Defining Human - pt? (they're all the same ;-)

Arjen Kamphuis (
Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:14:10 +0100 (CET)

At 19:36 9-03-98 -0500 Reilly Jones <> wrote:
>JC: <The same person who told you that abortion must be outlawed. The same
>person who told you that a baby born without a brain and doomed to die
>before his second birthday, or a adult in a deep coma for 20 years has more
>rights than a happy healthy chimpanzee.>
>But, who is that? I don't get it.

No you don't, and I don't think you ever will. It is fundamentally beyond
you. How sad.

>You may try to ghettoize us, as you suggested,

Don't flatter yourself, I have better things to do.

>but we won't make it easy for you.

You are already making it easy, I don't have to do anything.
Things don't get easier than that.

>you will never counter John Clark's
>much more coherent case that he made for the commercial usage of conscious
>beings being positively good, to be sought for. You have no basis to fight
>him, opinion or feeling does not stand up against certainty based on a
>coherent worldview (even though that worldview is entirely based on false
>metaphysical presuppositions of total digital existence). John and his
>fellow travelers will prevail against you unless you can argue your opinion
>sensibly and tie it to a coherent worldview based on true presuppositions.

You have just explained why the majority of people will never come around
to your viewpoint. Thanks.

As to the 'countering' of John Clark, from what I've read he seems a
resonable and fun-2-be-with fellow. We certainly have some disagreements
but we'll sit down, have a drink and work it out in much the same way Max,
myself and others solved a difference of opinion some time ago. Though
mutually respectful and open discussion.

(BTW, I wouldn't pick a fight with John Clark, I suspect he could
build a H-bomb from an old vacuumcleaner ;-)

It must be really nice to be able to objectively distuinguish what a
coherent worldview is.

>When you say "one is human after conception because 'something' happens
>then even though they don't know what that something is," you are
>misrepresenting my position. Conception initiates the development of a

No it doesn't. You just state that it does. And your entire argument
continues to be based upon it. This is what makes it so weak.

>I am trying to figure out how to keep millions of unborn children
>(developing selves) from being coerced to death each year. I don't know
>them and they are living thousands of miles away, is this a very Extropian
>thing to do?

Not untill you and me agree that they _are_ children, and we have reached
no such agreement. Read the last sentence again. Is it reaching you?

Welcome to the 20th century, where reality is merely today's 'agreed-upon'
model and no longer ordained by God or one of his followers wearing a
pointy hat.


Say John, should I bring Heineken or a good Scotch? (Don't answer that,
I'll bring both ;-)

_/ ____ _/
_/ (____) _/
_/ _/
_/ (__) _/
_/ (oo) _/
_/ /-------\/ _/
_/ / | || _/
_/ * ||----|| _/
_/ ~~ ~~ _/
_/ _/
_/ Holy cows make the best hamburgers _/
_/ _/