Human

[Satyr]

An often used and overused label.

Can any one of you offer us a definition of what the term "human" means?

Any one will do.

[The Voice of Time]

what I think about when I hear the word... that's my definition

[Atthet]

A human is not engendered, neither male nor female. It is not boy or girl, not man or woman. It is something without genitals or sexual identity. It is an idealistic abstraction useful for the propulsion of Judaeo-Christianity and Liberal Western ideals. It provides the foundation for "humanism", the erroneous, false belief that men and women are "equal".

They are only "equal" after gender, biological difference, and genetics is denied. The past is erased. Men were not "boys". Women were not "girls". All are "born human", without gender, and remain "all too human" for the rest of their lives. Humanism is a form of mental slavery.

Christianity is responsible for the earliest form of humanism, when Adam and Eve's genitals are covered by the "fig leaf" in the Garden of Eden. Clothing is the means toward this end. By clothing the genitals, manimals and sheeple can then put their faith in their premises. People are not engendered. There are no "real men", and there are no "real women". There are no real separations between gender, biologically.

All are reduced to a childlike, "innocent" state. After clothing, an invention wrought of civilization and domestication, manimals no longer see the genitals, and can therefore believe they no longer exist. Humanism is this ideology.

Humanism is the denial of gender differences between masculine and feminine genetic division.

Humanism requires denial of science, biology, genetics, and general evolutionary theory.

Humanism is pro-jewish, pro-christian, and anti-scientific.

Feminism is contradictory to humanism. Feminism purports that "women exist", but are "unequal with men". Feminism claims that men and women are, or can become "equal", but then denies anatomy, biology, and genetic differences between genders. The denial of the past, Liberalism, is the common link between the ideologies of feminsim, liberalism, humanism, and judaeo-christianity. All are linked by the same ideology, denial of the past.

This makes feminism, liberalism, humanism, and judaeo-christianity all anti-empirical and anti-scientific.

[Satyr]

A human is not engendered, neither male nor female. It is not boy or girl, not man or woman. It is something without genitals or sexual identity. It is an idealistic abstraction useful for the propulsion of Judaeo-Christianity and Liberal Western ideals. It provides the foundation for "humanism", the erroneous, false belief that men and women are "equal".

They are only "equal" after gender, biological difference, and genetics is denied. The past is erased. Men were not "boys". Women were not "girls". All are "born human", without gender, and remain "all too human" for the rest of their lives. Humanism is a form of mental slavery.

Christianity is responsible for the earliest form of humanism, when Adam and Eve's genitals are covered by the "fig leaf" in the Garden of Eden. Clothing is the means toward this end. By clothing the genitals, manimals and sheeple can then put their faith in their premises. People are not engendered. There are no "real men", and there are no "real women". There are no real separations between gender, biologically.

All are reduced to a childlike, "innocent" state. After clothing, an invention wrought of civilization and domestication, manimals no longer see the genitals, and can therefore believe they no longer exist. Humanism is this ideology.

Humanism is the denial of gender differences between masculine and feminine genetic division.

Humanism requires denial of science, biology, genetics, and general evolutionary theory.

Humanism is pro-jewish, pro-christian, and anti-scientific.

Feminism is contradictory to humanism. Feminism purports that "women exist", but are "unequal with men". Feminism claims that men and women are, or can become "equal", but then denies anatomy, biology, and genetic differences between genders. The denial of the past, Liberalism, is the common link between the ideologies of feminsim, liberalism, humanism, and judaeo-christianity. All are linked by the same ideology, denial of the past.

This makes feminism, liberalism, humanism, and judaeo-christianity all anti-empirical and anti-scientific.

This is not a definition.

The one accepting his retardation claims it is a feelnig he gets when hearing a word, or when exposed to a stimulation.
Let us see what the ones still resisting the possibility of their stupidity have to say no the matter.

I would exp0ect that a retard claiming that all humans deserve respect or that they belong to the label human race, would have a clear and concise definition of what this word means. .

The Manimal above alludes to a sensation; he feels something when the word is used.
Let's see if these herd minds can rally around their defining concept.

