whether a cell has a copy of the program, but at what stage the program is running.

The human program has various subroutines, some of which's functionality is called many times subsequently. Differentiation, Apoptosis, Myogenesis , Senescence, etc.

Yes, it is becoming possible to halt the current stage of the operating program, and initialize a reboot on a cell. This is not a normal condition, and is only the result of tampering with it. A cell tampered with in such a manner may very well grow into another human being. Not a unique one mind you, but merely a copy of an existing one.

Would you argue that the intervention which changes the cells is different qualitatively from the intervention (the environment in a mother's womb) which allows a zygote to multiply? If so how?

It is not different as to the result, but it is certainly different in the manner as to the beginning. For one thing, in order for you to do such a thing, you must start with a cell that was created in the normal manner. (Fusion between two cells from members of the opposite sex.)

If not, and you set the benchmark for human rights at potential humanity,

It isn't "potential humanity" it is in fact human, albeit in an underdeveloped stage.

how can you not see as murder the denial of adult stem cells the environment necessary to sustain their development.

Were you to argue that the transforming of adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells was the result of a natural and ongoing process rather than that of external tampering, the lack of which would not cause such a result, you might have a point. But you cannot assert equality between the two when you are forcing the natural development to bend to your will. The external "tampering scientist" is the condition required to make them equal, and as such a thing does not occur in nature, there should be no contemplation of equivalence if it requires the invoking of a such a biological engineer.

The question being contemplated here is at what stage of human development is it appropriate to grant the protection of our laws? This topic was initiated by the opinions of some that even born children should be within the rights of the parents to terminate.

It is my observation that despite all the attempts at false equivalency, I have yet to see a better line for differentiating protection from non-protection other than the one I have pointed out; The point at which individuality occurs. Fusion.

Even your cloning process does not create a new and unique DNA. It simply copies an already existing one.

If you object to the adult/embryonic cell intervention, how about embryonic cells for the placenta? How is it Ok to deny them the human right to a sustaining environment?

Why do relatively intelligent people come up with stuff like this? The cells of the placenta are at the correct stage of their program according to their purpose. Yes, if you unnaturally tamper with them, you can force them to either differentiate into something else, or reboot from the beginning, but again, this is an exception caused by tampering, and is not a normal course of their existence.

Why should we regard the occasional meddling of scientists as defining the standards by which we measure the usual and normal creation/growth of human life?

The fundamentalist "zygotes are people" argument is really not easy to support, because of course zygotes are not people.

Fine, then you can show us the point of quantum transformation where they cease being the one thing and start being the other. At what point does this occur?

Further, if zygotes are people then coil contraception is murder.

It is the intentional killing of a unique human DNA shortly after it's creation.

As our knowledge of molecular biology increases we will in the end be able to create artificially all the mechanics of a human cell. In which case this + DNA means artificailly created zygotes. Do these collections of proteins and amino acids suddenly become people? If so at which stage in their creation do they assume personhood and human rights?

Exactly the question I am trying to get you to answer! As I see an unbroken continuum subsequent their creation, it is contingent upon you to define some characteristic between Fusion and Death as the appropriate boundary for legal protection.

Are you just going to guess, or do you have a scientific means of deciding this question?

This reductio ad absurdum shows that absolute people/not people divide will in the end never be consistent. So we are left with according "human rights" to other entities in some (not easily defined) graduated way.

Oh, it's easy to define. Some people simply don't like the obvious and scientific answer, preferring instead to base their opinions on what is convenient and self indulgent to their existing predisposition.

Personally I don't see that a non-sentient lump of 16 identical cells that could in a womb develop into a human is much more worth rights than an ovum which could given a sperm and womb also so develop.

One would think someone as intelligent as yourself could understand the obvious difference. Ovum and sperm in proximity to each other represent the early stage of probability as shown by this graph. It is only when they have fused that the probability spikes to infinity.





It is not just a function of mechanics, (biochemistry) but of probability as well.

[Diogenes]

I agree that zygote formation is the only clear point for the formation of souls.

It is the only clear point for defining the existence of a new and unique human life.

Anyway, we are near to being able to create artificial zygotes from non-zygotic material. If so, at what point in the creation process precisely do things so dramatically change?

Should we ever achieve such a thing, will the owner of the patent be the legal master of his progeny?

Reminds me of "Blade runner."

