Personhood is a human right.

[Granth]

Granth you are making it way to complicated; your definition of personhood is obvious only to you.

A State is simply an individual entity, a singularity, an Individuality.

personhood, Individual, Individuality, the particular state or condition of a person.

You say it is simple and then say personhood is a particular condition. Calling something a condition without describing everything one can know about that condition does not tell us anything as to how something qualifies to be called a condition. To merely state 'personhood is a condition' is like telling a group of people who know nothing whatsoever about cancer that all they need to know about cancer is that it is called cancer, and by calling cancer 'a condition' tells the group nothing extra.

If one only describes 'personhood' as 'a state' or as 'a condition' and leaves it at that, then it is nothing more than just calling something by a different name. Exchanging 'personhood' for 'condition' says nothing. It only leaves questions like 'what sort of condition?', 'What does the condition do?', 'How does the condition manifest?', 'How does one compare this personhood condition with other conditions so that one knows what is being supposedly talked about?'

If a statement only leaves a vast amount of questions then such a statement is not simplifying anything. The 'simple' statement, because it is left as the whole apparent answer is actually how complications arise. Lack of communication is what makes thing more complex than necessary.

'Personhood is a state or condition' does not communicate anything. It says nothing. "The particular state or condition is a human right", which can equally therefore be the title of this topic, only opens it up to many questions. The title of this topic as it currently is does not say anything. Be prepared to answer or ask questions if you want any reasonable discussion on this.

[Belinda]

I think what Wayne must mean is that every human being is a person. This is a common popular usage of 'person' which omits that some human beings are regarded by other humans as non-persons.

[Granth]

I think what Wayne must mean is that every human being is a person. This is a common popular usage of 'person' which omits that some human beings are regarded by other humans as non-persons.

Non-person is a possibility, I suppose. A fetus maybe?

Earlier I suggested 'personhood' is a political state. I think of 'human rights' as a political definition so maybe my suggestion is reasonable. Don't hold back now.

[Belinda]

Granth wrote:

Non-person is a possibility, I suppose. A fetus maybe?

I felt disheartened and frustrated by an article in the Guardian newspaper about Filipina women who work as domestics for rich middle Eastern families. Often they have their passports taken away, and are subjected to overwork, insufficient food, actual physical cruelty, sexual exploitation, and imprisonment in the employers' houses. Those women are regarded by their employers as non-persons.

Foetuses are sometimes considered to be persons in their own right. Those of us who would permit abortions in certain limited circumstances regard foetuses, not as biological persons, but as part of their mothers at least until they are viable. According to the latter view foetuses cannot be persons because they cannot possibly have independent life.

In modern liberal democracies there are stringent laws that protect all persons against loss of their rights as persons, including disabled people and prisoners including prisoners of war.

[Granth]

Granth wrote:

Non-person is a possibility, I suppose. A fetus maybe?

I felt disheartened and frustrated by an article in the Guardian newspaper about Filipina women who work as domestics for rich s. Often they have their passports taken away, and are subjected to overwork, insufficient food, actual physical cruelty, sexual exploitation, and imprisonment in the employers' houses. Those women are regarded by their employers as non-persons.

Foetuses are sometimes considered to be persons in their own right. Those of us who would permit abortions in certain limited circumstances regard foetuses, not as biological persons, but as part of their mothers at least until they are viable. According to the latter view foetuses cannot be persons because they cannot possibly have independent life.

In modern liberal democracies there are stringent laws that protect all persons against loss of their rights as persons, including disabled people and prisoners including prisoners of war.

The middle Eastern family you describe, I would describe as behaving as non-humans. The same with those who regard disabled people as non-persons.

[Lucylu]

This thread is basically arguing that equality is a Human right. The idea that equality is even possible, let alone a Human right, is absolutely absurd.

I think that what Belinda is speaking of is inclusiveness, not equality. All people are not equal, but they do have equal rights in the eyes of the law and the State, which is preferable to the state of nature. We all contribute as much as possible in relation to our means and all acknowledge that laws are in place to protect all people. Obviously those who are unable to understand these laws, due to their mental state or young age, will be treated differently and sentenced accordingly.

