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

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9021
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:14 am But it would mean you lacked a human or a person.

Unless you are claiming 3 different ontologies/realities.
Nope.

One person can be an engineer, a father and a member of Mensa. There is no contradiction in using different descriptors to describe a single ontological reality. Babies are human (what else would they be?), and persons.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by henry quirk »

Skepdick wrote:Language is abstract. All of it.
but the thing is not, and we're talkin' about the thing not the placeholder

c'mon, guy...
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: gaffo

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:26 am One person can be an engineer, a father and a member of Mensa. There is no contradiction in using different descriptors to describe a single ontological reality.

You have multiple signifiers for one signified. Why do you need multiple signifiers if you have a single, ontological reality. Surely one is enough?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:26 am Babies are human (what else would they be?), and persons.
Well, you answered your own questions. What else could babies be.... human. And Persons.

3 signifiers to 1 signified.

Where's this "single ontological reality" you are speaking of?
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:29 am but the thing is not, and we're talkin' about the thing not the placeholder
The THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.

THREE DIFFERENT PLACEHOLDERS for ONE THING.

Why do you need so many? Just call it what it is!
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9021
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 am The THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is! a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.
Ah, I see.

Just sophistry.

You understand me. You just don't want to.

That's fine. Be well.
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:34 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 am The THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is! a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.
Ah, I see.

Just sophistry.

You understand me. You just don't want to.

That's fine. Be well.
No, you are just being ignorant.

Why do you need THREE placeholders for ONE thing? Why can't you just call it what it is?

Why can't you call it by its ONE True Nature? Why do you don't need THREE placeholders?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9021
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:35 am Why do you need...
Three descriptors...or more...are often speaking of one thing. That's such a routine phenomenon that you can't possibly convince me you can't get that.

Sorry. I've figured out your game. Can't be bothered to play.
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:48 am Three descriptors...or more...are often speaking of one thing. That's such a routine phenomenon that you can't possibly convince me you can't get that.
Dimwit. If there is only ONE True Ontological Reality, then the thing has only ONE True Ontological Nature. That nature is either a baby, a human or a person, but it's not all three.

This "routine phenomenon" (which you sweep under the carpet with skilful ignorance) is precisely the performative contradiction which destroys your argument.

You are projecting your socially-constructed ontologies onto the thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:48 am Sorry. I've figured out your game. Can't be bothered to play.
I've never been koi about it - my game is to demonstrate your ignorance. Success. Again.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Dachshund »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:11 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:10 am Ontologically speaking - that's exactly wha it would mean.
No, linguistically speaking, it would mean we lacked a word to explain the thing we were observing, a baby. Ontologically speaking, it would make no difference at all: it would not mean we lacked a baby.

IC is talking about SUBSTANCE ontology. You need to do some reading about it Skeptic to get on the same page.

An ontological SUBSTANCE is not a form of "stuff" like: salt or gasoline or toothpaste.

Here are FOUR good examples of (ontological) SUBSTANCES: (1) my pet Dachshund dog; (2) a shark and (3) My sister's horse, " Lucy", the grey mare, and (4) YOU (Skeptic) the individual living thing that is reading this post right now.


Regards


Dachshund
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: gaffo

Post by Skepdick »

Dachshund wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:27 pm IC is talking about SUBSTANCE ontology. You need to do some reading about it Skeptic to get on the same page.

An ontological SUBSTANCE is not a form of "stuff" like: salt or gasoline or toothpaste.

Here are FOUR good examples of (ontological) SUBSTANCES: (1) my pet Dachshund dog; (2) a shark and (3) My sister's horse, " Lucy", the grey mare, and (4) YOU (Skeptic) the individual living thing that is reading this post right now
Have you considered the fact that I understand the theory way better than you do?

Here is an extract from the page on substance theory
Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics, which may be classified into monist, dualist, or pluralist.......According to monistic views, there is only one substance

Assigning THREE substance-ontologies to ONE thing makes IC a pluralist, but as a God-fearing Christian he has to pretend to be a monist or his entire philosophy gets dismantled.

He lost thee battle and the war, that's why he bowed out.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by henry quirk »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:29 am but the thing is not, and we're talkin' about the thing not the placeholder
The THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.

THREE DIFFERENT PLACEHOLDERS for ONE THING.

Why do you need so many? Just call it what it is!
See? Arguin' just to argue, and arguin' about sumthin' that ain't got nuthin' to do with the issue (is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?). There's a lotta ground to cover there, but you wanna dick around with placeholders.

'nuff said.
Skepdick
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "But it would mean you lacked a human or a person"

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:28 pm See? Arguin' just to argue, and arguin' about sumthin' that ain't got nuthin' to do with the issue (is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?). There's a lotta ground to cover there, but you wanna dick around with placeholders.

'nuff said.
Henry, if personhood is "intrinsic" to the thing, then that thing is INTRINSICALLY a person.

Do you even get that I am agreeing with you on this point?

What seems to go beyond your intellectual grasp is the fact that if "personhood" is intrinsic to the thing, then that thing cannot be anything other than a person.

We can't be bestow the thing to be a baby. Because it's intrinsically a person.
We can't be bestow the thing to be a human. Because it's intrinsically a person.

You can't NOT dick around with placeholders. Placeholders is ALL you have! Language is a placeholder.

Even if you SAY that personhood is intrinsic to the thing, you are still bestowing 'intrinsic personhood' upon the thing.

You aren't a free will - you are a prisoner of language.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9021
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dachshund wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:27 pm SUBSTANCES: (1) my pet Dachshund dog;
Awesome. You have a weiner dog? They rock.

As you no doubt know by now, they're the sneakiest dogs on earth, but also some of the most devoted. I salute your choice.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:10 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:19 pm Matters of fact only relate to qualities that are not socially or subjectively defined.
Right. Well, the ontological status of a human being is not socially defined. That's what I'm pointing out. The "social definition" idea isn't sensible. In fact, all it does is open the door to abuses. That's all it has ever done.
Provisional list of socially defined words:

"Ontology"
"human being"
"abuse"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9021
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:22 pm Provisional list of socially defined words
Words are indeed "socially defined." However, the realities to which they point are not.
Post Reply