In natural zygotes the same question can be asked. At what point in cell fusion does the change occur? Do we wait for DNA recombination? If not, the eventual DNA template is still subject to chaos. if so, does interfering with the recombination process in the middle (via some drug) constitute murder? Or not?
Best wishes, Tom

Humans like binary answers, yet in nature the transition between one thing and another is a process requiring time. Most people regard a very short time scale as the equivalent of instantaneous, even when this is not true.

A Nuclear explosion may look instantaneous to us, but it is not. It is a sequence of events which occur in picoseconds, so it is in fact, a graph of a function.

I would suggest that it is a necessary part of human nature which creates new humans, and once having initiated the process, it is the tampering or interfering with it which is wrong. If tampering is acceptable, then Eugenics is likewise justified.

[Diogenes]

Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R07gcUhK ... e=youtu.be

Maybe/or not this isn't the right topic area place to post this...I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway but interesting however.

It sort of defines humanity as intrinsically vicious. Ghandi was presumably non-human. I've always wondered if gun lobby supporters have an innately low opinion of themselves. I'm not of course arguing they are wrong...

In this country, support for the right to keep and bear arms is on the upswing. Guns are the great equalizer between peoples of disparate physical strength and ability. They are the means by which the weak may prevent the strong from imposing their will. They are the means by which the peace is kept.

I mean, you would not say the right have artificial killing aids strapped on was the bovine right of a bull. Would you? And most people can no more make guns than bulls can make armoured spikes...

Or flying machines. A bull has it's horns. Mankind has it's minds.

[Diogenes]

Viciousness is as good as inevitable. A growing pain. But whether or not you (general you) agree with such a definition, the statistical history is pretty hard to ignore. IOW if you want to do more than peacefully get killed, para bellum.

Amen.

Sufficient preparations act as a deterrent, thereby preventing conflict. The most successful way to insure peace is to make it clear to potential opponents that peace is better than the alternative.

[tomclarke]

In this country, support for the right to keep and bear arms is on the upswing. Guns are the great equalizer between peoples of disparate physical strength and ability. They are the means by which the weak may prevent the strong from imposing their will. They are the means by which the peace is kept.

I had not thought of this one. I don't think it is equalisation, so much as a personal version of MAD. The stakes are raised to a level at which it is hoped fewer people will participate.

Now I'm still not sure this is true. For example, in the UK husbands generally do not beat wives up, even though they usually have the physical capacity to do so, and there are no guns. Sometimes they do, and if the wives complain they can be stopped, but alas many people do not complain.

If your idea is true then in the US then minor personal physical violence will be lower than the UK, which sort of balances out the fact that violent death rates (due to gun crime) are much higher.

Do you think that oppressive spouses are inhibited from being abusive by the existence of guns? What if the oppressor is a much quicker and better shot than the appressed. Given that men more often physically oppress women then vice versa, I would guess this might be true?

I'm still trying to work this one out. Is there any science to back this idea?

Here is an essay. Well argued I thought.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

It does not quite answer your point about fairness. Suppose that without guns the strong can kill the weak, although this happens rarely. With guns, you might argue, deaths are overall easier but this is a good thing because it is fairer?

I would not agree. In any case we have replaced physically strong by able to use handguns efficiently. Both capabilities improve with practice.

Where I would agree is that in a country where the norm is to go out killing your neighbours, handguns have the possibly desirable effect of equalising things between different physical types. Against the undesirable effect that they make it much easier for anyone to be killed.

[tomclarke]

Viciousness is as good as inevitable. A growing pain. But whether or not you (general you) agree with such a definition, the statistical history is pretty hard to ignore. IOW if you want to do more than peacefully get killed, para bellum.

Amen.

Sufficient preparations act as a deterrent, thereby preventing conflict. The most successful way to insure peace is to make it clear to potential opponents that peace is better than the alternative.

This argument contains a logical flaw. it assumes most violence is rational. If on the other hand most violence is irrational, done by people who momentarily (or perhaps psychopathically) have lost control, a cold consideration of likely outcomes will not act as a deterrant, whereas making extreme violence easier will increase the incidence of violence.

So it is down to careful analysis of data.

[tomclarke]

I would suggest that it is a necessary part of human nature which creates new humans, and once having initiated the process, it is the tampering or interfering with it which is wrong. If tampering is acceptable, then Eugenics is likewise justified.

I always find arguments around eugenics difficult. It is, historically and for obvious reasons, repugnant.

