When is a "human" NOT a human?

self | June 28,2003 | self

[Imagine]

When is a “human” NOT a human?

Today we are now beset by legions of special interest groups claiming that they are something other than they were born. Be it, for example, people claiming they are: a) woman hiding inside a man’s body or; b) men hiding inside a woman’s body in direct contradiction to what their biology otherwise states. They demand we must treat them as they wish – based on both their actions and their view of themselves as being something other than they were born.

We also destroy dogs when they cease being members of the family and attack children – because they no longer act in an acceptable manner but rather like animals.

[Imagine]

So the question I ask is “when is a human NOT a human”?

Consider the “humans” who bomb busses carrying children and women, or who hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, all intending to kill as many innocent people as possible. These acts are not only inhumane, but they are animalistic. If we are expected to treat people as they “act” and “feel,” then why should we treat these savages as humans?

So now we hear the cries of Amnesty International claiming that the human rights of the Aa-Qaeda captured in the small African country of Malawi and turned over to America have been violated. AI (Amnesty International) (also perhaps = Artificial Intelligence) is also concerned about the antipathy they see of Americans towards muslims – or more specifically of the growing American view as to what is acceptable in our various responses to muslims and the savage acts they advocate. Of course, we dismiss the human rights we would ordinarily confer to members of the human race when thinking of muslim terrorists. Well, perhaps Americans don’t consider muslims worthy of being considered “human.” Thoughts?

[Paleo Conservative]

AI (Amnesty International) (also perhaps = Artificial Intelligence)

In the livestock industry AI could also be artificial insemination. Some of the low level terrorist types seem to have bovine levels of intelligence.

[Imagine]

Yes, that fits -- artifically inseminated leaves a lot to the imagination...

[ffusco]

What do Terrorists and people who think they were born the "wrong gender" have in common?

[Imagine]

The point: If we are asked to define people by how they wish and how they act, then why should we consider the muslim terrorists "human" and be concerned about their human rights when they act like savages? If actions define what you are, they why worry about how we eradicate these savages? They act like animals, so, they should be treated like animals.

[ffusco]

I understand that terrorists have broken all social contracts with civilized society based on their actions, but what does that have to to with pre-op transgendered people? Do I undrestand that your parallel argument applies to them, and they have become not human based on their behavior?

[Imagine]

Yes to this: "...and they have become not human based on their behavior?"

[ffusco]

Pre-op transgendred persons are human. Are you saying they need to be destroyed?

[Imagine]

Fusco -- don't be absurd. You're just trying to play silly little mind games -- it won't work. Perhaps you should be on a different chat page?

[ffusco]

I'm not playing games. It is absurd. I am still not clear why you openned your argument about terrorists with Tran gendered folks.

I am not familiar with your posts or POV, but if you don't care to explain, no problem.

[Imagine]

The point is irony. I admit a disparit irony. The point is this -- if we're supposed to accept gay lifestyle in contradiction to their biology and genitic makeup then we can respond to all behavior as indicitive of how those displaying any behavior should be treated. If acting like a woman means you're a woman, then acting like an animal means you're an animal.

We execute heartless murdurers with apathy by saying "he was an animal" so why shouldn't the same apathy be applied if we nuke, for example, some radical islamic city. If we did, I'm not sure there would be many tears for the dead if couched in the "they were just animals" thinking.

Personally, I find it hard to muster up any sympathy for those that suicide bomb school busses or hijack planes to fly them into tall buildings. My human compassion is simly not applied.

THis post is for thinking -- I'm not sure there is a right answer.

[ffusco]

Ok. I see whwre you are going now. I think we should have nuked Bora Bora 18 months ago- excellent target, few civilain casulties, problem solved. It would have put the fear of God in many folks and probably would have caused a bit of introspection.

As for retailiation- I think any attack on a US monument or city should be matched with the destruction of one of their sacred sites. We are prepared to deal with hatred. Once people act on this hatred-the gloves should come off.

I would advocate the destruction of Mecca if another 9-11 were to happen. It is us vs. them.

