Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

Prolescum

New Member
QuanSai said:
The sarcasm is unnecessary. I only put quotation marks around terms I was unsure of how to use for political correctness.
And I used them to illustrate that even someone with an unusual grasp of syntax is still a human despite coming across as alien, as is someone with an extra chromosome.

I must ask though, why are you emphasising people and person and not, say, human being where it might be appropriate given your initial question? Are you suggesting that's where you're being politically correct? That's why you're calling them people? No other reason?

Take a look at this:
QuanSai said:
I'm impartially asking if a "person" with Down Syndrome is to be considered a human being (homo sapiens sapiens).
This reads as if you're only ostensibly calling them a person because the right word hasn't come to mind or that the word you want to use is considered offensive. It's insulting, or at least, that's how it comes across despite an attempt by you to ask the question without bias. Certainly didn't seem very impartial to me. Were you to highlight human being, it would make some sense because you're asking whether they can be considered an offshoot, a sub-species or whatever. I'd quite like to know which politically incorrect word person is replacing.

Political correctness is hokum.
 

hackenslash

New Member
Such classifications are meaningless in the real world, and represent a tendency toward discontinuity of mind. In reality, species don't work like that. Every organism is the same species as its parents, except in really extreme cases in which a single generation of mutations is so radical that it constitutes a new species. However; in an instance such as this, the resulting organism will a) almost certainly not survive such a degree of mutation (there are more ways for a mutation to be deleterious than beneficial) and b) definitely not be able to reproduce, because that would require somebody else with the same (or very, very similar) set of mutations.

Ultimately, 'species' is our way of putting into boxes something that doesn't fit into boxes, which is why even the biological species concept, which is the most widely accepted in rigorous circles, runs into problems. Under the BSC, a species is a population of organisms throughout which gene flow can occur. This runs into problems when you get to bacteria, because in bacteria, sideways gene transfer is possible, which means that all bacteria are actually one species under this definition. This alone demonstrates the complete lack of utility in even having a species concept for most purposes. It's helpful to give the marker points names, but it must be remembered that they are only markers on a gradient, not clearly defined entities.

Here's a pretty good video by ShanedK on the topic (probably the only good video he's done).

 

Giliell

New Member
Hmm, what else should they be?
Their parents are human, so they can't be anything else. And their genome is, too.
What makes us different from chimps is not the different number of chromosomes (which, by the way isn't different at all, just that two have merged), but what's on them.
Yes, people with down-syndrome display a typical variety of characteristics which are all also found with your "normal" people. Yes, agreed, for a speciation to take place, small differences accumulate, but that's not how the whole thing works.
 

pdka2004

New Member
QuanSai said:
So, what is the fact of the matter? Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?
Yes they are. Individuals are the result of their parents genes, so as long as both parents were human then they are too
 

QuanSai

New Member
I swear, some of you are so ignorant that you're here ONLY for an argument. A forum of intellectuals is supposed to be present for the sharing of knowledge amongst those who want to learn. I greatly appreciate those of you who actually informed me rather than allude to some sort of ridicule. My stand on the issue wasn't the point here. I simply asked for the answer to a very clean-cut question. I was never asking for a fight. With the attitude some of you hold, you wouldn't make it in a room full of seasoned researchers in fields like chemistry or physics. The arrogance here is appalling.

Again, I appreciate those who answered my question and told me of the correct way to approach the truth in this case. I am not well-versed in taxonomy, and it should be brutally obvious if I'm asking a question that most of you find fairly obvious to answer.

But thank you for the info, again.
 

Anachronous Rex

New Member
QuanSai said:
I swear, some of you are so ignorant that you're here ONLY for an argument.
That's not ignorance, it's antagonism. And yes, some of us are antagonistic.
A forum of intellectuals is supposed to be present for the sharing of knowledge amongst those who want to learn. I greatly appreciate those of you who actually informed me rather than allude to some sort of ridicule. My stand on the issue wasn't the point here. I simply asked for the answer to a very clean-cut question. I was never asking for a fight. With the attitude some of you hold, you wouldn't make it in a room full of seasoned researchers in fields like chemistry or physics. The arrogance here is appalling.
If they seem to overreact it may be because this particular question has a rather sordid history. Very much like asking "can the Jews be blamed for the death of our savior?" challenging the personhood of the developmentally disabled is bound to catch you some flak. You have to be prepared for that; just keep your cool and explain your query ad nausium if need be.
Again, I appreciate those who answered my question and told me of the correct way to approach the truth in this case. I am not well-versed in taxonomy, and it should be brutally obvious if I'm asking a question that most of you find fairly obvious to answer.

