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

Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: gaffo

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:12 am Words are indeed "socially defined." However, the realities to which they point are not.
Words point to realitieS? Plural?

What was that phrase you used.... "You understand me. You just don't want to"

"My description of reality is more real than your description of reality" is a popular argument-starter.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:12 am
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.
The words I listed are, in fact, socially defined, and although they related to real things, the words distill, limit, and categorise them.
I suggest you read some structuralism, since you seem mired in some sort of Platonic naivete.
Structuralism, can account for social, cultural and political changes, in a way your childish Platonism cannot.
If you chose to categorise old age pensions as "communism", you can argue that this relates to real things, but what you have done is to traduce old age pensions as evil. A ten year old child with 3 lessons on media studies can tell you that words are powerful things that can tell lies by offering facts.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:17 pm The words I listed are, in fact, socially defined...
...as I said they were. ALL mere "words" are.

The word "Sculptor" is a mere social construct. You made it up, and people use it or not, as they please. However, the human entity to which the label "Scupltor" attaches is real, objective, and not socially constructed. His existence and real identity will not be altered if he decides to call himself, "The Emperor Napoleon," "Batman" or "Mildred." :D
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

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

Post by henry quirk »

What I get is you're a smart guy who knows he's smart and who parades his smartness. But -- as smart as you are -- you're not smart enough to just answer a friggin' question without twisting your answer up in a mobius loop of self-congratulatory, preening, jackassery. You're a peacock.

Really, who needs your shit? Look around. You strut through nerd heaven waving your 'brain' around, actually believing what happens here mattes, as though you're actually racking up points when, truth be told, this place is populated by needle-dick autistics who know the secrets of the universe but have to wear slip-ons cuz not a one can navigate a shoe lace.

You make a man tired with your constant pleas for attention, just like a high maintenance kid can and does.

Now, go dredge up sumthin' from your shallow pool of insults to toss, limp-wristed, my way, or, suck it up and move on. Me, I don't give a flip what you do cuz -- for the moment -- I'm beyond done with you.
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:46 pm What I get is you're a smart guy who knows he's smart and who parades his smartness. But -- as smart as you are -- you're not smart enough to just answer a friggin' question without twisting your answer up in a mobius loop of self-congratulatory, preening, jackassery. You're a peacock.

Really, who needs your shit? Look around. You strut through nerd heaven waving your 'brain' around, actually believing what happens here mattes, as though you're actually racking up points when, truth be told, this place is populated by needle-dick autistics who know the secrets of the universe but have to wear slip-ons cuz not a one can navigate a shoe lace.

You make a man tired with your constant pleas for attention, just like a high maintenance kid can and does.

Now, go dredge up sumthin' from your shallow pool of insults to toss, limp-wristed, my way, or, suck it up and move on. Me, I don't give a flip what you do cuz -- for the moment -- I'm beyond done with you.
I am glad that you got this off your chest.

I am guessing you see your error now?

You are welcome to bestow 'smartness' upon me, but I will have to let you down gently. I am not into the self-congratulatory bullshit. I far prefer avoiding stupidity than seeking brilliance.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

the question on the table...

Post by henry quirk »

Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?

Easy yeah?

You're out & about, a woman passes you pushing a stroller. in the stroller is a baby.

Is that baby a person cuz it is a person (its personhood is intrinsic to it), or cuz society sez it is (its personhood is bestowed on it)?

Yeah, 'personhood' is problematic (cuz: what is personhood?), but you, the person reading this, must have some idea what you think and believe about 'personhood', must have some notions about yourself, as 'person'.

Start there.
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:58 pm Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?
False dichotomy.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:58 pm Easy yeah?
Trivial!

Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed? Neither! Both! If personhood is intrinsic it's because 'intrinsic personhood' is bestowed.

Is babyness intrinsic or bestowed? Neither! Both! If babyness is intrinsic it's because 'intrinsic babyness' is bestowed.

And the not-so-trivial.... Who or what bestows 'intrinsic personhood'?

Is my belief in my intrinsic personhood sufficient to bestow intrinsic personhood upon myself if society believes that I am not intrinsically a person?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:02 pm Is my belief in my intrinsic personhood sufficient to bestow intrinsic personhood upon myself if society believes that I am not intrinsically a person?
Nobody's "belief bestows" anything. Yours doesn't, and "your" society's doesn't.

Ontological facts are ontological facts. If an entity is a lump of granite, then it's a rock, no matter what anybody else wants to believe. If an entity is a human being, it's a human being, even if you want to call it an "inferior," or a "slave," or a "subhuman." If you do that, you're just wrong. That's all.

