- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
In the US, conservation is focused heavily on wildlife management. That means managing herd and fish populations through hunting and fishing. It means combating chronic wildfires with controlled burns. It’s a hands on approach to caring for nature that is maintained often by people who cling to their guns and their bibles and hold notions of gardening the planet.
Conservation is an approach that can be contrasted with preservation, which is focused more on keeping the influence of people out of nature and can be more closely associated with the tree hugger than the deer hunter.
No. It’s not good for a President to publicly undermine those tasked with protecting and defending his country for the sake of playing nice with a murderous tyrant. Trump was critical of Obama’s attitude toward police. He should consider such criticism in this context.
I expect Trumps statements stem from his ego being so big that he finds it difficult to accept any implications that his win was anything other than his.
The idea that self concept is requisite for personhood is hardly as unusual as you seem to suggest it is. Multiple definitions of person(hood) define that concept ins terms of the self, and the self is regularly defined as an individual as the object of their own reflective consciousness.
Of all the multiple definitions you suppose there are, I have found few. All current definitions, including legal definitions do not rely on self-awareness as a prerequisite, likely due to it being an unnecessary though common attribute of personhood. What I have found aren’t definitions so much as philosophical discussions on the matter, not unlike your own. Such discussions as I have found do not suppose that a person is self conscious, but rather that a person is capable of self consciousness. This “potential” aspect of such philosophical positions do not lend to the error of finding sleeping persons to not be persons, although human.
This contingency of personhood on self is also evident in various legal and social practices, such as the treatment of brain dead patients, so it's not unheard of in practice either.
U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, § 8 defines states “the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
This legal definition is to clarify that infants have personhood and does not rely on self consciousness. The same section states
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.”
It’s clear that their legal definition could easily be logically extended to unborn humans absent their added emphasis on “born alive” which was necessary enough to add another sub-section.
Other most common definitions from Oxford to Webster define a person as an individual human being. While defining self consciousness into personhood can be done for ones own purposes, as philosophers have in the past, it is commonly not done today. This is likely due to the shortcomings which would arise from such definitions with regards to infants, meditators, athletes, coma victims, actors etc. All of whom have possess personhood which is considered regardless of any decision to end any of their lives.
For a consciousness to find itself in the classification of 'person', it must be self-aware consciousness (i.e. it has self-concept).
This statement does not follow from any of the explanation given immediately preceding it. A consciousnesses need not find itself in the classification of ‘person’ in order for a reasonable person to find them in that classification.
While such a self-conceiving consciousness might ascribe 'person' to a non-self-conceiving entity, it is unclear why it would do so.
It is not so unclear. A reasonable person, observing an overwhelming abundance of common features among persons, will not discount the personhood of another for lacking one while retaining all others. Especially when the missing attribute in question was once lacking in all persons and will, from time to time, be lacking again. Indeed, life itself is not necessary for most to grant the dignity of personhood.
Even were this to occur however, this ascription is projected onto another entity without actually being an attribute of that identity.
You contradict yourself. “’Person' is a purely abstract conception which we project onto an observed, material reality; there is no objectively extant 'person’...The concept of 'person' exists to call out a collection of entities based on some real or supposed mutual attribute(s).
Arguing that self consciousness is actually an attribute of personhood and that therefore personhood is not an attribute of a particular human is like arguing for the objectively correct interpretation of any other string of sounds to which we ascribe meaning. What is actually the case, however, is that all current definitions of person neglect self consciousness as a necessary component. Furthermore, it has never been a necessary component save for within the interpretations of a few philosophers for the purposes of their own philosophies. As language is a social construct, common social use recorded by commonly accepted sources must hold primacy over any narrow or arcane interpretation unless such interpretations are used specifically for narrow or arcane purposes, such as ones own philosophy. The purpose of a popular debate website cannot be narrow or arcane, unless ones own philosophy is hoped to be compelling enough to change minds. Due in part to the states limitations of requiring self consciousness into the definition of person, your position is not compelling and popular definitions are maintained.