The ideal of human rights is a human creation, but isn't inclusiveness, ie equal civil rights and equal access to services one of the better human ideals? Even if we fall short of this ideal, it is still something to work towards, until these civil equalities filter down in to day to day life, and see people who were previously ostrasized, such as African Americans, disabled people, or gay people, brought in to the mainstream. And look at the improvements in the dignity and quality of life afforded severely mentally and physically disabled people? Instead of being dismissed and locked away in disgusting conditions, they are seen as having just as much right to enjoy life, in their own way, as anyone else. The ideal of a heterosexual, Christian, white male as being the 'perfect human' has changed massively even in the last century and continues to change. I feel society is moving from 'black and white' thinking to a much more 'REAListic' continuum model.

We create laws but then the laws shape society. It seems prudent to create laws which reflect our ideals, as much as practicable.

[Wayne92587]

Belinda very close.

LuckyR.

My use of state or condition was in reference to Granth's post using word State.

I prefer to us the word Individuality to describe personhood, Individuality seting Man free from being bound to herd instinct.

I believe that Individuality is Mankind's salvation.

Read my post # 73

The particular state condition we are talking about is the Human condition.

I never used the word equal; I only refer to animals as being non-human.

I said nothing about whether or not that I think that a fetus is or is not a person.

Any person bound to the herd instinct is a non-person, is not an Individual.

Person in this last sentence not making reference to personhood, is used in a generic sense of the word, I could not have used individual either.

Most men and women are bound to the herd instinct, the Fundamental Male Animal having a perverted, distorted sense of manliness.

The Four-Horsemen of the Apocalypse, are incorrectly define in the Bible, the Four-Horsemen being Man Beasts, non-human, non-persons, are bound to the herd instinct.

Who is the Hero in the Universal Mind, the Good Guy??

The Conquering Hero, the Rider, on the White Horse, wearing a white hat, going about to win, to conquer.

The Four-Horsemen of the Apocalypse represent the four aspects of Man's competitive Spirit born of Machismo, of a Chauvinistic Pig, the non-human Man Beast that is sick in the head, sic,sic,sic.

The Man Beast, the Male chauvinistic pig being bound to the herd, his animal, instinct.

Man's Competitive Nature requiring the Man Beast to fight the battle for the survival of the most fit.

The Man Beast needing to be in control, going about to win, to conquer, to dominate.

[Lucylu]

My use of state or condition was in reference to Granth's post using word State.

I prefer to us the word Individuality to describe personhood, Individuality seting Man free from being bound to herd instinct.

I believe that Individuality is Mankind's salvation.

Read my post # 73

The particular state condition we are talking about is the Human condition.

I never used the word equal; I only refer to animals as being non-human.

I said nothing about whether or not that I think that a fetus is or is not a person.

Any person bound to the herd instinct is a non-person, is not an Individual.

Person in this last sentence not making reference to personhood, is used in a generic sense of the word, I could not have used individual either.

Most men and women are bound to the herd instinct, the Fundamental Male Animal having a perverted, distorted sense of manliness.

Individuality is important but to really think of humans as individuals, dont you think this ignores our interdependence and basic societal instincts? It may feel good to say 'F-you' but is it really moral or even true?

In my view, ironically, the more we liberate and respect others, the more we actually free ourselves. To be selfish is ultimately childish fantasy. For example, to liberate women also puts manhood in a new light, where we can redefine manhood, so men can be more open and vulnerable without fear. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 50 (in the UK) and this, I believe is very changeable, once the idea of manhood changes and men feel more able to talk and admit their faults.

Equal rights and inclusiveness frees us all. This doesn't negate individuality, just incorporates community in to our priorities.

[Granth]

Belinda very close.

LuckyR.

My use of state or condition was in reference to Granth's post using word State.

I prefer to us the word Individuality to describe personhood, Individuality seting Man free from being bound to herd instinct.

I believe that Individuality is Mankind's salvation.

Read my post # 73

The particular state condition we are talking about is the Human condition.

I never used the word equal; I only refer to animals as being non-human.

I said nothing about whether or not that I think that a fetus is or is not a person.

Any person bound to the herd instinct is a non-person, is not an Individual.

Person in this last sentence not making reference to personhood, is used in a generic sense of the word, I could not have used individual either.

