Klezmer Gryphon
New member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- Azle, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Sounds kind've like the modern day Frankenstein version of Dred Scott.
Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.
Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).
- Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.
- Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.
Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?
Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
Sounds kind've like the modern day Frankenstein version of Dred Scott.
Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.
Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).
- Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.
- Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.
Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?
Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.
Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).
- Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.
- Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.
Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?
Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
Ginsburg and Breyer would probably vote for treating it as a human. Roberts wouldn't be able to make up his mind. Sotamayor and Kagen would initially vote for human rights but once Thomas, Kennedy and Alito explained that Griffin tastes a lot like chicken but only more liony they'd come around and vote to eat it.
Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.
Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).
- Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.
- Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.
Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?
Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
If choosing between those choices, B. It's not human. It can't be a person.
But those aren't the only two options.
Say, in a laboratory somewhere within the United States, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer a gryphon from scratch (it's never existed before) capable of human speech and independent, rational thinking. The gryphon is given a rudimentary education in literature, maths, history and science for the first five (5) years of it's life, up to a senior in high school.
Soon enough, though, the scientists began having arguments over how to treat their creation:
As neither scientist could convince the other of their position, they take their argument to the Supreme Court of the United States (current panel of justices).
- Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a natural person regardless of the fact that it is an artificial construct, and thus believes that it should be entitled to the same rights and legal protections entitled to US citizens under the Constitution, based on its intelligence, capacity for speech and independent thinking.
- Scientist B views the gryphon as an invention that can be patented and as such is a company asset, based on the fact said that gryphon is the product of an original and unique process (or series of processes). They espouse that the gryphon cannot be a ‘natural person’ because it is not human, and thus believes that it is not protected under the Constitution regardless of it's intelligence.
Now, my question is: Which side do you believe the SCOTUS would rule in favor of in this argument? Is Scientist A correct in citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for legal recognition of personhood (and thus constitutional rights), or is Scientist B correct in saying that the gryphon is property because it is an artificial construct, and thus able to be patented as an original invention (and, in doing so, implying it has no rights)? What precedent would this set for society, and how would this affect the application of constitutional rights in the long run in similar situations, say a cloned human?
Be rational, and provide logical support for your arguments (perhaps even precedent from past SCOTUS cases if at all possible).
But... But.... But SCOTUS says a corporation can be a person, so why can't anything be a person????
You are playing off a tired and silly argument. Corporate personhood has been recognized for a very long time, and for good reason. How would anyone go about suing a corporation, if it were not a legal person? And without the ability to sue to enforce a business contract, who in his right mind would ever enter into one with a corporation? For this same reasons, governments waive their sovereign immunity and allow themselves to be sued in certain matters. No one would put the vending machines in the courthouse snack room, if he couldn't make an enforceable contract covering use, payments, servicing, placement, liability, etc. with the government involved.
That is why many of the founding fathers were against corporation just as they were against central banks. They understood that the loss of our freedom would not come from an attack from abroad, it would come from the enslavement of the people by bankers and corporations.
Today we are now the homeless people in the land our fathers died to make free. Any illusion of freedom is just that.
But... But.... But SCOTUS says a corporation can be a person, so why can't anything be a person????
If my being free is an illusion, it's one I find very compelling.
Corporations are groups of humans.
So the definition of person is a group of humans?
The humanity is the necessary part, yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?