[Imagine]

Good, looks like we have more in common than first thought. I too think we need to lay the hammer down. Sept 10 2001 was our big opportunity, and we didn't even close the borders. And then, the President said on TV that islam is a religion of peace -- what on earth was he smoking?

[MHGinTN]

You're confusing the notion of citizen--with rights of citizens, and human being--with rights afforded to human beings because they are in the species. You might want to rephrase, as in "When is a citizen NOT a citizen?" I have no problem with removing citizen rights from human beings that seek to kill and maim other citizens. I've often wondered if we treat heinous criminals too nicely. Would we keep a rabid dog around until its natural death, or dispose of it because of its potential continuing threat to citizens?

[Imagine]

No, I'm not confusing citizen with human. I most specifically mean that the rights afforded to "humans" shouldn't be conferred simply because certain people are born with "hunman" genes, and look like most humans look. My point is that when humans act like animals, and the radical islamics have, then perhaps they DON'T qualify as humans and perhaps we should treat them collectively as rabid dogs, and eradicate them wholesale without hesitation or remorse.

Think of the crimes of these savages against their women and humanity: Genital mutilation, suicide bombers killing bus loads of children and women, two heavy airliners into the WTC, innumerable bombs and killings of people merely because they are of a different religion, or culture, sending children to comit suicide bombings, schools to teach hate and murder (not academics,) etc. How much can we suffer or tolerate before we finally say ENOUGH? Just because someone has chromozones like me doesn't mean he/she deserves the rights peaceful, compassionate people enjoy.

These aren't acts of civilized people, and we define humanity in far greater terms than merely in terms of genetic make-up, or likness to a "model" we call man and/or woman. You see, I struggle with the notion that these mad, manical muslims even deserve any more consideration than we would give a rabid dog. We slay rabid dogs on sight, without hesitation and then feel we've helped mankind, or at least the people in the immediate neighboorhood.

So, as these heinious acts mount, my sympathy and compassion diminish. Soon, I think I'll get to the point where I simply don't care how and when the rabid dogs are dealt with.

The problem with this discussion, and I started it reluctantly, is that it broaches subjects that some have already considered, and come to conclusions that trouble ordinary, peaceloving individuals -- myself included.

[MHGinTN]

Just because someone has chromozones like me doesn't mean he/she deserves the rights peaceful, compassionate people enjoy. You mean 'chromosomes' (I presume) and the issue is the 'social contract' which signifies 'civilization' ... and specific individuals ought in fact on occasion be treated as having forfeited their rights as species members deserving civilization's protection, but you wouldn't want to apply that brush too broadly ... that's what law and evidence and jurist action and all that mundane stuff is about. Dump that in favor of dehumanizing any group of the species and you dump civilization itself.

[Imagine]

I truly understand your argument. The issue here isn't exactly what's legal, or civilized, but rather how do we deal with a group of people who don't conduct themselves like we conduct ourselves. I'm afraid that increasing evidence suggests that we're approaching a point in time where public sentiment may not care about rule of law, domestic or international, and demand a response to terrorist acts that will be are broadly applied. Another WTC and we my pass the threshold of rational discussion.

My spelling?? It's late and my eyesight isn't too good.

[MHGinTN]

My mind isn't too sharp! I thought you might be doing a 'play on words'. [Chromo zones ... kill zones?] I meant no offense to your spelling ... without spell check, I would be banned from the net.

[Imagine]

addendum to previous post: Remember the mood in America after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. America was in no mood to consider human rights or the rule of law when it came to defeating the Japanese. Except for a few vocal complaints, the two nuclear bombs we dropped were widely cheered as being appropriate -- even though many innocent people (women and children) died in the two firestorms. We weren't driven to tears but rather elation in Japan finally surrendering.

Consider if we suffered on US soil the same bombings and attacks suffered by Israel. We would lose all concern about the rights of muslims in this country and initiate serious retribution towards them.

If peaceful muslims wish to continue living in this country peacefully, they must lead the charge against radical islam.