But thank you for the info, again.
You're welcome. Let's do it again sometime... maybe then you can answer some obvious question of mine.
 

QuanSai

New Member
Anachronous Rex said:
QuanSai said:
I swear, some of you are so ignorant that you're here ONLY for an argument.
That's not ignorance, it's antagonism. And yes, some of us are antagonistic.
A forum of intellectuals is supposed to be present for the sharing of knowledge amongst those who want to learn. I greatly appreciate those of you who actually informed me rather than allude to some sort of ridicule. My stand on the issue wasn't the point here. I simply asked for the answer to a very clean-cut question. I was never asking for a fight. With the attitude some of you hold, you wouldn't make it in a room full of seasoned researchers in fields like chemistry or physics. The arrogance here is appalling.
If they seem to overreact it may be because this particular question has a rather sordid history. Very much like asking "can the Jews be blamed for the death of our savior?" challenging the personhood of the developmentally disabled is bound to catch you some flak. You have to be prepared for that; just keep your cool and explain your query ad nausium if need be.
Again, I appreciate those who answered my question and told me of the correct way to approach the truth in this case. I am not well-versed in taxonomy, and it should be brutally obvious if I'm asking a question that most of you find fairly obvious to answer.

But thank you for the info, again.
You're welcome. Let's do it again sometime... maybe then you can answer some obvious question of mine.
I'd love to do it again sometime. Thank you for helping me out. I'm truly grateful.
 

Jotto999

New Member
K;

What I see is a vague, unclear question with negative and racist implications (despite that not being the OP's intent) being asked, and unsurprisingly, there was some confusion and some frustration. Like you would expect of an intellectual forum, clarification was demanded, but your clarifications weren't helpful and you were still keeping up the subtle (but not intended) racist implications.

So you got some flak. Flak with bright and apparent tracer rounds that you could see coming from ten kilometers away.
 

QuanSai

New Member
Jotto999 said:
K;

What I see is a vague, unclear question with negative and racist implications (despite that not being the OP's intent) being asked, and unsurprisingly, there was some confusion and some frustration. Like you would expect of an intellectual forum, clarification was demanded, but your clarifications weren't helpful and you were still keeping up the subtle (but not intended) racist implications.

So you got some flak. Flak with bright and apparent tracer rounds that you could see coming from ten kilometers away.
I asked the question in an intelligible manner, and I respected those with Down Syndrome as much as I could as I supported the basis for my confusion. Some of the responses were done in a radical tone -- obviously the result of some sort of bias; a personal offense. The assumptions some of you made about my tone are plainly idiotic. There's no other way to describe them. I suggest you, and anyone else who assumed what you did, go to some place on the internet where young teens hang out and flaunt their knowledge with arrogance for the sake of looking superior to those who aren't as knowledgeable.

To those who helped, for the last time, I thank you.
 

lrkun

New Member
QuanSai said:
I asked the question in an intelligible manner, and I respected those with Down Syndrome as much as I could as I supported the basis for my confusion. Some of the responses were done in a radical tone -- obviously the result of some sort of bias; a personal offense. The assumptions some of you made about my tone are plainly idiotic. There's no other way to describe them. I suggest you, and anyone else who assumed what you did, go to some place on the internet where young teens hang out and flaunt their knowledge with arrogance for the sake of looking superior to those who aren't as knowledgeable.

To those who helped, for the last time, I thank you.
A text can be interpreted in many ways. It depends on the experience of the reader. Some may read your text literally, some may read your text and interpret it in another way. Words are abstract concepts, that is why it causes difficulty and misunderstanding. You should realize this by now.