[Atthet]

I offer a superior definition, you cannot pick and choose definitions for your responses.

This is what you believe in.




Perhaps you were referring to "The Voice of Time". That is confusing if you quoted my definition, and responded to him.

Parents of babies born with genital ambiguity experience shock, anxiety

Published on September 28, 2011 at 5:29 AM

Parents of babies born without clearly defined male or female genitals experience a roller-coaster of emotions, including shock, anxiety and the need to protect their child, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

UK researchers who spoke to 15 parents found that they were keen to find a sense of harmony between their child's genital ambiguity and the sex they raised them as.

"The parents we spoke to went through a dynamic and evolving process, which included their willingness to engage with professionals" says Dr Caroline Sanders, a Consultant Nurse working in paediatric urology and gynaecology at Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust in Liverpool.

"They had to deal with challenges relating to their lives, emotions and beliefs and one of the mothers, Faye, experienced serious abuse because people thought her daughter was different. At the other end of the scale, Imogene was delighted when a scan showed that her child, who she felt looked like a girl, was female inside."

Dr Sanders teamed up with Professor Bernie Carter and Dr Lynne Goodacre from the University of Central Lancashire to carry out the study, which involved in-depth interviews with ten mothers and five fathers over a period of 18 months. Two of their 11 children - six girls and five boys - were under four and the remainder were aged five to 11.

All the children had disorders of sex development, which include conditions where the chromosomes, testicles, ovaries or sexual anatomy are not as expected. It's estimated that one in 300 babies are born with concerns about the development of their external genitalia and in one in 5,000 births the baby's sex is unclear despite expert examination.

Parents who took part in the study said the events following their child's birth were "confusing" and "chaotic" and led to bewilderment and loss of orientation. Several parents recalled that some healthcare professionals had been vague or hesitant when discussing their child's genital uncertainty, which heightened their anxiety. This was compounded when healthcare professionals referred to their genderless child as "it", inferring that their child was "wrong" or a "freak".

Many of the parents protected their child by not sharing news of their child's condition with extended family or friends. Information was kept private, but not secret, while parents tried to understand what was happening. "You couldn't explain it because you didn't really know" said Gina. Maria felt the need to be open about it, but adds that: "My husband wouldn't have told a soul…because it is genitalia and is still looked at as something that's taboo." Brian, however wanted to talk about it. "I found it easier talking to people about it" he said.

Faye found local people's interest in her baby cruel, intrusive and alarming. She recalled people stopping her in the street, pulling the covers off her baby and saying "oh you'd never know would ya?"

Early surgical decisions raised strong emotions in some parents. Sian was anxious about whether she had done "the right thing", but Anne described a documentary that suggested that parents shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about genital surgery as "ridiculous".

Some parents were concerned about whether they had made the right decision about their child's sex and subsequent gender and worried about their children feeling different to others and experiencing uncertainty in adolescence. They wanted to protect their child, but at the same time they felt that they needed to be honest with them as they grew up.

Reconstructive genital surgery made it easier for some parents to protect and bond with their child. Medical evidence about whether the child was predominantly male or female, and how they looked, guided the parents' decisions when it came to surgery. But one mother who learnt that her child had both male and female internal organs described the news as a "double whammy".

The parents also needed healthcare professionals to use consistent and understandable language to explain what was happening to their child and how they could move forward. However, in some cases there were no clear-cut answers, particularly when the conditions were caused by chromosomal abnormalities.

"Our study revealed the serious emotional traumas and dilemmas that having a child with ambiguous genitalia creates for parents" says Dr Sanders. "It underlines the need for greater sensitivity and understanding about the issues these parents face.

"Health professionals need to be aware of the impact that medical language has on parents, particularly in the early stages, and communicate with them clearly and regularly, checking that they understand what they are being told.

"We also feel that further resources are needed to support parents and children affected by these disorders, including the development of a national network - building on the work already done in Scotland - and integrated working to improve standards of care."

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201109 ... xiety.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/ ... )1365-2648

[Atthet]

Gender difference, between male and female, is more fundamental than differences in race.

