It is their presence, not their absence, that breeds their corruption and incompetence. The arbitrary rule of competing gangs and never-ending wars are fixtures of government rule and statism.

So long as you know your condition is that of a willing slave it is fine with me.

Statists love their made up scenarios and hypotheticals. The irony, though, is that your cartel government acts just like your enlightened one, with slight variation. At least with collaborative defense and other avenues of voluntary cooperation you don’t need to be exploited in order to keep their racket going.

The absence of unjust forms of government won't prevent forms of unjust governance from emerging out of the relationships between individuals. Some gangs thrive on being embedded within a population where they can avoid scrutiny and terrorize individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions as a long as there's no government acting on behalf of the common good. Perhaps that's why all modern countries are ruled by forms of governments, and why anarchy has remained a half-baked idea for adolescents who don't like being told what to do.

There are plenty of gangs in modern countries, terrorizing individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions, all while there are governments “acting on behalf of the common good”. So perhaps that isn’t why modern countries are ruled by forms of government, or at least they’re not doing a good job at it.

2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.

This is a common political superstition. It doesn’t make sense that we have to create a governing body so as to establish and confer rights upon ourselves. What you are really proposing is that you want to give a minority the right to create rights while refusing to keep that right for everyone else.

The state has been conceived as a person for quite some time, for example in Hobbes, but at least as far back as Ancient Rome.

Thanks for the insight, and I think you’re right. The idea that we are animals, and not angels or something, proves to be a good foundation upon which to reach further metaphysical and ethical insights that might not only prove to be beneficial, but accurate. At any rate it leaves the idealistic and dualistic theories wanting.

As far as I can tell the debate around personhood currently evolves around the conditions of our identity through time, the psychological or physical “continuity”. Animalism suggests the latter. If this is so it appears to me, at least, that the only thing that does persist is the animal, and personhood ought to be granted to it rather than its psychological conditions.

If we are human animals, and human animals are persons, we ought to extend personal identity to the limits of the human animal’s life instead of limiting its application to the fleeting moments of psychological awareness or memory. Without doing so it is impossible to say whether a person is born or a person dies, and persons that are never born or never die is inconceivable. While it can be said that human animals are born and do die, unless personhood is extended to these limits, the same cannot be said of persons.

What timeline is this? Perhaps I should have voted…

As I noted in my response to Ludwig V, that's a matter of values and not of fact, which is fine as long as we recognize it.

What would the fact be, then?

The things of this world. What else is there?

I think those who deny it want to believe that there is a human spirit or soul or essence which is not of this world. It seems to me something like that would be the real motivation to deny that we are animals.

This is it. I also wager this motivation is the beginning of all such theories that are platonic or idealistic. It satisfies some impulse to raise man above everything else, simply because he cannot find value in man if he does otherwise.

It’s fine to quibble about that but according Olson and animalism in general it is statement about our fundamental nature.

But I do find it extraordinary that we are the last extant species of human beings.

Thanks, I assumed people would read the paper, but will try to add more.

So if the intention of the argument is to prove that humans are animals, then that premise begs the question, as it already assumes that the human is an animal.

That’s not the intention. The intention is to prove that you are a human animal.

It calls that which is sitting in the chair a 'human animal', which is begging the fact that a human is an animal. That it is you or somebody else seems irrelevant. It isn't talking about the cat also sitting in that chair.

Souls aren’t human animals, brains aren’t human animals, consciousness isn’t a human animal, minds aren’t human animals, are they? It’s not a question whether humans are animals, but whether you are a human animal.

And I said, the argument begs the question.

I know what you wrote but I’m afraid it doesn’t beg the question. Nowhere in the first premise does it say you’re the human animal sitting in your chair.

I said, if the aim of the argument is to prove that humans are animals, then P1 already says it, so it begs the question. Begging the question is 'assuming what an argument sets out to prove'.

The aim is to prove that you are an animal, not that there is an animal sitting in your chair. I’m just curious if you disagree with any of those premises.

I don't know what that means. Give an example of something nonhuman that is numerically identical to an animal, and then something nonhuman that isn't.

A cat is numerically identical to an animal. A bottle isn’t.