It's very ordinary, really. People are wrong all the time. And they don't always know when they are. But it doesn't change any facts about what is true at all.

"Personhood" isn't like the "Queen of the County" crown...it doesn't get bestowed by other people. An entity is a person, or you are not. End of story. It cannot be bestowed, and cannot possibly be taken away by any means. All that can happen is that people can abuse or brutalize you...but they'll be brutalizing and abusing a person, whether they know it or not.

Whether or not anybody recognizes that is perhaps material to the question of how they're going to treat you...but it has zippo to do with what you actually ARE.

Get it now?
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:37 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:02 pm Is my belief in my intrinsic personhood sufficient to bestow intrinsic personhood upon myself if society believes that I am not intrinsically a person?
Nobody's "belief bestows" anything. Yours doesn't, and "your" society's doesn't.

Ontological facts are ontological facts. If an entity is a lump of granite, then it's a rock
Then how did you just bestow 'graniteness' to quartz and feldspar formations?
Then how did you just bestow "rockness" to granite?
How did I just bestow 'quartzness' to silicon–oxygen tetrahedra?
How did we bestow 'feldsparness' to any of a group of minerals, principally aluminosilicates of potassium, sodium, and calcium?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:37 pm Whether or not anybody recognizes that is perhaps material to the question of how they're going to treat you...but it has zippo to do with what you actually ARE.

Get it now?
I got it all along! You are trying to invent an ontology using your words.

You are failing. Ontology is turtles all the way down.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:40 pm I got it all along! You are trying to invent an ontology using your words.
If you think that, not only do you not get it...you can't read. :roll:

Words are social constructs. They don't constitute reality; they attempt only to describe it. And when they fail in that mission, objective facts are not altered.

Oy vey.
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:55 pm Words are social constructs. They don't constitute reality; they attempt only to describe it. And when they fail in that mission, objective facts are not altered.
Yeah, but words don't describe the world - words describe our knowledge/understanding/perception of the world.

Which is why objective facts are altered as our knowledge is altered. That's how falsification works.

The fact that the Earth is flat is not a fact anymore.
The fact that Earth is the centre of the Universe is not a fact anymore.
The fact that there are ̶5̶ ̶6̶ ̶7̶ ̶8̶ ̶9̶ planets in the Solar system are not facts anymore.

All models (of reality) are wrong - some are useful. Facts exist only in language and language changes as knowledge evolves.

Let me help you before you burn out a fuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:58 pm The fact that the Earth is flat is not a fact anymore.
It never was.

Surprise, surprise.

When people thought it was, and said it was, and even when 100% of the societies on earth uniformly believed it was, THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

Yep, every last one of them. 8)
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:12 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:58 pm The fact that the Earth is flat is not a fact anymore.
It never was.

Surprise, surprise.
Hindsight bias.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:12 pm When people thought it was, and said it was, and even when 100% of the societies on earth uniformly believed it was, THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

Yep, every last one of them. 8)
How do you know that we aren't all wrong about any or even all of the things we call 'facts' today?

I mean, you think personhood is intrinsic, you say it's intrinsic, and even if 100% of societies on earth uniformly believes that it's intrinsic. They could all be all wrong.

Every last one of them. 8)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:12 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:58 pm The fact that the Earth is flat is not a fact anymore.
It never was.

Surprise, surprise.
Hindsight bias.
Heh. :lol: No; verifiable facts. There is a difference, you know.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:12 pm When people thought it was, and said it was, and even when 100% of the societies on earth uniformly believed it was, THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

Yep, every last one of them. 8)
How do you know that we aren't all wrong now?
[/quote]
Ah. How wise you are! Perhaps despite the fact that it has seemed so by every possible scientific measurement, maybe a vast, right-wing conspiracy has deceived us all.

Speak on, sage...do tell more. :D
Skepdick
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:21 pm Heh. :lol: No; verifiable facts. There is a difference, you know.
Every single thing that was once called a fact and later overthrown was verified using all the available methodologies, measurements and evidence available at the time.

It was just verified incorrectly.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:21 pm Ah. How wise you are! Perhaps despite the fact that it has seemed so by every possible scientific measurement, maybe a vast, right-wing conspiracy has deceived us all.
Who says anything about deception? Never attribute to malice that which can be trivially explained by ignorance...

Science has been wrong before. In fact - if it's not wrong - it's can't possibly be science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

So if you are claiming that personhood is an intrinsic and verifiable fact - how would you falsify it?
Post Reply