What the Judaeo-Christian faith has done, effectively, concerning humanist values, is destroy gender by extension of destroying race. If obvious differences in skin type, language inheritance, and intellect, can be observed between "races", although "races" are a social construct, then what prevents such "ignorant" biases and prejudices between genders???

In the attempt to destroy race, gender must be destroyed too. This is the ultimate goal of Humanism, the most pervasive, dominant, and absolute ideology of the history of Earth and mankind. This globalistic ideology, which people often refer to, mistakingly, as the "New World Order", is a method of enslaving not just one country, culture, and nation of people, but all of them across the world, in one fell swoop!

"Human Rights" is a code word for absolute Slavery, slavery of all people, all histories, and all cultures.

You are human, and in becoming "human", you have destroyed your gender, in addition to your race. You have no past, and therefore, cannot have a known or predictable future.


Feminism is the result of Liberalism and Humanist values coming to fruition. Feminism is about the superiority of the female gender, over the male gender, but these premises cannot be asserted any longer without obvious contradictions. If the female gender "exists", then why don't gender differences or racial differences also exist? One cannot posit the existence of any "female" gender, without an other gender. What is the other gender?

What is the "male" designation of biology?

This is to be ridiculed, slandered, and outcast from Liberal ideologies. Man hatred is normalized, but, nobody knows why or how it happened. Because biology, and the past, are both denied.

Genetics and evolution is denied.

This was compounded when healthcare professionals referred to their genderless child as "it", inferring that their child was "wrong" or a "freak".

These racist, genderist "healthcare professionals" will undoubtedly be shamed by Secular Humanistic values.

No baby is a "freak" or "wrong", correct?

No baby is born as genetic feces, unworthy to live and breathe, correct?

All are born human and equal, correct?

Gender and race are social constructs, correct?

[Atthet]

Anti-religious atheists and liberals claim to believe in genetics, and support evolutionary theories.

But...do they? Do they actually believe in genetics and evolution, or, concerning online "philosophy forums", don't they deny it readily and fervently, to maintain the bottomline, the premises of their ideologies? Don't they deny genetics, when it comes to race and gender? Don't they deny genetics and evolution, to destroy and deny the past?

Who believes in the past, that the past exists? Who believes in science, truly? Do anti-religious atheists and liberals, actually accept and understand objectivity, and the premise of a past, and future, that does not bow to the ideological whims of skeptical idealists?

We call this philosophical ideology as Cynicism. You will find, here, that most of the participants on this "Philosophy Now" forum, are nothing more than liberal cynics. In this, just about every idea they have coursing through their brains, inside their neural pathways, can be predicted to the letter.

What is more predictable than a slave who never questions or denies his slavery, and always follows the command from his master to the letter?

[Atthet]

Blank Slate Theory, "Tabula Rasa", is the core element of all liberal ideologies. It is also an important element in Judaeo-Christian worship, but, not completely. This is why Judaeo-Christians are Dualists. They must support Tabula Rasa, but they also must support the existence and essence of an "immutable soul", which never changes. Judaeo-Christianity is forced into an intellectual gambit, an obvious contradiction.

How can the nature of man Change, when, the soul of man is immortal, eternal, and cannot Change?

This is why Dualism exists in Judaeo-Christianity. But, for the atheistic liberals, there is no need for the presupposition of an eternal soul. All that is possible, then, is change. The past doesn't need to exist, and it doesn't actually exist. To the atheistic liberal, the enlightened "Secular Humanist" of the postmodern world, who also go by the designation of "Nietzscheans", the past can readily be denied, but never punished.

But, what protects them from punishment, except an "invisible" status quo?

What is the "dumbing down" of postmodern society, how does it work, and why?

Where is the true denial, and of what principle or principles?

[Atthet]

"Human Rights" is a code word for absolute Slavery, slavery of all people, all histories, and all cultures.

You are human, and in becoming "human", you have destroyed your gender, in addition to your race. You have no past, and therefore, cannot have a known or predictable future.

Are people born human or made human?

