|
Grex > Rpg > #31: The Games of Fantasy |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 295 responses total. |
arrow
|
|
response 201 of 295:
| 
Sep 30 19:05 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Selena.. And I am always offended by humans.
-BGH
|
phenix
|
|
response 202 of 295:
|
Sep 30 22:06 UTC 1995 |
what does culture have to do with self-awareness
|
morgayn
|
|
response 203 of 295:
|
Oct 1 01:27 UTC 1995 |
*Morgaene was mortal, last time she checked*
|
selena
|
|
response 204 of 295:
|
Oct 1 01:42 UTC 1995 |
Mortal, aye, but HUMAN?
|
phenix
|
|
response 205 of 295:
|
Oct 1 02:36 UTC 1995 |
buh?
<sigh>
|
anne
|
|
response 206 of 295:
|
Oct 1 05:24 UTC 1995 |
Is a cat... or at least mostly, nd damn proud of it...
and she rather thinks she's sentient.. although, I don't
think much- therefore I might not be. ;)
( a great quote I saw on a t-shi?o~rt. :) )
|
mneme
|
|
response 207 of 295:
|
Oct 1 08:54 UTC 1995 |
re: 196, 197, 201, and 204
As my statement in #195, I was not defining "humans" as the only sentient
beings, but sentience as the only qualification for humanity. This is a
perfectly valid and historical definition; note the rather large number of
attempts to redefine various types of homo sapiens non-human. By this
definition, Morgayn, Selena, and everyone else who participated in this
discussion is, like it or not, human, and many/most of the people with whom
they refuse to be associated are emphatically not.
And anyway, if I don't use "human" that way (as it has been used in
countless SF boks), my preceding message in this item isn't inclusive enough.
|
selena
|
|
response 208 of 295:
|
Oct 2 16:59 UTC 1995 |
Joshua, I told you not to call me that.
You were warned.
Why did you go and say it again, when you know it only makes
me want to reduce you to a steaming puddle of protoplasm?
|
mneme
|
|
response 209 of 295:
|
Oct 3 03:34 UTC 1995 |
Because you asked for it, stating that you complied with my defenition of
humanity, and yet refusing to accept the appelation, on the no grounds aside
from your apparent dislike of the word.
When I state a defenition of a word, I state the full and complete
definition, with no baggage accumulationg from alternate definitions. This,
if I say "all sentients are humans" and you say "I am not human" either you
are stating your non-sentience (something of an oxymoron), or you are using
an alternate definition of "human," that of "Homo Sapiens Sapiens," (Or, I
suppose some other, equally repugnant defenition for you). Thus, if I say
that you are human, I am not saying that you are what you say you are not,
but merely that you seem to conform to my usage of the word.
End repressive dictionary; define your own terms!
|
selena
|
|
response 210 of 295:
|
Oct 3 04:44 UTC 1995 |
I do, which is why I dislike it GREATLY when someone attempts
to use words on me, that I do not like the definition I have for.
You're extremely foolish to declare sentience a human trait.
It is not, nor will it ever be exclusively human in origin.
|
cyberpnk
|
|
response 211 of 295:
|
Oct 3 16:04 UTC 1995 |
I'm a rather sophisticated AI program, myself.
|
selena
|
|
response 212 of 295:
|
Oct 3 17:37 UTC 1995 |
Right. See there?
|
mneme
|
|
response 213 of 295:
|
Oct 3 20:04 UTC 1995 |
Selena, you are continuing to use "humanity" to refer only to what
you think it means. I am not, "declaring sentience a human trait." I
am declaring sentience the only qualification for inclusion in
humanity. Dolphins are human. Fully inteligent AI's are human. Cat
are occasionally human. The Sidhe are human. Bug eyed monsters
(given sentience) are human. Homo Sapiense Sapiens who are
presentient are not human.
What exaxtly are you objecting to?
Josh, who uses intresting alternate but valid definitions in an
inclusive way on this sytem often enough to have been misenterpreted
exclusively several times allready, and is getting rather tired of it.
|
fireball
|
|
response 214 of 295:
|
Oct 4 04:14 UTC 1995 |
I think she's objecting to the fact that your defenition sucks ****...I happen
to agree with her...
we of the Fey are sentient, but NOT human... THANK YOU for your time
<hurumph>
|
selena
|
|
response 215 of 295:
|
Oct 4 05:20 UTC 1995 |
Josh, *you* are continuing to use "humanity" to refer to what
*you* think it means, too, so what's your point, other than to provide
insult?
|
mneme
|
|
response 216 of 295:
|
Oct 6 06:10 UTC 1995 |
To define and give context to my previous statement (ie. I am at a normal to
the rest of humanity). I used the word with this definition in the tradition
of many of the greatest SF writers, and never intended insult, but will
continue to mean the inclusive definition when using the word, not the
exclusive one, since it lets me make sweeping ethical statements in their
original language without excluding anyone.
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I think it does, no more, and no
less"
|
selena
|
|
response 217 of 295:
|
Oct 7 04:09 UTC 1995 |
Exactly my objection- DON'T include ME in your SWEEPING ETHICAL
STATEMENTS. PERIOD.
|
fireball
|
|
response 218 of 295:
|
Oct 7 17:21 UTC 1995 |
That's why I prefer 'Quitaine'
To say someone(thing) is 'only quitane' implies the same
as saying they are 'only human' withOUT the special discrimination.
quite simply it's a great way to avoid exactly the mess we have here, due
to different people using different defenitions.
simple, no?
|
mneme
|
|
response 219 of 295:
|
Oct 9 21:52 UTC 1995 |
Huh? Which meaning does "Quitaine" serve? sapient or homo sapient (which does,
after all, mean "inteligent man?"
Selena: huh? No further answer requsted or acknowleged; apologies for
accidentally/capreciously pushing your buttons. (it shall not happen with
intent again).
|
plork
|
|
response 220 of 295:
|
Oct 11 00:44 UTC 1995 |
Hmm....?????
|
fireball
|
|
response 221 of 295:
|
Oct 11 17:22 UTC 1995 |
'quitaine' has NO species specification...
it implies limitations, as does 'only human', WITHOUT speicfying
a species, and can therefore be used by any species (and, in some cases, AIs)
|
mneme
|
|
response 222 of 295:
|
Oct 11 19:57 UTC 1995 |
In othere words, it has similar meanings to the usage of "human" I was using?
|
fireball
|
|
response 223 of 295:
|
Oct 20 04:27 UTC 1995 |
w/o the nasty overtones that Selena and I objected to, yes
now, I admit, YOU were not using those overtones...
but her (and mine) (if I may speak for her) def. DID contain those
overtones...
that's why I like 'quitaine'... it HAS no overtones...for ANY
race/religion/sex/species...
|
mneme
|
|
response 224 of 295:
|
Oct 23 19:21 UTC 1995 |
Ok. In the future, I think I'll just noun the adjetive, though. Calling
someone a sentient is usually unlikely to get them offended.
.s
|
fireball
|
|
response 225 of 295:
|
Oct 25 17:40 UTC 1995 |
that works too! :)
|