Most men and women are bound to the herd instinct, the Fundamental Male Animal having a perverted, distorted sense of manliness.

The Four-Horsemen of the Apocalypse, are incorrectly define in the Bible, the Four-Horsemen being Man Beasts, non-human, non-persons, are bound to the herd instinct.

Who is the Hero in the Universal Mind, the Good Guy??

The Conquering Hero, the Rider, on the White Horse, wearing a white hat, going about to win, to conquer.

The Four-Horsemen of the Apocalypse represent the four aspects of Man's competitive Spirit born of Machismo, of a Chauvinistic Pig, the non-human Man Beast that is sick in the head, sic,sic,sic.

The Man Beast, the Male chauvinistic pig being bound to the herd, his animal, instinct.

Man's Competitive Nature requiring the Man Beast to fight the battle for the survival of the most fit.

The Man Beast needing to be in control, going about to win, to conquer, to dominate.

Practically impossible to distinguish someone following their 'herd instinct' or apparently operating as an 'individual'. In the final analysis, man is an animal. Mammal, to be more precise. Members of the human race are social animals. We follow what may either give us creature comforts or just what entertains and generally attracts us. Just to be sexually attracted to another could be construed as a 'herd' tendency. After all, another human is therefore attractive enough that a certain amount of following happens. If one finds an author who's writings are attractive then I suppose a 'herd' tendency is operating.

[Wayne92587]

Belinda wrote; #71


I think what Wayne must mean is that every human being is a person. This is a common popular usage of 'person' which omits that some human beings are regarded by other humans as non-persons.

Socialist

Belinda, I seems as though you are prone to distorting the the meaning of everything that you read.

"some human beings are regarded by other humans as non-persons."

Belinda, why do look for a reason to be critical of something that I did not say in my post.

No, I mean every wise person, Humane Being, must be an Individual in order to maintain his or her Freedom of mind.

An Individuality not being bound to the herd instinct, the competitive Spirit of the herd animal.

Belinda, the purpose of my post was to belittle the Male "Chauvinistic Pig, the Man Beast."

Mankind although of the animal species, is born naked, bare, meaning that man is born less than a mere animal, is born without specification, meaning that man is Free to do as he will instead of being bound by the herd instinct, which does not mean that the freedom of a person can not be restricted if abusive, does not mean that man can not be a social animal.

Freedom is enhanced by bringing the Chaos to Order.

The wise man knows that some of his freedoms must be curtailed, in order to maintain the Freedom to do as he and she will; some freedom of activities could prevent more important Freedoms, than choosing to run naked in public.

Being born Free from the specification placed upon the herd animal, having Freedom of Mind, man is Free to do as he will; Freedom of mind not mean that if his or her actions are offensive enough his fellow man, that his Freedom to do as he will, can not be curtailed by fellow Humane Beings, that his Freedom could be restricted.

Being born bare, without specification of the herd animal, man became a wise Animal.

In speaking of a person; of course some are not wise; the would be, could be, wise animal, person, for numerous reasons may develop a competitive spirit born of herd instinct.

The basic herd instinct that man was set Free from, that could become offensive, dangerous, the competitive Spirit, which causes, man need be or not, to climb upon his or her white horse and then to ride about conquering in order to win.

Honor killing is an example of the herd instinct; for a Man having machismo; attitudes that they believe to be born of woman are rejected without reason, Compassion.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Male, a Male Chauvinistic Pig, a Man Beast that is Sick in the head, sic,sic,sic, rejects the very Spirit of his own God; Allah being a Compassionate God.

The Lack of Compassion of a competitive spirit is a major contributor to the Mentality, Fundamentally speaking, of the Male Chauvinistic Pig, the Man Beast.

The male chauvinistic pig wrongly believes himself to be superior to, being born to dominate women, born the good guy, morally righteous, is meant to wear the crown, to be a rider upon a white horse going about to conquer, to win.

A Humane Being, the Wise Animal, Personhood, not being born of the competitive specification placed upon herd animal.

The unfounded completive spirit, the mentality that provides the need to fight the battle for the survival of the most, needed or not, out of need, goes looking for a battle where there is none.

The competitive spirit of Macho Man, Machismo, being the most damaging to mankind of the herd instincts.