Page 49 of 54

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:19 am
by -1-
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.
The biological machinery for life is in place always, and the only time the biological machinery was started was the formation of the first life form that was capable of replicating itself developing in the primordial soup. The rhythm of life has been placed in place in the machinery, and since it has been a continuous flow of life continuing. The machinery is not placed in place with each conception. Without the parents' zygotes, the conception would not happen. So Zygote is the placement of life in in the machinery? No, because zygotes could not be produced without sexually mature adults. So sexually mature adults are the point in which life's machinery is placed? NO, childhood precedes adulthood; without children, there would be no adults. Children are etc etc etc.

To claim that life starts at inception, is false. Life started some beeeeelyuns of years ago, and it never stopped happening. In one continuous connectedness, but in many different threads.

I agree, however, that personhood starts at an arbitrarily designated spot in the development of the fetus, or at birth, or at 18 when you can get married, vote, consume alcohol and drive a car, and own a gun. I mean, what other proof do you need to personhood than the ability to be responsible before the law. You can never charge a chair or a carpet with murder or with embezzlement, and put it to jail, can you. The same with a foetus, and to a lesser degree, the same with a child. Children are adults with limited liabilities, when you consider who is and who is not a person.

But that's the law. If you talk about philosophy, however, and you are trying to define on philosophical considerations when personhood starts, your definition is as good as anyone else's.

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:22 am
by -1-
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am
I don't know why I bother--so I won't :cry:
You're right. You are mixing up your own emotional responses by considering them as logical arguments. And when you are shown that the two are separate and different, then you collapse.

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:27 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:22 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am
I don't know why I bother--so I won't :cry:
You're right. You are mixing up your own emotional responses by considering them as logical arguments. And when you are shown that the two are separate and different, then you collapse.
You mistake a lack of emotion for logic. That's a logical fallacy. There is no reason why an emotional person can't also be a logical one. Perhaps you have been watching too much Star Trek.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
by Sculptor
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:19 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:13 pm
Usual ignorance.
The biological machinery for life is in place at conception. The timeline is therefore arbitrary. Personhood is when the baby is born and named.
The biological machinery for life is in place always, and the only time the biological machinery was started was the formation of the first life form that was capable of replicating itself developing in the primordial soup. The rhythm of life has been placed in place in the machinery, and since it has been a continuous flow of life continuing. The machinery is not placed in place with each conception. Without the parents' zygotes, the conception would not happen. So Zygote is the placement of life in in the machinery? No, because zygotes could not be produced without sexually mature adults. So sexually mature adults are the point in which life's machinery is placed? NO, childhood precedes adulthood; without children, there would be no adults. Children are etc etc etc.

To claim that life starts at inception, is false. Life started some beeeeelyuns of years ago, and it never stopped happening. In one continuous connectedness, but in many different threads.
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
Unless you want to say that there is nothing to distinguish a virus from an elephant because they are all "life", you will have to accept that individual lives have a beginning and an end.

I agree, however, that personhood starts at an arbitrarily designated spot in the development of the fetus, or at birth, or at 18 when you can get married, vote, consume alcohol and drive a car, and own a gun. I mean, what other proof do you need to personhood than the ability to be responsible before the law. You can never charge a chair or a carpet with murder or with embezzlement, and put it to jail, can you. The same with a foetus, and to a lesser degree, the same with a child.

Children are adults with limited liabilities, when you consider who is and who is not a person.
No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor.

But that's the law. If you talk about philosophy, however, and you are trying to define on philosophical considerations when personhood starts, your definition is as good as anyone else's.
Indeed.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm
by Immanuel Can
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
The problem with that view is very obvious.

It means that "society" can declare the personhood or non-personhood of any entity at any time.

So, society can claim "life starts" at age 21. Or age 50. Or ends at 30. Or that Jews, gypsies, the handicapped and dissenters are not real persons at all, ever. And since ONLY society defines when a person is a person, there would be no way to contradict it.

It also means that the worth of one human being is determined by their "usefulness" to others, for the purposes those others have. So if a woman doesn't want her toddler, and society agrees she can, she can drown her two-year-old in the bathtub and dispose of the body at will...and it won't be wrong at all, since she never killed a "person." (Toddlers are not only of questionable social utility...they often absorb a lot of resources that could be given to other things, obviously).

Meanwhile, we have different "societies." So a woman might be a "person" in the West, but in Saudi or Pakistan, she could be nothing but baggage, if her "society" says that's how it is. In Ethiopia, she can be held down at 13 and forcibly mutilated in the genitals with (no anaesthetic or medical professionals on hand) because her "society" says that's actually good. Or she could be revenge raped by angry men for the misdeeds of her cousin or brother. If she's not a person, as socially defined, what recourse does she have a right to have?

In pre-Civil-War America, or in the trans-Saharan slave trade in North Africa, blacks were not persons. Their society said so. In ancient societies, members of one tribe often do not agree that members of a rival tribe are persons. Do we then have to agree with all that?

So there's no way a purely social definition of personhood fails to rationalize any barbarity that "society" (whose, we never say) might happen to agree on.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:01 pm
by Sculptor
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
The problem with that view is very obvious.

It means that "society" can declare the personhood or non-personhood of any entity at any time.
That is the beauty of it.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:34 pm
by henry quirk
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
The problem with that view is very obvious.

It means that "society" can declare the personhood or non-personhood of any entity at any time.
That is the beauty of it.
When or if you get rendered into a nonperson I'm bettin' yer tune will change. You'll be jumpin' on the natural rights bandwagon ('my personhood is intrinsic to me! you can't use me for spare parts!').

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:22 pm
by Immanuel Can
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
When a life starts, and when personhood is established are SOCIALLY defined categories.
The problem with that view is very obvious.

It means that "society" can declare the personhood or non-personhood of any entity at any time.
That is the beauty of it.
Ah.

So you would say that genocide, slavery, the oppression of women, infanticide, child abuse, tribalist violence, female genital mutilation, revenge rape...are "beautiful"? Because there are societies that have advocated, or do now, all these things, on the grounds that certain people "don't count" as persons.

I find that a...surprising...aesthetic. :shock:

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:50 pm
by uwot
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:22 pm
So you would say that genocide, slavery, the oppression of women, infanticide, child abuse, tribalist violence, female genital mutilation, revenge rape...are "beautiful"? Because there are societies that have advocated, or do now, all these things, on the grounds that certain people "don't count" as persons.

I find that a...surprising...aesthetic. :shock:
Well Mr Can, there's a handbook for how you should integrate those things into your life, and make them beautiful, called The Bible. You really should read it sometime.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:29 pm
by Sculptor
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:22 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm

The problem with that view is very obvious.

It means that "society" can declare the personhood or non-personhood of any entity at any time.
That is the beauty of it.
Ah.

So you would say that genocide, slavery, the oppression of women, infanticide, child abuse, tribalist violence, female genital mutilation, revenge rape...are "beautiful"? Because there are societies that have advocated, or do now, all these things, on the grounds that certain people "don't count" as persons.

I find that a...surprising...aesthetic. :shock:
That is not my "society".
I don't agree that our standards can be universal. It is an act of utter arrogance that you think it is.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:17 am
by Immanuel Can
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:29 pm
That is not my "society".
Oh.

So the thing that makes it right is the "my" part, not the "society" part?

Our society is always right about who is a person and who is not, but other societies, which have different definitions of "personhood," lack the moral infallibility of "our" society?

What is it about it being "ours" that translates into your confidence that it's also right?

Just asking.

Re: gaffo

Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:30 am
by Immanuel Can
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:29 pm
I don't agree that our standards can be universal. It is an act of utter arrogance that you think it is.
I had no idea things could change actual identity every time they flew across some arbitrary geographical line presumed to be separating one alleged "society" from another.

Such magic is impressive. Have you tried sending lead to Eritrea, to see if it will turn into gold? Or maybe we could ship all the women to Colombia, so they'll all change into Shakiras...that would be nice.

This has possibilities. :wink:

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:58 am
by Dachshund
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:22 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am
I don't know why I bother--so I won't :cry:
You're right. You are mixing up your own emotional responses by considering them as logical arguments. And when you are shown that the two are separate and different, then you collapse.

-1-,

Veggie suffers from chronic emotional impulsivity and severe emotional lability. This is why she loses her temper all the time on the forum and blurts out so many disgusting expletive-laden posts (most of them are enough to make a sailor blush!). I think she has a congenital frontal lobe disorder, or maybe she was dropped on her head as a baby ? ( but I'm afraid to mention it in case I get verbally abused !).


Do you remember that "Warner Brothers" cartoon character called "Tassy" - the Tasmanian Devil that would get itself whipped into a ferocious, whirling, violent rage at the slightest provocation ? Well that's basically Veggie's problem. She needs to see her GP for a referral to a shrink and a script for some high-strength "Lithicarb" or "Tegretol" or some other kind of mood stabilizer. Then again, maybe Valium suppositories would be more appropriate ? (One to be inserted four times a day and when necessary). I mean, she can't keep carrying on like this - it's positively antisocial !

Regards


Dachshund

Re: gaffo

Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:28 pm
by Sculptor
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:30 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:29 pm
I don't agree that our standards can be universal. It is an act of utter arrogance that you think it is.
I had no idea things could change actual identity every time they flew across some arbitrary geographical line presumed to be separating one alleged "society" from another.
We all know you are stupid.
Since we can't even agree ON THIS forum what rights the unborn, if any, should have, why would you stupidly think that these things are universal??

Re: gaffo

Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:58 pm
by Immanuel Can
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:28 pm
Since we can't even agree ON THIS forum what rights the unborn, if any, should have, why would you stupidly think that these things are universal??
You think "universal" means "universally accepted and acclaimed"? Nope. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes they're right. But right and wrong about facts doesn't depend on their consensus. It depends on what's true in reality.

A baby needs no "social" approval to be alive or to be human. And he needs none in order to be valuable, either. He will be human and alive whether or not the society into which he is born decides to recognize it; and his intrinsic value is not determined by his utility to the selfish plans of others.

Meanwhile, moving him across some imaginary border supposed by you to contain non-cross-contaminated, non-multicultural, ideologically unified "societies" with the same opinion about which humans count and which don't will obviously not change that fact one bit. If he's human in America, he'll be human in Canada and Mexico. If he's not valuable and human in Holland, then only deluded people will imagine he is, when he's taken to England.