Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Heraclitus]

homo sapiens

KH was talking about hypothetical aliens earlier, that is why I asked this of him. Your reply has little to do with my point.


But I'll tease you a bit anyway... now how did that old boring line of arguing go? Oh right.

What about a transgenic human? What about a cloned Neanderthal? Or a Australopithecus? Would you consider a human mind emulated on a computer a person? How about a modified human mind emulation?

[Hauldren Collider]

I'll cross that particular philosophical bridge when I come to it. Excuse my lack of concern for the totally hypothetical and imaginary.

[giblets]

HC thinks a human fetus is a person, so his definition is either pretty broad or human chauvinist.

[Heraclitus]

I'll cross that particular philosophical bridge when I come to it. Excuse my lack of concern for the totally hypothetical and imaginary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for favouring homo sapiens over other species. I just find it hilarious how people pick and drop pseudo-moral realism whenever it suits their arguments.

Why do people feel threatened by admitting "what I value is completely arbitrary and I will continue to try and value what I value because I value valuing it.". Despite how silly it sounds its a perfectly defensible position.

[Heraclitus]

Because they are all people, and their welfare thus carries equal intrinsic weight with me.

Does your wife/son/neighbour's welfare carry equal intrinsic weight to a stranger to you?

And if you justify caring about your wife/co-worker/cousin on selfish grounds, why does your welfare carry more intrinsic weight than that of any of the other "people" around us?

[Hauldren Collider]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for favouring homo sapiens over other species. I just find it hilarious how people pick and drop pseudo-moral realism whenever it suits their arguments.

What? The definition applies perfectly and consistently to all plausible cases. Way to miss the meaning.

[Hauldren Collider]

HC thinks a human fetus is a person, so his definition is either pretty broad or human chauvinist.

We've been over the whole infanticide thing before. You think it isn't murder because it's convenient, I know.

[Heraclitus]

Threadjack in 3, 2, 1

[Kuciwalker]

Heraclitus is stupid.

[Heraclitus]

Heraclitus is stupid.

And that is relevant to a poly debate ... how?

[giblets]

We've been over the whole infanticide thing before. You think it isn't murder because it's convenient, I know.

My point is that personhood isn't some irrelevant hypothetical question. Figuring out if extraterrestrials would be people or not is not that different from evaluating the worth of a human fetus.

[notyoueither]

gribbler, you completely misunderstand the justification for public schools.

1) the wealth redistributed is earmarked FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN, not the parents; because of the agency problem (parents cannot always be trusted to act fully in the interests of the child) the redistributed wealth must be earmarked towards something that benefits the child. Paternalism (I know what you want better than you know what you want) does not enter into it, except in that we don't give the money directly to the children.

So, why do the children of Virginia receive this largesse, and not the children of Vanuatu?

[Hauldren Collider]

incentives?

[notyoueither]

Explain.

[Dauphin]

I have no view on that, sorry. I have insufficient information

You should look into it. Given the massive amounts involved. "Lost" taxation far exceeds international aid budgets (which made me think of asking the questions in the first place) - but the economics of it is pretty interesting in its own right.