Elitism

[Irish]

Irish.

This was the best part of your post.

I think missing the point was somewhat better than skewing it, but I'll quote Phil Ayesho for emphasis.

In point of fact this has nothing to do with fetuses being "human beings" - fetuses have no rights before the law. that is a fact.

This is a valid point.

I don't feel like "human being" and "homo sapien" are perfectly exchangeable terms. The unborn fetus/embryo/zygote that results from homo sapien performed sexual fertilization is not a "human being" or "person." Simply because it has the genetic requirements to be a homo sapien doesn't mean it's anything other than a parasite. I don't feel it qualifies as a human being until it's an entity unto itself with its own set of organs, bodily functions, and maybe a driver's license.

It doesn't matter if it can survive on it's own. Hell, we have people get in car wrecks every day that will not exist on their own because something is wrong and a machine has to pump blood for them or be a lung for them. But nobody says those people are not human, do they?

I do.

I truly think that if you say that because an unborn baby is, not born, they are not a human is disgusting.

I feel the same way about your comma splice, but you're getting my general idea now.

If you want to say that abortion is purely about the woman's choice to do with her body as she sees fit, then I still think that you need to acknowledge that when that sack of protein with 46 chromosomes dies, then you have just killed a human being.

I acknowledge that the homo sapien embryo in question no longer has the chance to become a human being.

My point remains, unless you wish to debate me on what a human is and is not.

I didn't think I did, but I had to. Hell, it's a lot easier to show that I'm homo sapien than it is to show that I'm a human being. Even I hardly feel I qualify for the latter.

I think you are confusing "bettering yourself" and being an "elitist." As discussed above, an elite athlete will strive to be physically elite over their opponent. However, being an elitist is not something that they have necessarily earned.

I see no functional difference between elitism and pride in oneself.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

I don't feel like "human being" and "homo sapien" are perfectly exchangeable terms. The unborn fetus/embryo/zygote that results from homo sapien performed sexual fertilization is not a "human being" or "person." Simply because it has the genetic requirements to be a homo sapien doesn't mean it's anything other than a parasite. I don't feel it qualifies as a human being until it's an entity unto itself with its own set of organs, bodily functions, and maybe a driver's license.

Well, I think there is a major flaw in your reasoning. Not everyone is born with all their organs. Not everyone is born with the ability to forgo normal bodily functions. Yet, science has progressed enough to get them what they need to be "normal." However, by your definition, these folks should have been slaughtered upon birth because they were already deemed to be "lacking."

Furthermore, people every day are hooked up to machines, and I doubt you would walk up to their family and go, "Hey, he is on an iron lung, he is no longer human but rather just a parasite."

If you wish to designate these specific people as un-human via semantics to justify the killing of them, then that is fine. I can accept that. We all make excuses for unpleasant things.

 

[Irish]

Furthermore, people every day are hooked up to machines, and I doubt you would walk up to their family and go, "Hey, he is on an iron lung, he is no longer human but rather just a parasite.

Oh, no no no. They're cyborgs.

 

[Drifterwood]

Peaceful, I applaud your excersising free will with regard to conscientious objection.

What does concern me is the tendency of groups to use labels, as you are doing with the term elitist. Labels seem to me to be a device to control the mindset of the ignorant; whilst those with the agenda pull the strings.

These labels are like a supposed trump card for opponents to pull out, instead of actually winning an argument. It dumbs down debate. It's a cheap trick for populist politicians to use to mobilise opinion without, as I say, actually winning an argument. In fact it is most commonly used by those against those whose arguments they can't handle. It appeals to base instinct. I'll bet you a pound to a penny that the right wing will be out using this in force during your election. It's the us and them syndrome, nod nod wink wink, you can ignore that person because they're such and such.

Anyway, enough from this atheist, socialist, gay-consorting Euro.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Oh, no no no. They're cyborgs.

Touché!

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Peaceful, I applaud your excersising free will with regard to conscientious objection.

What does concern me is the tendency of groups to use labels, as you are doing with the term elitist. Labels seem to me to be a device to control the mindset of the ignorant; whilst those with the agenda pull the strings.

These labels are like a supposed trump card for opponents to pull out, instead of actually winning an argument. It dumbs down debate. It's a cheap trick for populist politicians to use to mobilise opinion without, as I say, actually winning an argument. In fact it is most commonly used by those against those whose arguments they can't handle. It appeals to base instinct. I'll bet you a pound to a penny that the right wing will be out using this in force during your election. It's the us and them syndrome, nod nod wink wink, you can ignore that person because they're such and such.

Anyway, enough from this atheist, socialist, gay-consorting Euro.

Drifter, I never said that atheists or liberals were elitists. I said that combination seems to breed what I called an "intellectual elitist." Furthermore, I described an intellectual elitist as someone who basically thinks they know it all and anything you say or do is wrong... because they are smarter than you even before you present your case because of some sort of condition/belief/etc.

For example, I have no problem with you (or them) being an atheist. Yes, I think you are incorrect, but I'm not going to treat and talk to you like you are stupid for "not being saved." Likewise I hope that you don't treat me like a little kid for "believing in a sky-daddy."

However, I've had many liberals and/or atheists accuse me of, and Obama said it best "cling to our guns or religion." No, I'm not just "clinging to my guns and religion" out of fear as perpetuated here, I like guns and I feel that being religious is a good moral center for me. (FYI, I'm far from a typical "Christian." In fact, I don't even call myself a Christian but rather a "follower of Jesus." But for the sake of argument...)

Do you see the difference as outlined above?

... I think all my friends are what I call "intellectual elitists."

They snub their nose at everything you do, say, or believe. And they always have some sort of data that trumps your data, no matter the issue. Then, they always somehow know what is right and wrong for you in your life and if you don't do it their way, they question your sanity or your well-being.

Not to stereotype, but they are also all atheists and liberals. Nothing wrong with either of those... just that combination, in my experience, seems to breed what I defined as an "intellectual elitist."

 

[gingernuts]

Never mind who is or is not elitist. Is elitism a good thing though ? Nick Leeson was a maths genius from a working class background who was employed by the Queens bank Barings, he repaid that trust and openness by covering up massive losses which a member of the elite might have felt honour bound to reveal immediately and also able to reveal as their family would have welcomed them into their well funded arms - Leeson would have had to gone back to his neighbourhood in disgrace.