Laughing at Saddam

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 21:57
VIEWED: 10444
PAGE 13 of 17

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:07 PM

BORing ... whatever

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:08 PM

I generally view the definition of “human” and the behavioral characteristics implied in “humanity” to be two different things, but there is an argument to be made for the “humanity” as the definition of “human.” For instance, young children that are abandoned early and are not exposed to the societal norms or language that we often take for granted before the onset of puberty, will remain developmentally challenged and never be able to participate in society in a normal way. This means that human behavior is not actually completely independent of human biology.

Although for the sake of simplicity, I continue to view them as independent.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?

Geezer, that's MY claim, you mixed it up with Citizen's quotes, you biped!

Besides, I have been endowed with the ability to judge, and I say Saddam fit the genetic criteria to be considered a human being.

So sod off Chrisisall

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are more interesting questions to answer than 'Was Hussein human?'

That's OK Rue. Just because you can't answer the question doesn't make us think any less of you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:47 PM

Another dodge by Slick. We've gone from laughing at Hussein, to was he human, to my intelligence. Yes, I can see Slick knows how to stay on topic.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, that's MY claim, you mixed it up with Citizen's quotes, you biped!

Sorry. I thought he was taking over your argument after you quit. So I guess Citizen doesn't claim Saddam was human after all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another dodge by Slick. We've gone from laughing at Hussein, to was he human, to my intelligence. Yes, I can see Slick knows how to stay on topic.

What can I say, Rue? All you had to do was let us know why you consider Saddam human. You were unable to perform this task. Since you're apparently unable to identify a human being, I hope someone labels the chairs, lamps, etc. in your home so you don't waste time trying to talk to them.

Or you could try again. What criteria do you use to determine that Saddam is, in your opinion, a human being? I'm not even asking for an objective reason, just some glimmering of how you make the decision.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

STORYMARK

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:15 PM

Geezer: I often disagree with what you have to say, but this is the dumbest, most idiotic stance I've ever seen you take.

You should be embarrassed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?
...
Sorry. I thought he was taking over your argument after you quit. So I guess Citizen doesn't claim Saddam was human after all.

One could almost say that assigning my name to words I never said is lying, couldn't one? I believe in a normal discussion this would be time for you to apologise to me isn't it?

I never said, alluded or implied I was taking over ChrisIsAll's argument, I was showing the holes in yours. Fact is you are essentially implying that 'Human Behaviour defines Human beings' when in fact as anyone willing to apply even basic logic should be able to see, Human Beings define Human behaviour. In fact your logic, Human Behaviour defines the Human, leads inexorably to the conclusion that all sorts of people aren't Human, those with severe mental retardation and illness for instance. Hell even young children can be extremely selfish, perhaps they don't display enough 'non-Human' behaviour to be non-Human to you?

You don't get to define what is and what is not Human behaviour, Human behaviour is what Human beings do, even if it is, for want of a better term, evil. In fact dehumanising your enemy, even with good reason, is the first biggest and arguably most crucial step to becoming a monster yourself. Think about it, would you get a pang of guilt if you butchered a chicken? That's how you do it, turn 'them' into animals, because then you can do anything you like to 'them' and console yourself because you really could never be as bad as those 'animals'.

If you want to show Saddam isn't Human then you're really going to have to come up with something better than 'he doesn't behave like a human' because if he is Human his behaviour must therefore be Human. If he is not Human, however, you can then make the case that his behaviour is not Human.

Now if you think you've come up with the ipso facto definition of 'Human', in the philosophical sense you are currently using it, you are, quite seriously, unconscionably arrogant. This is a philosophical question that has been argued since before ugg asked og what the point of getting up in the morning and fighting saber tooth tigers actually was. We are now no nearer an answer than ever, but if you'd like to give us the benefit of your god-like insight, please enlighten us.

Perhaps in lieu to an answer of such a profound philosophical nature (unless you are indeed God, if so I have a few further questions, like who was the fourth Marks brother?) we should take a more scientific view, Human beings are individuals belonging to the species Homo sapiens of the the Hominidae family, Human behaviour is the behaviour demonstrated by this species.

It may be uncomfortable to think that someone who is essentially the same as you or I could do terrible things, that maybe if you or I were in the same position, and had had the same upbringing, we may have been just as bad, harsh thought, sobering even, but sometimes adults have to recognise that in life nothing is black and white.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:17 AM

Slick,

"Or you could try again. What criteria do you use to determine that Saddam is, in your opinion, a human being? I'm not even asking for an objective reason, just some glimmering of how you make the decision."

This isn't my issue, it's yours. It's not interesting to me. And frankly, I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE