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: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:23 pm
Every single thing that was once called a fact and later overthrown was verified.
Ah, but not every single thing that is a fact has been overthrown. Some things have been verified correctly.

However, that would not have a thing to say or imply about the truth of the matter...the state of human knowledge (epistemology) does not determine the facts of how-it is (ontology).

Interestingly, you argument that science can be found "wrong" means that there is a "right." :shock: It means exactly what I said above...that how much we humans know at a given moment in time or in the development of our sciences, simply does not determine what is the case.

You've destroyed your own argument by speaking of science having been "wrong." If facts were merely social constructs, then science and facts would always have been identical. There would literally be no way for science to be "wrong," since there would be no reality outside of social constructs by which such a thing could be known.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm
Ah, but not every single thing that is a fact has been overthrown. Some things have been verified correctly.
Is this a concrete claim? if yes - do you mind sorting our existing facts into two piles for us, please?

Facts that will be overthrown.
Facts that won't be overthrown.

And more specifically: could you tell us if "intrinsic personhood" is a fact that will or won't be overthrown?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm
However, that would not have a thing to say or imply about the truth of the matter...the state of human knowledge (epistemology) does not determine the facts of how-it is (ontology).
It absolutely plays a critical role. How could you possibly SAY anything about ontology if you have no knowledge of it?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm
Interestingly, you argument that science can be found "wrong" means that there is a "right."
False dichotomy. Science is never absolutely right - it's only less wrong than its prior self.

https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience ... fWrong.htm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm
:shock: It means exactly what I said above...that how much we humans know at a given moment in time or in the development of our sciences, simply does not determine what is the case.
Then how did you determine that personhood is intrinsic?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:34 pm
You've destroyed your own argument by speaking of science having been "wrong." If facts were merely social constructs, then science and facts would always have been identical. There would literally be no way for science to be "wrong," since there would be no reality outside of social constructs by which such a thing could be known.
Poor rebuttal. Understandable given your black-and-white mindset.

Here - read this again: 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.

According to constructivists there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods.
Science deals with pragma, not truth. You would know this. If you were a scientist.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:52 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:48 pm
If you were a scientist.
Ooooh. Burn! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, as much fun as it is to play with you in the mud, slinging mud pies, I'm not reluctant to forgo the pleasure. Carry on as you are. Enjoy.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the question on the table...

Post by Skepdick » Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:52 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:48 pm
If you were a scientist.
Ooooh. Burn! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, as much fun as it is to play with you in the mud, slinging mud pies, I'm not reluctant to forgo the pleasure. Carry on as you are. Enjoy.
Every time I point out all the epistemic gaps in your philosophical position, you run away.

Why is that?

gaffo
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm

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.
no need to disparage Subsaharan cultures of the 19th century, while ignoring both Anglo-american, and anglo-brits had a culture and legal system of laws that affirmed the views of those African slaver's culture.

Africans - sold as slaves - were property and not persons, in the United State's culture (including 2 - "Northern States" - members of the Union during the Civil War (Maryland, and Delaware (both had legal slavery during the entire Cival War BTW - lincoln hypocrite much>?). His 13th only made slavery illegal in the southern states (state in rebellion) - was still legal in the non-rebellion slave union states of Maryland and Delaware for 2 more years.

as for your culture, the United Kingdom had the same culture as we did, only amended slaves as persons not property - 25 yr earlier.

1841?

-Brazil was the last - 1889 i think.

- slavery is still existant - but not codified in legality. you can find it via Indian/Bengali maids and construction workers in Saudi Arabia, and as Thai, other imigrant girls into eastern europe and caught up in the sex worker trades.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:21 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm

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.
...no need to disparage Subsaharan cultures of the 19th century...
I'm not. I'm just citing verifiable historical facts. You can look them up yourself. I didn't say whether they were good or bad facts...just that they are the facts.

Here's the real point. Societies do not agree upon personhood issues. In fact, you won't even find one single society that agrees with all its members on personhood. :shock: That's what multiculturalism implies: irreconcilable ideological pluralism -- people who do NOT agree, trying to live in the same area.

So the issue will have to be settled on grounds other than whether or not all societies or people agree on it.

gaffo
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo

Post by gaffo » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:21 pm
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:02 pm

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.
...no need to disparage Subsaharan cultures of the 19th century...
I'm not. I'm just citing verifiable historical facts. You can look them up yourself. I didn't say whether they were good or bad facts...just that they are the facts.