Only an self-ascription is a sound one; all else is projection which fails to adhere in the object.
This is no more true in most other cases than it is in this case. A thing need not ascribe attributes to itself in order for those attributes to actually be present. But that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s about the definition of ‘person’, whether a person can self-ascribe that definition or not. Your claim that a person must self ascribe personhood presupposes the legitimacy of your own personal definition, which I have shown is not commonly used.
I return your question to you, then, why is it the case that a sleeping human is a person?
Because everyone but you thinks so. Even if the thought never occurs consciously, everyone, including yourself, acts as though it is so. This fact is likely the reason current standard definitions support my position, as they record and standardize current products of our socially constructed language.
By definition the mind is self-reflective consciousness
No it isn’t. The definition of mind is:
the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons Keep your mind active as you grow older.
Or: the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism.
Or: the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.
Natural selection motivates a protective instinct towards the unborn and offspring, but has always been conditioned by the practical consequences of attempting to have and raise offspring which the parents cannot support while still ensuring their own survival to reproduce later.
This is true. It’s also unrelated to the personhood of infants and the unborn. The personhood of another does not preclude lethal action.
Evolution is the very reason that abortion is and always has been a social practice among humans, so appealing there won't work.
The killing of infants for the well being of the tribe is not new (abortion relatively is). But again, necessary infanticide is not an indication of the infants personhood, how the tribe and parents feel about it is.
The most common reason people are actually opposed to abortion is religious, owing to narratives which assert the sanctity of life.
Sure, but the moral intuition for the sanctity of human life predates religions, which merely seek to articulate and justify moral frameworks of the time.
These narratives are motivated by many variables all of which have very little to do either with a serious consideration of self/personhood or reproduction itself
I quite disagree. Such moral and philosophical considerations underly much of the religious narrative in many cultures.
It is not necessary to regard a sleeping human as a person in order to confer protection on them, but it is necessary to do so with other self-conscious humans (including small children) if we wish to identify ourselves as persons too.
Then it is necessary to regard a sleeping human as a person if we wish to be identified as persons while asleep. Indeed, everyone but you regards the sleeping as persons. Act against a sleeping person and see who the legal system agrees with.
Any reference to any one other person who denies personhood to the sleeping will damage this point. But the larger point concerning definitions will hold. Nonetheless, I challenge you to a reference.
It is also conceivable that one could hold false beliefs about what a person is, and operate upon them. So the mere act of regarding any entity as a person does not necessarily entail that they are one.
‘Gay’ used to mean happy. Now, most people use this word to denote homo-sexuality. If the vast majority of people use a word incorrectly, but in the same manner, then their use ceases to be incorrect. ‘Gay’ rarely means happy.
What your explanation does not do is get behind these beliefs and assess their validity.
Personhood has become a moral (hence legal) term. Maintaining the position that self consciousness is a requisite for personhood merely serves to maintain consistency with your overarching philosophy of nihilism, which we have debated elsewhere and will not agree on. Maintaining your definition in the service of your philosophy is fine, but it is not definitionally more correct than commonly held definitions. Due to the social nature of the construction of language, your definition is necessarily less correct.
Your response presupposes you answered the question. Since when is self concept a requisite for personhood? My response will presuppose that it isn’t.
The difference between an unborn non-person and the sleeping non-person, is that our self-concept cannot find a self-motivated stake in protecting the unborn.
First, sleeping people are people.
Second, self concepts aren’t motivated. They don’t find motivation. Self concept is a product of mind. It is the mind that finds motivations, including motivations to protect the unborn.
None of us is ever going to become unborn again, but we generally do wake up.
Just as the sleeping tend to wake up, the unborn tend not to stay that way.
This creates a self-motivated impetus to disfavor permissivism towards harming/killing the sleeping non-person as the self desires security to be reconstituted when the body awakens.
It is the fact that we were all once unborn, coupled with natural drive to continue the species which causes the recognition of personhood, by many, in the unborn. This recognition manifests as disfavor for permissivism toward harming/killing unborn people. Reciprocal threat of harm is not necessary for this disfavor to persist as it is much the same with very young people, regardless of their state of wakefulness.
