[nightbeest77]

hmm.....interesting! i must off to downtown soon! and obtain me some of those 1337 m41) 1)4nc3m4573r 5k1z1llz!

[thoth87]

hey, beest...

hold off on the leet, will ya? it gets kinda annoying... and there's SO much of that crap running around... and you know...

thanks.

[nightbeest77]

of course i know theres too much of it going around! thats why i do it! it makes them look even stupider in turn! or it makes me look stupider, not really sure which. but i guess its up to your perceptions!

[thoth87]

is 'stupider' even a word?

[nightbeest77]

i dunno, i think so. ill check later. but it probably is, just making an adjective even more descriptive.....oh the hell with it....IT IS NOW!

[Wintermute]

One could argue that you are or are not human and be correct in both instances. Unless you agree on a common definition, its meaning is connotative, and can only be defined by the observer. Actualy, even if you do have the same definition, you still may disagree and be right. Take a mirror for example. Most people have the same definition of a "mirror". If two people look at one from any angle other than the normal (looking at it dead on), they will both see different things reflecting off of its surface, while at the same time abserving the same object.

With regards to weather or not something exists, every thing you experiance must exist because you have percived it. The Matrix spoon, for instance, does exist. It exists as a program to govern "spoonness", and as a graphic that generates other sitimulus such as touch senory. It does exist, you just do not understand its true manifestation. With regard to the idea that you cannot wish yourself out of existence, I would agree. I do, however, think that if you wished that have never existed (I know that is a funny tense but bear with me) then you would be unable to prove that a person like this had ever existed, because they never did. I don't nessicarily believe that self-desubstansiation is possible. I am just saying that it is impossible to prove it.

[thoth87]

allright, so you and I look into a mirror, and we see things REFLECTED in a mirror from different angles, but we're still looking in to a MIRROR, correct?

i mean, you and I look at Nightbeest's face, and we see two different emotions reflected back at us, be we still observe Beesty, correct? perhaps i see him as a Compatriot, and perhaps you see a malodorous pervert, but we still see what we PERCEIVE nightbeest to be.

we still see Nightbeest, yet we see different things.

and we HAVE a deffinition for human, it's a multicellular mammilian biped with skin-colors ranging from very dark to very light, and a multitued of hair and eye color variations.

but we see different things.

it's all subjective, after all.

[nightbeest77]

ah, it feels good to know ive influenced someone! youre actually taking my words and reusing them! *ravenous pervert beams*

*ahem* you didnt see that and anyway, human is subjective in and of itself, because one cannot base it soley on the physical traits, but the mental as well. and even then its even MORE subjective. but in the end its basically the same for while we may be evil by nature, we respect good far more than it. anyone wonder why? (i'll make a post regarding this later)

and how do you know im not some eerie reptilian creature from heaven itself bent on destroying the universe? hmmmm?? (i use heaven instead of hell to show that its all subjective)

and this is supporting your point, by the way, but in a criticizing way, sorry but i gots to point out the loopholes, tis what i do!

[thoth87]

how do i know? well, frankly i don't , but i don't see it, i see Nightbeest. and that's what i got to go on, i percieve a comrade, not a lizardman.

Parry!

[nightbeest77]

*thrust* *belch* aha! quite true. you illustrate another point! it IS all based on the perceptions! they key to the factor! But you cant forget! the machines in the matrix movies are as human as us based on the way they act! they have the EXACT same character flaws that we do!

[Wintermute]

nightbeest is right. Even evil likes good because good would hypotheticly benifit everyone indescrimanatly, where as another evil will not, and infact may impeed you as another evil being. So i agree.

An also, why can't a lizardman be a comrad? :( *sob* *sob*

[nightbeest77]

because we lizard men are just too rejected by society! *Sob* besides evil does seem like it would wind up screwing each other up to some degree, so good really does seem to benefit others from the circumstances more!

[thoth87]

well, never said they couldn't, but (until recently) i believed that none of my comrades were lizardmen, and so that's that.

but i'll concur a little bit, for the sheer pleasure of concuring.

[Wintermute]

Defining human by physical (or even mental) traits would exclude people inevitably. For example, someone in a wheel chair is not a biped. Therefor they are not human? I might actualy argue that the use of a wheel chair might make you a "non-standard" human, but I would be wary that it would be dificult for anyone, myself included, to define human in a way that exclude everything most people would refer to as human, but not exclude something that most people call human as well.
It is, however, probably useful to make some definition for are purposes because otherwise we can't discuss some things like reality as experianced by an entity in the vessle of a computer that has passed the Turing Test.

[thoth87]

how about this:

let's not speak of humans, but instead speak of people. a person does not have to be human, nor does a human have to be a person. we will refer to this 'person' as one who is capable of rational thought and acts according to it.

any modifications are welcome.

i'd also like to say this:

'there is no right or wrong, only popular oppinion'.