Interesting, but speech is much easier to define than what makes a human. If we disable or remove parts of someone's brain (or if they're genetically different), at which point do they stop being human? What if there's no brain at all? I would say a bunch of meat isn't deserving of human rights. But where is the line, what if the brain has no emotions? Or no pain? No concept of self? No empathy?
Why are you asking me? I said what I think about that. If you disagree, just say what's on your mind directly.
But hey, would the people behind this campaign be willing to subject themselves to clinical diagnosis? How about this, everybody gets tested and then we have a forum where people have a little number next to their name, showing how much a sociopath they are. Then we're still just total peasants pretending to know about mental health, but at least we'll have a ranking or something.
> No concept of self?
That's interesting, seeing how so many valid questions go unanswered. Like, any documentation for the plagiarism claim. Or that maybe there is not just the binary of "abuser and victim", that maybe even someone being guilty of something doesn't warrant simply declaring them non-human. No discernible reflection I can make out.
Oh, and coming back to the above, are you saying people who are heavily mentally disabled or have personality disorders should be stripped of human rights, and subject to lynchings by mobs if they ever do.. anything? "Just a bunch of meat", right?
I'm not trying to shut you up by acting offended, to the contrary, I find it kind of incredible to open such a big can of worms in two lines and leave it at that. Leave it in the subtext, leave it in the gut instinct of the mob. How about not using lip service of being against abuse for perpetrating and apologizing abuse? You can't just randomly suspend the humanity of someone on a whim, because you have this stub of a philosophical question you yourself don't even seem to care enough about to actually put in words.