Can you tell the difference?

[Nick Evan]

I'm following Narue's advice by posting this here. It is not my intend to start anykind of flamewar, I think we can discuss this like 'normal' people. So here goes:

From this thread

calling someone sub-human or comparing him with massmurderers
from the previous century (and calling them heroes...) are two completely different things.

That's debatable, and you might want to start a thread on it in the Geek's Lounge. I think it might start an interesting debate.

So what's worse:

- a sub-human
- historical mass murderer

[Narue]

Actually, I was talking about that particular comparison (sub-human to historical mass murderers) rather than how far you can go on Daniweb, but that might spark conversation too. Just don't take it as an invitation to find out how far you can go. ;)

[Nick Evan]

Deal.

I changed it, because this thread would probably be locked within the day with the other question in it. Infraction for me, negative reputation, all kinds of nasty things in my future :P
To prevent is better than to cure .

For the record: I prefer Sub-Human

[jasimp]

I would rather be called sub-human than mass-murderer because sub-human is one persons opinion while mass-murderer is supported by facts.

[briansmall]

Anyone care to define sub-human?

[nav33n]

Anyone care to define sub-human?

Definitions of subhuman on the Web:

* less than human or not worthy of a human being; "treated natives as subhuman"; "a subhuman spectacle"; "the subhuman primates"
* unfit for human beings; "subhuman conditions of life".

P.S It really doesn't make any difference if you don't care.

I would prefer to be called sub-human because mass murderers are frowned upon by society.

[Nick Evan]

I would prefer to be called sub-human because mass murderers are frowned upon by society.

How very true

[briansmall]

Okay, treating someone as subhuman might be like treating them as if they were dogs. But that's not a definition of a person to whom we would apply the lable sub-human. What would be the definition of a sub-human homosapien?

I find this in wikipedia: "The Under-Man -- the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.

Sub-Human (more or less) seems to have been the lable applied to the non-aryan races by the Nazis?

So the label "sub human" is a statement as to the value of others, based on a lack of traits that others do not share with the labeler. .. In other words, it's a purely ego-based attitude?

Does that about sum it up?