This is the last of a seven part series of posts that come from a paper I wrote.
Because the paper is somewhat long, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it in seven installments.
Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.
Simply scroll down to find the first post.
Please enjoy.
Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part VII)
When all else fails with regards to denying fundamental human rights to those who should not have them by use of the various steps of the SLED test, it should be noted that one could still, yet deny those rights by taking one more step.
I call it the C-SLED (cumulative SLED).
In other words, if there is any confusion about whether a being meets any single requirement of the SLED test; we simply state that the being must meet them all. In so doing, we safeguard our method for categorizing human beings against those fancy philosophers and theological thinkers that would seek to undermine our efforts in this area. This step is necessary to ensure the outcome that we desire as a result of SLED testing, namely, that only the right human beings receive human rights. It is important for our method to be able to overcome objections and withstand any accusations of mistaken reasoning by those who would attempt to point out any fallacies in what is clearly a well reasoned, logically coherent argument for dividing human beings and objectively determining the legitimacy of any claim to, so called, human rights.
As you can see, it is critically important to have a method for determining which human beings should have human rights, and I believe that if the human race is going to continue to thrive and evolve, this issue of who should and shouldn’t have these rights is of paramount importance and deserves the type of deep thinking and sound reasoning that you have seen demonstrated here.
I call it the C-SLED (cumulative SLED).
In other words, if there is any confusion about whether a being meets any single requirement of the SLED test; we simply state that the being must meet them all. In so doing, we safeguard our method for categorizing human beings against those fancy philosophers and theological thinkers that would seek to undermine our efforts in this area. This step is necessary to ensure the outcome that we desire as a result of SLED testing, namely, that only the right human beings receive human rights. It is important for our method to be able to overcome objections and withstand any accusations of mistaken reasoning by those who would attempt to point out any fallacies in what is clearly a well reasoned, logically coherent argument for dividing human beings and objectively determining the legitimacy of any claim to, so called, human rights.
As you can see, it is critically important to have a method for determining which human beings should have human rights, and I believe that if the human race is going to continue to thrive and evolve, this issue of who should and shouldn’t have these rights is of paramount importance and deserves the type of deep thinking and sound reasoning that you have seen demonstrated here.
No comments:
Post a Comment