Is Rei human?

[orcot]

What makes us unique is being born into this world through another human being, with this freak self-awareness of ourselves that as far as we know, only human beings have.

Chicken or the egg problem if humans can only be born from a human and humans exist then their must always have been humans, their was not hence your definition of a human being is flawed at best.

[Blockio]

While I agree that the definition has some border cases that it doesn't account for, what you're saying here is just needlessly pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Obviously it doesn't hold true for the very beginnings of humanity, but it does hold true for the scope of the discussion, so it's a moot point to make

[cyharding]

My opinion is that Rei is human, a different species of human. My latin is abymismal, but I would label her homo auctor. She would play by different rules than homo sapien, but would still be part of the same genus.

[Berserker]

Even GNR is considered human according to EoE. There's no point questioning these as this is eva verse you're talking about, where metaphysics and religion doesn't work the way you think they do, Zeronow.

Even after everyone's persistent endeavor to give answer to your question logically, you ignorantly bring up the same metaphysical in-universe interpretetion of yours over and over again. From the instances we gave, we tried to show you that cloned animals are still the same organism, the same species as of its ancestor. But it's worthless as every time your answer is cats aren't human, dogs aren't human and goes on. But if you had paid any heed to anything everyone said, we never said so. Again it was instances of cloning and since human cloning is stricly prohibited, we showed you those examples so by comparison you'll try to understand that cloned beings are the same as their ancestor. Like it or not, everyone gave every possible facts and examples both of reality and eva verse. At this point your discriminative coerced way of classifying a cloned entity being different/inferior to its ancestor rather than exactly the same is straight up disturbing and strawmanning. And even from religious standpoint, your definition of human indicates that Adam and Eve weren't human as Adam was born from dust/clay while Eve from part of Adam's rib, which makes us the same as them, non human.

[ZeroNow]

Even GNR is considered human according to EoE. There's no point questioning these as this is eva verse you're talking about, where metaphysics and religion doesn't work the way you think they do, Zeronow.

Even after everyone's persistent endeavor to give answer to your question logically, you ignorantly bring up the same metaphysical in-universe interpretetion of yours over and over again. From the instances we gave, we tried to show you that cloned animals are still the same organism, the same species as of its ancestor. But it's worthless as every time your answer is cats aren't human, dogs aren't human and goes on. But if you had paid any heed to anything everyone said, we never said so. Again it was instances of cloning and since human cloning is strictly prohibited, we showed you those examples so by comparison you'll try to understand that cloned beings are the same as their ancestor.

You're comparing oranges to computers. Nothing in the universe as far as we know are the same as human beings, because we have somehow developed the ability to be self aware - we understand (to some degree, though greater than any other thing in the universe) the world around us. It's not just a matter of being prohibited - it doesn't work.I continually say it because everyone just ignores it: Animals are not the same as human beings.

Yes. You can clone a dog and it's the same THING. If you cloned Adolf Hitler, he would NOT. He wouldn't be Adolf Hitler. He'd look the same. But it wouldn't be him. It would be a THING. It would be a Frankenstein. This is why the comparison doesn't work and I continually bring it up.

You see it as me not understanding and continually bringing it up - I see it as you not understanding, and continually using it as a straw man theory.

Except I didn't call you ignorant.

Like it or not, everyone gave every possible facts and examples both of reality and eva verse. At this point your discriminative coerced way of classifying a cloned entity being different/inferior to its ancestor rather than exactly the same is straight up disturbing and strawmanning. And even from religious standpoint, your definition of human indicates that Adam and Eve weren't human as Adam was born from dust/clay while Eve from part of Adam's rib, which makes us the same as them, non human.

Yes, God created Adam and Eve and as reality and sci-fi AND Eva has shown us - WE can NOT. We can try, but it always has cataclysmic consequences. We as human beings can not create a life as unique and special as human beings. When we try, bad things happen. See: NGE.

None of your 'every possible facts and examples' override this.

Reality AND sci-fi have told us over and over again, that the power of creating human life rests in the hands of a higher power than us.

It's not 'discriminative'. It's not 'coerced'. It's not 'disturbing' or 'strawmanning.' It's what we've been shown over and over and over in both reality and in sci-fi.

And in NGE.

[Derantor]

You're comparing oranges to computers.

And you refuse to accept the fact that the EvaVerse is governed by EvaVerse laws and isn't real life.

Reality AND sci-fi have told us over and over again, that the power of creating human life rests in the hands of a higher power than us.

Oh please, give it a rest. Every birth creates a human life, and that is not done by a higher power; evolution creating the human race isn't a higher power either, unless you want to call the laws of physics god. And for the last time, a cloned human being is still a human being. Also, good job undermining your own argument with that Hitler-Dog comparison. A dog-clone is the same thing as a dog, but a Hitler clone isn't the same as Hitler? It has now become a thing? How so? Since when is a dog a thing and not a living entity? How is that different from Hitler? It isn't, unless you contort your definitions to the point they become utterly meaningless (or extremely outdated).

I continually say it because everyone just ignores it: Animals are not the same as human beings.

Everybody ignores it because it is simply not true. Human beings are animals. Sophisticated animals, for sure, but not that special. It's pure hubris to claim otherwise.

This is going in circles. Actually bring something new to the table, instead of just repeating "but a clone is not the same a human" as if it was some self-evident fact. It is not. It is your idiosyncratic definition that serves no other purpose other than to support your argument which falls flat if we assume any other definition. Everybody told you over and over again how NGE treats the matter. Yes, Lilith is also a human, end of story, case closed. Don't like that? Tough luck. And nothing in NGE says a higher power created humans - the FAR did, who are also human by NGE's definition.

On second thought: I'm locking this thread. The question has been answered many times over and beyond any need for further elaboration, and the circular nature of the argument at this point will only result in further deterioration.

[Blockio]

Hard agree to what Deranator is saying, you're just making a fool out of yourself.

By NGE's definition, all the angels are human. Not Lilin, but human.
Your singleminded idiocy in trying to not have to admit that you're wrong not only ignores that, but as Deranator has pointed out, also ignores any sort of common sense and internal consistency. I've stayed quiet about this hoping that someone else might be able to talk some sense into you, but evidently that is not the case, so here I am.
Consider your attempt at constructing an argument failed.