|
Grex > Rpg > #31: The Games of Fantasy |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 295 responses total. |
selena
|
|
response 193 of 295:
| 
Sep 24 02:55 UTC 1995 |
The *rest* of humanity? You're HUMAN??
|
phenix
|
|
response 194 of 295:
|
Sep 24 05:22 UTC 1995 |
hey..........
who the horrible secret out?
|
mneme
|
|
response 195 of 295:
|
Sep 26 22:08 UTC 1995 |
Humanity being defined as sentient beings, natch:)
|
selena
|
|
response 196 of 295:
|
Sep 29 02:24 UTC 1995 |
Humans are *not* the only sentient life, and as a member of the Fey, I
am absolutely offended that you would suggest that we are members of
humanity, by virtue of sentience!!
|
phenix
|
|
response 197 of 295:
|
Sep 29 02:58 UTC 1995 |
<laugh>
humans? sentiant? i guess........
but sentience does not denote humanity.
|
selena
|
|
response 198 of 295:
|
Sep 29 03:45 UTC 1995 |
My feelings precisely!
|
plork
|
|
response 199 of 295:
|
Sep 29 19:33 UTC 1995 |
Okay, well I think that sentience, depends on who is viewing the culture
|
selena
|
|
response 200 of 295:
|
Sep 30 13:27 UTC 1995 |
Culture? Plork, would you imply that sentience goes by CULTURE?
|
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.
|