The practice of protecting a sleeping non-person is still very much contingent upon self concept and its connection to personhood in this case, but in a way that cannot apply to the unborn.
We refrain from harming sleeping people for much the same reasons that we refrain from harming awakened people. Not only because we will eventually sleep and awaken again and wish ourselves protected, but because conferring personhood onto another carries with it a moral duty granting a level of respect and dignity. We grant this to small children even though they are not able to reciprocate restraint from harm.
Ones Self concept is not, and never has been a requisite for their personhood
Those duck boats are extreme examples and cannot be used to indicate a broader duck boat problem. That being said, it is appropriate to be wary of any potentially extreme boating situation, not only with duck boats, even if duck boats tend to be the primary cause of extreme boating situations today. It would be a step too far to call for a ban on duck boats. But perhaps there should be a boycott against specific brands of duck boats that produce a disproportionate number of extreme duck boating situations.
Remember when ArnoDorian asked you if you where right or left and you said something about labels or whatever and dismissed the question?
I don’t, but you’re free to quote and link.
I may have denied being a conservative, because I am not one. I know I’ve discussed the shortcomings of the left/right spectrum. But in such a dichotomous spectrum where I could never be considered “left”, I have not denied being “right”.
just because the "liberal" media in America which is run by corporations and special interests and the state is full of shit, doesn't mean leftist philosophy in general is full of shit.
That’s true. Leftist philosophy is bullshit whether the media agrees with it or not.
Meaning that if I just change my example from speeding to parking tickets, the NRVC argument fails
Except that zero tolerance parking tickets means a meter maid who tickets every infraction. Every meter maid I’ve ever seen is a zero tolerance meter maid.
Yes, the officer often has the discretion of cite and release - though it is generally discouraged.
You are correct. The fact that it is generally discouraged is a matter of policy, not law. Thus, the cop legally has discretion. Just like he legally can use his discretion to ignore a lot that he would ultimately loose his job for. For a traffic cite? Probably not. But for a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine? Eventually.
I think ankle-bracelets would be a better idea for most cases.
It’s possible that it’s a better option. But it’s also possible that it would only cost more money and cost the person takes it off a charge much worse than failure to appear.
Easier than fighting a case for asylum.
Yes, a traffic ticket bond maybe easier than bonding out of an illegal border crossing charge. That’s because it’s a greater charge. It’s also because pretty much everyone gets held in jail if they have no permanent or known address.
Can you call a bail-bonds person?
They often require cash, just less of it. They may also be unwilling to take the risk on a person who has an unenforceable ticket, should I decide to leave.
Many tried to do exactly that and were deliberately blocked
Maybe. According to one eye witness reporter who has no camera.
Bad policy changes can be fixed with policy changes.
Any policy that does not include disregarding legislation results either in massive protests or in lawsuits.
”According to ICE, overall program compliance for all five regions is an average of 99 percent for ICE check-ins and appointments, as well as 100 percent attendance at court hearings. Since the inception of FCMP, 23 out of 954 participants (2 percent) were reported as absconders."
Does ending successful programs help?
Your Vox article says they started these measures in 2013. I would be curious to know how much the program was utilized given that in 2014, during the last border crisis, the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the panel that his department estimates that 46 percent of children currently fail to show up for their date in court. He said that any other estimates were incorrect. The same office estimated the total percent to be between 20% and 40% who fail to show. But if we have 99% compliance, then I don’t even know what the problem is. Immigration is solved.
The one that allows the currently separated children to be detained indefinitely?
Children either had to be kept with their parents or separated from them. But that was before 99% of all illegal immigrants decided to comply with our court system on arrival.
The one that hasn't even been heard in committee, much less been given a vote?
Politicians do not like narrowly focused bills. But it doesn’t matter. We don’t need either a legislative or a policy solution since basically everyone who comes here from anywhere is in compliance with court once they illegally get here.