Here's the real point. Societies do not agree upon personhood issues. In fact, you won't even find one single society that agrees with all its members on personhood. :shock: That's what multiculturalism implies: irreconcilable ideological pluralism -- people who do NOT agree, trying to live in the same area.

So the issue will have to be settled on grounds other than whether or not all societies or people agree on it.
i was just clarifingn historical fact here Sir.

in don't like Multiculturalism nor agree with it (it tribal ego-filth), I'm a Melting Pot Univeral Humanist.

assimalation (as an imigrant into whatever nation/culture/etc) is a good thing.

"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support - and why i left the Democratic Party 20 yrs ago - who formerly supported this mindset, but later through it under the bus for multi-yugoslavian-culturalism.

never a Fascist so never had a mind to register as a Republican.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Dachshund » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:18 pm
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.
Dear IC,


Thank you, IC. Yes, they are very special little dogs - so cute, with their very long bodies and tiny legs and over-sized floppy ears. You are right when you say they are certainly sneaky, I know that for a fact. Generally speaking, they are clever little dogs; (to carry out sneaky plans requires forethought, rational reflection, etc). As you know many famous philosophers and theologians in the past have distinguished man from the lower animals by his God-given capacity for reason (Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine and John Calvin are three random examples that come to mind) Well, I would have to say to St Thomas and his like-minded peers, I disagree. I am quite sure that my dachshund dog (and most dogs) are, in actual fact, capable of rational thought- and there is (empirical) evidence of it in their observable behaviours to prove this. Mammals like dogs and chimps cannot reason, of course, at the level of an Albert Einstein, Percy Shelley or a Stephen Hawking, but I believe they are capable of rational thought, nonetheless ( albeit relatively rudimentary with respect to average human cognitive functioning).



I know this all depends upon how one defines terms like: "reason" and "rational" etc; (and entire books have been written on the topic), but I find it difficult to believe that the higher animals, like non-human mammals, say, have no capacity WHATSOEVER to: cogitate, deliberate, reflect or comprehend, AT ALL. I'll give you an example....



At a noisy, family Christmas party a couple of years ago, one of the kids present had put down a paper plate with a large slice of Christmas cake on it on the floor, run off and forgotten about it when another kid had called him over to play with toy helicopter he had been given as a Christmas gift. The abandoned cake on the floor was not far from the main dining table where all the adults were seated, enjoying Christmas dinner and champagne and chatting away loudly. The host of this Christmas dinner was my sister, who has a dachshund called "Ruby". "Ruby" is not allowed to eat human food as the Vet told my sister it is very bad for Dachshund's health -especially sugary, sweet, fatty stuff like cakes, donuts, etc; and the rule is enforced VERY strictly, as dachshunds absolutely LOVE highly-processed human food ( like sausages, roast chicken, roast lamb, pork, sweets, etc).




Anyway, by chance, during a break in the conversation at the dinner table , I noticed "Ruby", the dachshund, on the floor not far from where we were all sitting at table enjoying our roast turkey. Strangely, she was moving very, VERY slowly (as though she were in a video clip being played at VERY low speed) in a direction away from the dining table towards the cake on the floor about 5 meters away. When I saw Ruby was behaving oddly - moving slowly, I mean REALLY SLOWLY, literally, just like a snail, I didn't say anything. I just sat and watched , fascinated, as Ruby eventually crept right up to where the cake was sitting on the floor; then, suddenly, with a "lightening-like" lurch, she snatched the whole slice of cake in her mouth and bolted at the "speed of light", past the dining table , through an open sliding door on the verandah behind, and out into the garden shrubbery to devour it . :D . I was so impressed with "Ruby's" tactical operation, that I did not snitch on her. I figure she earned that slice of Christmas cake by out-smarting all the humans at the dinner table; it was only pure chance that I happened to see what she was up to.



Evidently, Ruby understood that by moving VERY slowly towards the cake she would not attract my sister or brother-in-laws' attention , in particular as they were obviously already distracted by festivities at the Christmas table. That seemed to me like evidence that a dog can think rationally ( deliberate, plan, problem-solve, etc?).



What do you think, IC?



There is a lot of Christian theology that states, clearly and unequivocally: "No !" - (animals ,say, mammals like: dogs; chimps; dolphins and whales, etc;) cannot reason/ think rationally ? I'm not so sure about that, IC ( ?)


Regards


Dachshund

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:36 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am
in don't like Multiculturalism nor agree with it (it tribal ego-filth), I'm a Melting Pot Univeral Humanist.
Well, two things.

