27 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe[/b]Well, a Chinese man help draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all UN members signed it.
[b]Palynka: "The fact is, many Far Eastern cultures have embraced them ... "
Can you give the names of those "many Far Eastern cultures" ? .... or a link which supports your claim ?
By the way, the Jewish Christian tradition also is an Eastern tradition. It originated in the Middle East, namely in what is now called Israel/Palestine.
Palynka: ally acceptable.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm
... or euthanasia ....
It believe it is up to you to support your claims, if you wish to claim these are hypocritical signatures in general. And I said Far Eastern, which obviously excludes the Middle East.
As for their capability of living among us without respecting Human Rights, what Human Rights would they not need to respect then?
And that declaration is too vague since it is unclear as to who/what can be considered a child. I certainly don't consider a foetus a child.
28 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaPalynka: "And that declaration is too vague since it is unclear as to who/what can be considered a child."
Well, a Chinese man help draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all UN members signed it.
It believe it is up to you to support your claims, if you wish to claim these are hypocritical signatures in general. And I said Far Eastern, which obviously excludes the Middle East.
As for their capability of living among us without respecting H ...[text shortened]... unclear as to who/what can be considered a child. I certainly don't consider a foetus a child.[/b]
If it is unclear to you as to what is a child, then it must be even more difficult for you to establish whether Neanderthals are human beings.
Palynka: " I certainly don't consider a foetus a child."
Then there should be nothing wrong with people who don't consider Neanderthals humans.
Let's reason in case of the Neanderthals in exactly the same way we reason in case we want to get rid of unborn children: We'll kill them if we do not want them.
I bet the Neanderthals will agree with such reasoning, ..... the reasoning in the case of the unborn children ..... of course.
.
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you don't want to read my post honestly, then I won't try to convince you to do it.
[b]Palynka: "And that declaration is too vague since it is unclear as to who/what can be considered a child."
If it is unclear to you as to what is a child, then it must be even more difficult for you to establish whether Neanderthals are human beings.
Palynka: " I certainly don't consider a foetus a child."
Then there should be nothin ...[text shortened]... reasoning, ..... the reasoning in the case of the unborn children ..... of course.
.[/b]
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI don't respect what he is trying to do.
maybe royaltystatement should respect athiests beliefs, and maybe everyone here should respect what he is trying to do, even if it doesnt seem right and the fact that hes not going the right way about it.
It's not that it doesn't seem right; it really isn't right.
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor the purposes of these questions, I am working off the (very realistic)
It is up to the scientists to determine whether the Neanderthals were human.
The question of human rights is a bit far fetched I'm afraid, since the issue of human rights was not around when the Neanderthals were and since they now are all extinct the question is mute.
However, if they were human, they would have Human Rights if they would somehow ap ...[text shortened]... our pleasure is rather enigmatic, I must say.
They have souls if they are human. (See above)
scenario that Neanderthals will be cloned and brough back from
extinction.
So, if scientists determine that Neanderthals aren't human, it would
be perfectly ethical to hunt them as we might, say, a gorilla? And, if
scientists deem that Neanderthals are human, they would be afforded
the full bounty of rights that you and I have, which would necessarily
include preventing scientists from cloning them?
Do I understand you correctly Ivanhoe?
Nemesio
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by vistesdWelcome back, Uncle S.
“The Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appear in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago [1], by 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Europe, ...[text shortened]... rth is only about 6,000 years old, in which case Neanderthals would not really have existed...
Are you saying that all members of the Homo genus are necessarily
human? If so, what traits make for such classification?
Nemesio
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure about your criterion here, Palynka. Should a mentally
I'd say it depends if they have any notion of morality and if they are able to communicate it to us.
If not, they should have animal status and be treated like endangered species, possibly finding reserves for them to live separated from humans. It might sound controverse but if we are unable to communicate on any moral base, I fail to see how we could li ...[text shortened]... te and I'm not confortable with these ideas, perhaps I'll rethink about them in the morning.
challenged person (one without any notion of morality and lacking
the ability to communicate it) be treated as an animal?
Of course not.
I'm not so much about having Neanderthals live amongst us (like
walking down the street). But, if they are 'animals' (i.e., not human),
are we morally permitted to hunt them (e.g.).
Nemesio
28 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually, I was hoping for any of our Creation-minded folk to speak
This whole Neanderthal thingy is absurd .... and it is even more absurd to discuss this in a Spirituality forum
up (none have as far as I can tell).
If Creationists assert that the earth is only 6000 years old, and
Neanderthals are a different species from us, are they subject to us
in the same way that (other?) animals are (as per biblical mandate)?
If they are human, then what responsibilities would a Creationist
owe a Neanderthal?
Nemesio
P.S., I would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to my discussions as
absurd. It hurts my feelings and makes me feel less a part of the RHP
Community.
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by NemesioNo, of course not. But they shouldn't have exactly the same rights and responsibilites.
I'm not sure about your criterion here, Palynka. Should a mentally
challenged person (one without any notion of morality and lacking
the ability to communicate it) be treated as an animal?
Of course not.
I'm not so much about having Neanderthals live amongst us (like
walking down the street). But, if they are 'animals' (i.e., not human),
are we morally permitted to hunt them (e.g.).
Nemesio
Mentally challenged people are not considered fit for deciding on many matters, so they are in fact not completely free in the sense other humans are.
As for your last question, I don't see how we are morally permitted to hunt any animals for sport. Humanism is not necessarily Speciesism.