This should be rephrased to:

Are people born slaves or made slaves?


The metamorphosis of humanism is complete. What we see in "all are born human", is instead, "all are born slaves". The term "God" is no longer necessary, and this was the goal of Judaeo-Christianity all along. Atheism is result, the final conclusion, of Western Civilization. The slave, all slaves of men and women across the earth, no longer deny their slavery, because slavery-itself does not exist.

All are "free".

Free to be slaves to Human Rights. We can see then, that nobody, not one person on this "philosophy forum", would ever dare to question the basic premises and proponents of their deepest ideological values. Their values, are set, and permanent. They will defend their slavery, their slavishness, to the death. And slaves will die, to maintain their slavery.

This is known as the "liberal Status Quo of Western Civilization". The Status Quo is that slaves ought to have a meager portion of gruel, water, and "free sexual expression" amongst their own kind. The Status Quo is that we "must never judge" the sexual indiscretion of the slave class of the world. The slaves can have sex with animals, corpses, and each other, in a great orgy, freely, and this is the "highest freedom" known to history.

Meanwhile, the Master Slave Dialect is complete. The slave is no longer aware, on any level, of their predetermined course, through their entire lives.

Reality T.V. is reality. This is the end of "human evolution".

[Satyr]

I offer a superior definition, you cannot pick and choose definitions for your responses.

This is what you believe in.

Do YOU...or do YOU not have a concise definition of what "human" means?

Your talk about sexes is a side-matter.

[Atthet]

Human is an abstraction of self. It often involves a denial of gender and race. For example, a man claims himself "human", what does this mean? Doesn't it mean that he is no longer man, and masculine, but something else? Why would a man call himself human? Why would a woman call herself human? It is more logical and easier to understand when a woman calls herself human, or a negro calls himself human.

The term, human, is brought about by a neglect of what one is. If a man is "man", then why become something else other than man? If a woman is "woman", then why is "human" important to her?

Human is an attempt to fit difference, into sameness. Humanism, therefore, is nihilistic and self-denying. Does a man being "human" improve or neglect himself? Does a woman being "human" improve or neglect herself? Does a negro being "human" improve or neglect himself?

This is about value. This is about Evaluation. Haven't you read Nietzsche before, Satyr? What did he say about Evaluation?

You have my "concise" definition, now, take it or leave it. Accept it or reject it, it's your "choice". If you reject my definition, then provide a superior one, and let all judge whose definition is more accurate, deeper, and superior.


"Human" is an abstraction of self, into an order and category of specie.

"Human" is self-destruction of the individual, into an artifice of the social.

"Human" is the lowering of man, emasculated, into becoming woman.

"Human" is the raising of woman into man, by feminism, and other attached idealistic metaphysics to feminism, including judaism and liberalism.

[Satyr]

Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and always be, men and only men.

So, in short, "human" is a sexual designation meant to usurp or overpower all sub-categories or specialized forms of it.

[Satyr]

I'm reminded on Diogenes walking through the streets of Athens at night with a lantern looking for human beings.

Was he also a fool...or are you manimals not what he, not I, would consider human.

[Pluto]

A human is a kind of blood/water, organic type matter, which can transcend it's complex biological state into something better.

A human can find life appalling, this is good, no?

[Satyr]

Such mystical metaphorical contrivances you use to escape the real.
If human is a "type of blood/water organic type" (let us ignore the lack of precision) then so is the amoeba or the elephant.
"Potential for brilliance" is not a definition.
I can claim the shit is the "potential for a flower" and a moron is potentially a genius, like some of these morons here have tried to do.
I do not offer a chimp equal status based on the "potential" of its transcendence.
Hope is not an argument.
Tat I "hope to live forever" does not make me immortal.
That I wish Niggers were like me, does not make them so.
i do not base my projections on a future that is disconnected from the past. The past is what I use to make sure that my projections do not veer into absurdity and emotional, need.

Instead of trying to sound profound try being honest and direct and clear.
Maybe your potential for brilliance will find an avenue towards enlightenment when it dissolves its need for acceptance.