Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:13 am
It is not a different point.
What I was referring to was your rant about the character of people living in Edinburgh - which was an entirely different point and a different opinion to the one I am asking you address specifically. At the top of that reply you said..
Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:45 am
So [...] you are willing to cut off a main human ability that of recognising and processing expressions on human faces?
... which is what the bulk of my last post discussed, along with asking you to justify your statement about me somehow being less than human. It's tiresome to have to contextualise our discussion by reminding you of what you've already said, but I'm happy to do it if it helps keeps things on track.
Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:13 am
Dehumanisation requires certain attributes of the human being to be cancelled. Recognising each other is a very basic primary attribute and is used by everyone. To be able to recognise and perceive a facial expression is fundamental to our well-being and having it removed by a "just in case" measure which has such great influence on society is ridiculous beyond any stretch of the imagination.
I don't disagree that recognising and interpreting people's facial expressions is an important part of everyday social interaction. Indeed, I've also raised questions about
how masks might change the nature of our social interactions. That is not the point of issue. The point of issue is your statement that I have somehow been dehumanised,
that I am already less than human, for accepting masks can help reduce the risk of viral transit.
Yes, we might say that, "Dehumanisation requires certain attributes of the human being to be cancelled", or as I cited, dehumanisation is "the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities." On that we seem to agree. Perhaps we might also agree that you've dodged justifying your previous statement about how and why, by limiting the ability of others to see the lower half of my face, I am rendered less than human? I say this because the post to which you responded ended thus...
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:35 am
... So, let's agree for the sake of argument that recognising faces is a fundamental human quality or attribute, one which you believe impacts any and every individual's humanity - which is to say that recognising faces is tied to every person's status as a fully authentic human being: are people who do not recognise faces less than human, and if so, in what way and to what extent?
You don't seem to want to respond to this, but again I'm willing to lend a hand. For example, is the person whose ability to recognise a face has been compromised by an eye infection, or who hasn't put their contacts in today, or has lost their specs, or has suffered traumatic or congenital sight loss, less than a fully authentic human being, and if so, in what way and to what extent?
Are these people dehumanised?
Perhaps now, rather than simply doubling-down and repeating your contention, you'll address the matter at hand.