I agree that the argument posted makes no sense to me and seems to beg exactly as you describe. I don't see an argument at all outside of this.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Which premise do you disagree with?

Some love being lied to, for whatever reason. Those who tasked themselves with informing Americans are pretending Trump said Cheney should be in front of a firing squad.

Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle

Did he say she should be fired upon? Of course not. But Headline-readers have fallen for it, of course.

Swimming with neocons in anti-Trumpistan. You’re in good company!

It looks like the Whitehouse may have violated the law in order to save face.

White House altered record of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two U.S. government officials and an internal email obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

Trying to rewrite history and dupe posterity is the end result of their brand of political correctness, so it is no surprise.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-garbage-transcript-puerto-rico-trump-326e2f516a94a470a423011a946b6252

Allow her? I don't know why you're suggesting that I'm allowed to tell women what to do.

Ok, in the future men can get pregnant. You have the choice between two single-celled organisms, a human and a fly? Which one do you choose to carry to term, nurse, and care for into early adulthood?

I wouldn't choose, it's got nothing to do with me.

You’d allow her to attempt to carry a fly to term?

If a woman you knew wanted implant one of those single-celled organisms into her womb so as to incubate it, which one would you choose?

Humans are of the same moral worth as flies, ie. worthless. I mean, what can I say to that?

So what about a species determines whether or not it is wrong to kill its innocent members?

Are you trying to get around to saying all single-cells organisms are of the same moral worth?

So you are saying that it is only wrong kill an organism if that organism is the same species as us? Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong to kill an innocent intelligent alien? Are you saying that it wouldn't be wrong for an intelligent alien to kill an innocent human?

It all depends on the species. Is the alien one that inserts eggs into the human abdomen, so that they rip out the chest as soon as they are old enough? Flies too can lay eggs in humans. So I kill them.

Why does it matter what the single-celled organism develops into? Why is it acceptable to kill a single-celled organism that develops into an adult fly but not acceptable to kill a single-celled organism that develops into an adult human?

It’s not the same species as us. Why do you think humans are as morally relevant as flies?

Trump capitalizes on Biden calling his supporters garbage.

Yes, indeed. Watching them debase themselves beneath his mere presence is a persistent joy, but their behavior indicates the beginnings of a reactionary movement the likes of which we have never seen. Hurt and wounded, but always confident, Anti-Trumpism will not give up power so easily.

We can, and do, kill non-human organisms, including single-celled organisms. You admit to killing flies. Is any of this wrong? If not, why are single-celled humans special? Physically they only differ from non-humans in their DNA and the manner in which they are created. So why is their DNA and manner of creation morally relevant?

It’s the only single-celled organism that develops into children and adult human beings. You were one, for instance. Are human beings morally irrelevant?

Note: a joke about Puerto Rico’s massive garbage problem is racist because now every anti-Trumpist can’t help but associate its people with trash.

That's not true of every single-celled organism because do not abort other single-celled organisms.

And why is that morally relevant?

That's who you're killing. That's the victim. How is it morally irrelevant?

You don’t believe in essentialism, yet insist that it is essentially just a single-celled organism, no different than any other single-celled organisms.

But this single-celled organism came about different than other single-cells organisms. The act and the beings who created it also make it human. Its creation, its development, its biology, its surroundings, and yes its DNA, make it a certain kind of single-celled organism.

All humans go through that phase in their development and are born of human parents. Is it not human? because you are forever trying to dismiss that term.

One can act on his principles and experiences. I don’t kill flies because they are flies but because I am at eternal war with them.

The abortion itself isn’t dehumanizing. Dehumanizing someone isn’t the act of killing, but of considering someone inhuman so as to make killing them easier. It’s a psychological and linguistic process. You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible, question his humanity, so the homicide leaves a softer mark on the conscience. It’s why you cannot say what other species of life you are killing, despite questioning that he is human.

I’m completely against prohibition or forced births, and always was. But fairly recent advances in embryology and genetics makes it clear we’re ending an innocent human life. “Personhood” isn’t a coherent ground to stand on either, and the notion comes off as more superstitious than the transmigration of souls. So personally I cannot be dismissive of the victim and pretend abortion is some moral good to be celebrated.

My argument is that it is wrong to kill one’s offspring. My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it.