First, that multiculturalism is a fact now, whether one "agrees with it" or not. For some, that seems lamentable, and for others, a cause for rejoicing. But either way, both are reacting to the same fact. It's just how things are now.

And that means, secondly, that, for better or for worse, there is no reasonable expectation of social unity on any questions today. If there is anything universally recognized, it is not personhood; so those who point to that as evidence that there is no such thing are personhood are floating a bad argument. There is no unified society today that could have a singular opinion about anything.
assimalation (as an imigrant into whatever nation/culture/etc) is a good thing
It certainly makes the idea of social unity easier. However, it is obviously what we do not have right now, so it's not helpful to the "social contractarian" view of personhood.

If this issue is to be decided, it will be only on the basis of incontrovertible fact; that a baby is what a baby is, regardless of what "societies" or factions thereof, think.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:15 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:38 am
What do you think, IC?
Well, my dog is an idiot until I have a treat in my hand -- at which time, he's a Rhodes Scholar, and can calculate pi to sixteen digits.
There is a lot of Christian theology that states, clearly and unequivocally: "No !" - (animals ,say, mammals like: dogs; chimps; dolphins and whales, etc;) cannot reason/ think rationally ? I'm not so sure about that, IC ( ?)
Yeah.

I don't know, really. Rationality isn't a quality that is prioritized over other things in Christian theology. Reason is valued, but not by way of making a person more valuable or less so.

I've met many people of diminished rational capacity who were better morally than many who could reason more precisely. And I think they were probably, overall, better people than most. But not being God, I cannot say for sure.

Mark Twain had a good quotation. It went, “Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.” :wink:

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Dachshund » Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am

[quote=Skepdick post_id=432620 time=1573860093 user_id=17350

Because all human knowledge and all ontologies are socially constructed.


Skeptic,


My understanding of your stance (on this post) is that you are a social constructionist (SC) ? And my understanding of social constructionism is that it regards human language as being more than just a way of communicating with people. Rather a SC seriously believes that people "exist" in language. So the focus in this philosophical approach is not really on the individual person, but rather on social interaction in which human language is generated, sustained and abandoned, etc. But it is actually more than this, because the social constructionist position is that there are no "real" external entities that can be accurately mapped or apprehended. Right ?


I mean ,do you really believe this nonsense, Skeptic ? Or are you just playing "devil's advocate"? Trying to wind - up IC, etc. ? (NB: I wouldn't mind at all if you had said something sensible like the (phenotypical), living, human being represents an ongoing - and extraordinary complex - developmental process of GENE X ENVIRONMENT interactions/correlations/co-actions, etc. But you are NOT being sensible).



If the answer is: "No, I do believe that SC is a very plausible thesis !", then try sticking your middle finger up your arse a few times and then examine it. What you will find is that your middle finger is now covered in a layer of a substance called "shit", and "shit" is objectively real no matter what you or anyone else in your community/society/culture happens to call it ( some anglophone people call it ("shit"): faeces, "poo" or "crap"; Samuel Pepys, the famous English diarist referred to human faeces as "turds" in London in 1665, my own GP calls them "stools" :oops: . It doesn't matter what language you use to identify "shit", the objective reality of this entity/stuff remains the same in the fact that it stinks is objectively real and not a social construction. (It's also coloured brown :wink: ) You don't need to convene a committee of expert linguists to debate and resolve the question of whether or not shit stinks - it just DOES !!. And the fact is, most, sane, adult human beings do not like to be anywhere near raw human "shit" because it has a dreadful odour and it has a real potential to cause and spread infectious diseases. If I, for instance, was to throw a large piece of shit at you, you would doubtless take rapid evasive action, lest it hit you; and you would think to yourself, "That Dachshund is a dirty bastard - how dare he throw a piece of shit at me!"

So, the take-away philosophical message for you, Skeptic is that...


"SHIT HAPPENS" in this universe, Bucko ! That's why you need to abandon your flirtation with Social Constructionism asap, and try to "KEEP IT REAL. :D "


Regards


Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: gaffo

Post by Dachshund » Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:12 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am
i was just clarifingn historical fact here Sir.

in don't like Multiculturalism nor agree with it (it tribal ego-filth), I'm a Melting Pot Univeral Humanist.

assimalation (as an imigrant into whatever nation/culture/etc) is a good thing.

"e plurs unim(sp). is a good thing pregmatically, and something i support - and why i left the Democratic Party 20 yrs ago - who formerly supported this mindset, but later through it under the bus for multi-yugoslavian-culturalism.

never a Fascist so never had a mind to register as a Republican.
[/quote]


Dear Gaffo,


Please tell me all about how Muslims and Islamic faith-culture ASSIMILATED into what used to be called the white European West; into countries like the US for instance, or the UK or Sweden (now rape capital of the world).

