Why cannot

We can not only break even, but also turn a profit. Jose Mourinho has warned Anthony Martial he cannot keep wasting opportunities given the intense competition in his position after the struggling Manchester United forward was dropped from the squad against Feyenoord. The Daily Telegraph. Even commit to change publicly to encourage accountability. In this way, apologizing can not only repair a relationship, but it can also become a powerful catalyst for your own personal growth.

It is not obvious to me, however, whether this clarity provides a sufficient framework to solve the problem. It is this latter form of essentialism that justifies his insistence that not anything could be a legal person. It is rather implausible that either my newest T-shirt or a cake I just made could be ascribed legal personhood. This could be coined in terms of there being entities that necessarily cannot be legal persons.

A weak consequence of this would be that there are entities that, when a certain sufficient condition is satisfied, can be considered legal persons. According to the author, the general condition in question is the ability to hold claim rights or to perform acts 5 Kurki Kurki uses this to justify further categorisation of legal personhood into purely passive personhood, dependent legal personhood, independent legal personhood and purely onerous personhood.

These are clearly substantial claims with serious consequences for the very possibility of ascribing legal personhood to non-sentient beings, such as environmental entities or contemporary AI. Neither rivers nor trees can by themselves perform acts, which is why they cannot be legal persons. To be precise, he openly rejects essentialism about legal platforms as bundles of rights and duties.

Since, as I argued above, different legal platforms are best identified with different types of legal persons, one could think of them as kinds themselves rather than as entities, i. He seems to situate legal platforms among normative categories—to be filled, however, with natural entities. Being a mind-dependent kind is one thing; another thing is being a member of the kind in question. Specifically, Khalidi introduces the following categories of social kinds:. That a given entity belongs to the kind in question is mind independent.

A piece of paper either is or is not a dollar bill due to its intrinsic features—and some entities could not be dollar bills e. Kurki seems to suggest something similar about legal personhood he even draws an analogy between legal personhood and money in Chapter 4 of his book.

The plausibility of such a category of social kinds is rather controversial, and I remain sceptical about it. It is one thing to say that not anything could be a legal person, but it is another to interpret this as a strong metaphysical or conceptual modal claim. Such Realists Kurki among them accept that legal personhood is a natural feature from which certain rights and duties flow.

Or, to put it more technically, they accept that legal platforms i. A true legal positivist is by definition suspicious of such claims and prefers to see legal institutions grounded in social practice rather than some natural features Gizbert-Studnicki As I pointed out at the beginning of the article, whereas essentialism about kinds does not imply essentialism about kind membership, embracing the latter entails the former.

If Kurki insists that some entities cannot necessarily be legal persons, that is, they cannot be ascribed with certain rights and duties to be identified with a legal platform , it has the metaphysical or conceptual consequence that any legal platform has the feature that it cannot be attached to some entities at least those that cannot be legal persons. And, although seemingly marginal, this constraining feature is both a natural and grounding one. I only insist that a legal positivist should be suspicious about any metaphysical or conceptual constraints and natural grounding features just as positivists are suspicious of any moral constraints on the content of law.

It is almost platitudinous, however, that there are always some pragmatic constraints and reasons for a limited application of legal concepts, including the concept of legal personhood. This damage could be a stroke, a severe concussion, or any kind of injury. If we can somehow limit the number of neurons that die early after injury, then we are keeping the damage to a minimum. To help with repair later on after the injury, after the damage is done, some scientists are trying to use stem cells as a treatment for neuronal loss in the brain.

They have the capacity to develop into brand new neurons if scientists treat them with special molecules. This is a little like elementary school students who are not doctors or plumbers yet, but they have the capacity to become any professional in the future, given the right training. The biggest challenge with replacing dead neurons with stem cells is to have these newcomer neurons integrate, or fit into, the existing brain networks the right way.

Looking at the structure of a neuron, you will notice it has a cell body and several arms that it uses to connect and talk with other neurons Figure 1 , left.

The really long arm that sends signals to other neurons is called axon , and axons can be really long. If an axon is damaged along its way to another cell, the damaged part of the axon will die Figure 1 , right , while the neuron itself may survive with a stump for an arm.

The problem is neurons in the central nervous system have a hard time regrowing axons from stumps. Why do skin cells not have this problem? Skin cells are much simpler in structure. First, they need motivation. There are special molecules that help activate growth in neurons. More of these motivating molecules are made when the neurons are active. So, if you keep your brain active, your neurons are more likely to grow.

This is true both after injury and in the healthy brain. Some stop signs are part of the sheath, or covering, around neighboring axons, called myelin sheath Figure 1 , left. Some stop signs are part of a scar that gets built like a protective wall around an injury in an effort to keep the damage from spreading.

These scars are made by brain cells called astrocytes star cells, due to their star-like appearance. Scar-building astrocytes are just trying to help, but they also release a chemical into their environment that makes it hard for axons to grow Figure 2.

But, there is good news here as well. Scientists are working on strategies to motivate injured neurons to grow by using special growth molecules and to eliminate stop signs for axons in order to make the injury environment more supportive for nerve cell growth [ 1 ].

They evolve their own rules over time. David: That's a new one on me. I'll remember it - if only because it's a plausible alternative to clitoric assuming there is such a word.

But I was specifically thinking of those "semi-verbs" that are often just helping the main verb along. Like "are helping" there, which could just as well be "[to] help", except we add a bit of "to be" into the mix to emphasise the ongoing nature of the activity.

Shinji Shinji 21 1 1 bronze badge. There was a time in the s when why do not you was not uncommon. I don't know whether it was just in the written language as an incorrect expansion of why don't you or whether people actually said it.

It sounds terrible today. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile.

Linked Related Hot Network Questions.