re: #376 calochortus

Why? I think I’d rather be called names than be executed. Under most circumstances, anyway.

Even with terrorists, I think it is a bad idea. It suggests that they are so different from us that we (and those like us) could never do anything that bad, and it is way too easy to extend the designation to those who are in some way like the terrorists.

I will confess to occasionally referring to an individual as “pond scum” or the like, though. :-) We are none of us perfect.

I agree, and not only because it is dehumanizing, but because (IMO) it also negates, choice, free will, whatever you want to call it. There’s an old Afghan proverb:

Cats don’t catch mice to please God.

Even if you take out the God aspect, it means that cats (and all animals) do what they do because it’s their nature, it’s instinctive. There’s no right or wrong, no moral choice involved when an animal behaves in a way we consider vicious. Ditto for cockroaches—of all the insects in existence, I loathe them the most. They’re filthy, disgusting, absolutely revolting…but that’s what they’re supposed to be, it’s their job so to speak. We all know this—it’s the reason we don’t hold animals and other creatures morally responsible for their actions. They’re off the hook. Not so with humans. Barring mental disease or extreme circumstances, we have a choice. I, for one, am not about to let any human off the hook in that regard.

WRT the blog, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “it is way too easy to extend the designation”. People will walk right up to the edge of what’s allowed, and then test to see what happens when they push past the limits, especially if the limits are less than crystal clear.