However, suppose a couple have a medical disorder which means they are 75% likely to have a Down's Syndrome child. That would not put everyone of, but would you blame them from choosing not to have children? If they are RC the contraception method could be natural.

Anyway just because eugenics can be implemented through tampering, as you call it, and is objectionable, it does not logically imply that all tampering is necessarily objectionable.

[williatw]

This argument contains a logical flaw. it assumes most violence is rational. If on the other hand most violence is irrational, done by people who momentarily (or perhaps psychopathically) have lost control, a cold consideration of likely outcomes will not act as a deterrant, whereas making extreme violence easier will increase the incidence of violence.
So it is down to careful analysis of data.

In the United States 70% of violent crime including homicide is gang/criminal related probably connected with the drug trade. It is not the "impulsive" behavior of a madman but the deliberate behavior of criminals. Likewise the gov violence against their own citizens.

[tomclarke]

This argument contains a logical flaw. it assumes most violence is rational. If on the other hand most violence is irrational, done by people who momentarily (or perhaps psychopathically) have lost control, a cold consideration of likely outcomes will not act as a deterrant, whereas making extreme violence easier will increase the incidence of violence.
So it is down to careful analysis of data.

In the United States 70% of violent crime including homicide is gang/criminal related probably connected with the drug trade. It is not the "impulsive" behavior of a madman but the deliberate behavior of criminals. Likewise the gov violence against their own citizens.

OK, I'll give you for sake of argument that lawless gangs perhaps may be better off with guns (though I still doubt it - guns make killing without detection much easier, surely). If it is anything like UK the vast majority of gang violence is contained within the gang subculture, so the risk to non-gang people is much much lower.

As for gov violence against citizens is this high in the states? It is very very low in UK, but then we have strict gun controls even for police...

Are you claiming that police without guns more less likley to kill or hurt people than police with guns?

[tomclarke]

This argument contains a logical flaw. it assumes most violence is rational. If on the other hand most violence is irrational, done by people who momentarily (or perhaps psychopathically) have lost control, a cold consideration of likely outcomes will not act as a deterrant, whereas making extreme violence easier will increase the incidence of violence.
So it is down to careful analysis of data.

In the United States 70% of violent crime including homicide is gang/criminal related probably connected with the drug trade. It is not the "impulsive" behavior of a madman but the deliberate behavior of criminals. Likewise the gov violence against their own citizens.

BTW - most violent criminal behaviour is impulsive. One of the strongest personality correlates with criminality is exactly impulsiveness. Pretty obvious really, it is not long term a good life being a criminal.
e.g.
James, M. & Seager, J. A. (2006). Impulsivity and schemas for a hostile world:
Postdictors of violent behaviour. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 47-56.

[williatw]

As for gov violence against citizens is this high in the states? It is very very low in UK, but then we have strict gun controls even for police...
Are you claiming that police without guns more less likley to kill or hurt people than police with guns?

Generally armed violence against citizens by gov is low in the US by world standards I would say. Strict gun controls for police work only if you assume that the higher ups don't want the police to hurt citizens, maybe true in the UK, not true if you are a dictator. In Egypt during the "arab spring" uprising the police started shooting the demonstrators, only stopping a bloodbath when the military told the police to stop. Usually in an oppressive state, the police/military are on the same page when it comes to shooting the citizenry. Where the people are disarmed they have no ultimate protection against the naked power of the state, rules in theory or not.

[tomclarke]

As for gov violence against citizens is this high in the states? It is very very low in UK, but then we have strict gun controls even for police...
Are you claiming that police without guns more less likley to kill or hurt people than police with guns?

Generally armed violence against citizens by gov is low in the US by world standards I would say. Strict gun controls for police work only if you assume that the higher ups don't want the police to hurt citizens, maybe true in the UK, not true if you are a dictator. In Egypt during the "arab spring" uprising the police started shooting the demonstrators, only stopping a bloodbath when the military told the police to stop. Usually in an oppressive state, the police/military are on the same page when it comes to shooting the citizenry. Where the people are disarmed they have no ultimate protection against the naked power of the state, rules in theory or not.

Ghandi did pretty well in India.

I think this argument is a bit theoretical. Are you saying that if every Libyan had a handgun Ghaddaffi would not have been able to rule? I doubt that. Handguns don't work against tanks.

In the UK anyone in the police who wanted to kill citizens (even criminals) would be quickly removed. The only allowance is where it is genuinely thought killing is the only way to prevent immediate harm to self or others others.