Ex. I breathe when I sleep. This is not the same when we change the words as - I sleep when I breathe.

With respect to the issue at hand. I'll use flawed syllogism. Why flawed? That's a secret.

Human beings have parents.
Neon has down syndrome and has parents.
Therefore neon is a human being.
 

Jotto999

New Member
QuanSai said:
The assumptions some of you made about my tone are plainly idiotic.
When if it's presented as you did (vague with a subtle hint of racism), then I can easily see people getting a bad impression. Yes I know, you weren't intending that, but that's why you need to type carefully, clearly and straightforward whenever possible, particularly if you are speaking to many people from many different places in the world, over a medium where we can't see your mannerisms or demeanor, only raw text.
QuanSai said:
I suggest you, and anyone else who assumed what you did, go to some place on the internet where young teens hang out and flaunt their knowledge with arrogance for the sake of looking superior to those who aren't as knowledgeable.
FYI, some of the people who gave you flak I know to be much older than teenagers.
 

Prolescum

New Member
QuanSai said:
I swear, some of you are so ignorant that you're here ONLY for an argument. A forum of intellectuals is supposed to be present for the sharing of knowledge amongst those who want to learn. I greatly appreciate those of you who actually informed me rather than allude to some sort of ridicule. My stand on the issue wasn't the point here. I simply asked for the answer to a very clean-cut question.
Clean cut my arse. You may very well think you were being clear and concise, but you weren't. At all.
What do you mean by so ignorant we're only here for argument? That makes no sense at all. I'm not certain how many folks here would describe themselves as intellectuals either. We're supposed to be present for the sharing of knowledge amongst those who want to learn, eh? This place is for conversation and debate, it's not an educational supplement.

Your stand on the issue was the point; the answer was self-evident before you asked the question, the purpose for asking, not so much.
I was never asking for a fight. With the attitude some of you hold, you wouldn't make it in a room full of seasoned researchers in fields like chemistry or physics. The arrogance here is appalling.
Wouldn't make what in a room full of seasoned researchers? What are you trying to say? That because you're inarticulate and someone points it out they're automatically hideous little bastards who are unable to function in a group? Heh, that's just ridiculous.
Grow some fucking balls, mate. Why should I cushion my tone just because you think I'm fierce? That's no reason at all.
Now that is a bit of arrogance. Just a taster, mind you.
Again I appreciate those who answered my question and told me of the correct way to approach the truth in this case.
I hope you've learned something.
I am not well-versed in taxonomy, and it should be brutally obvious if I'm asking a question that most of you find fairly obvious to answer.
It should be brutally obvious that human children are human without requiring a PhD.
QuanSai said:
Jotto999 said:
K;

What I see is a vague, unclear question with negative and racist implications (despite that not being the OP's intent) being asked, and unsurprisingly, there was some confusion and some frustration. Like you would expect of an intellectual forum, clarification was demanded, but your clarifications weren't helpful and you were still keeping up the subtle (but not intended) racist implications.

So you got some flak. Flak with bright and apparent tracer rounds that you could see coming from ten kilometers away.
I asked the question in an intelligible manner, and I respected those with Down Syndrome as much as I could as I supported the basis for my confusion.
What? Seriously? You bitch about people not understanding what you meant in your OP, yet somehow it was intelligible? You asked if they were to be considered human, which still suggests, despite your hissy fit, that you had an alternate title for them.
Some of the responses were done in a radical tone -- obviously the result of some sort of bias; a personal offense.
Obviously. It had nothing to do with the OP being idiotic.
The assumptions some of you made about my tone are plainly idiotic. There's no other way to describe them.
Yes there is; consistent with many years of English as a first language. It's your OP that's flawed, not us.
I suggest you, and anyone else who assumed what you did, go to some place on the internet where young teens hang out and flaunt their knowledge with arrogance for the sake of looking superior to those who aren't as knowledgeable.
What? You honestly think that I'm arguing to looking superior? You suggest we're superior, arrogant, presumptuous, radical, biased and ignorant all because we pointed out how daft your OP was or how its phrasing made you look like a eugenicist.

And I'll bet you still think I'm the one being rude.
 
Top