And what is exactly is the "Melting Pot" world-view. Do tell us Gaffo ! Is it where all the white Anglo-Europeans in America are compelled to engage in a process of fucking all the coloured 3rd -world immigrants from Mexico, Africa, Guatemala, etc, until all of America ends up "brown-coloured" with an average IQ of 86. (Although it is very vulgar and absolutely not PC for me to actually say this , it is what a SHIT LOAD of native,white European Americans are actually very worried about right now !) If so Gaffo, I agree - that's EXACTLY where're you're headed at this point in time, Bucko, and it's a bad destination ! IN short, well done. ! You took what was, up to 1965, a great, even remarkable, nation, and then just trashed it. You clowns ! The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves if they could see what people like LBJ, BIll Clinton and Barack (Marxist) Obama did to America


Regards


Dachshund

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: gaffo

Post by Skepdick » Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:23 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
My understanding of your stance (on this post) is that you are a social constructionist (SC) ? And my understanding of social constructionism is that it regards human language as being more than just a way of communicating with people.
In addition to a social constructionist, I am also an anti-foundationalist everything is just local narratives. Niklas Luhmann made the argument (and I agree with him) - because the notion of "meaning" is contingent it follows that language is just communication.

But do observe, the labels I pin upon myself make absolutely no difference to me. Even the label "social constructionist". I am only using the term as means of communicating my self-knowledge/understanding in a language that you (hopefully) understand.

As we interact and develop new language/meaning, I will end up re-desrcibing myself in words that (eventually) make more sense to you.

That is an important point: I am happy to invent language/meaning on the fly because I know how meaning-making works in practice.
If you don't know how language and meaning-making works - you can't play along with me.

People who don't understand how the game works usually object with something like "but we need shared language to communicate".
No! We need shared language to initiate communication - we can invent shared language as we go along (which is exactly what society has been doing for thousands of years).
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
Rather a SC seriously believes that people "exist" in language.
I seriously believe that the concept of "existence" exists only in your head (as do all concepts). Similarly the cognitive process which asserts that anything exist, exists only in your head also. If you weren't there to ask the questions "What exists?" the concept of existence wouldn't exist.

The same goes with the concept/idea of a 'person'. You project personhood upon things which agree with your conception of a person.

This is a falsifiable claim by the way. The moment you find an example of something, ANYTHING for which you have no concept of - then I will concede my philosophical position to be wrong.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
So the focus in this philosophical approach is not really on the individual person, but rather on social interaction
Incorrect. The focus on EVERY philosophical approach is on the interaction between the individual-I with reality, but to every individual - society is part of reality. You can't interact with reality without also interacting with every other individual.

The focus is on interaction. Full stop.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
in which human language is generated, sustained and abandoned, etc. But it is actually more than this, because the social constructionist position is that there are no "real" external entities that can be accurately mapped or apprehended. Right ?
No. I cannot speak on behalf of every constructivist. I can only speak on my behalf of myself in as much as I self-identify as a constructivist.

My position is that the categories you call "real" and "exist" are just categories in your head.
My position is that the mechanism by which you map entities into ANY categories is entirely subjective.
The position is that there is no objective mechanism for categorising things and so your mapping function and my mapping function could be completely different.

If there was an objective way to derive categories, then you must be able to build me a machine to categorize things into 'real' and 'not real.
I would be tremendously interested to see the classification rule of any such machine, its inclusion and exclusion criteria for each category.

In the most abstract reductionist sense this is a non-determinism argument.

If you are the only living thing in the universe and you need not interact with other living things - why do you need the "external/internal" distinction?

And the question that destroys the dualistic external/internal distinction: is your temporal lobe containing all of your memories internal or external to "you"?
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
I mean ,do you really believe this nonsense, Skeptic ?
I have absolutely no idea what arbitrary categories of 'sense' and 'nonsense' exist in your head, Dachshund.

The fact that you disapprove of my way of thinking sounds like a you-problem, not a me-problem.
I have no beliefs - only methods. My methods are effective (to varying degrees) towards attaining what I want/need/desire.
They work well enough that I am retired and financially independent at 36 - it's Monday. I am in my beach-side villa drinking wine, and I am probably going to go fuck my wife shortly.

To this end, my 'beliefs' are only instrumental to my goals. Beliefs with no instrumental utility are of no use to me. The very concept of 'belief' is a useless concept.

Q.E.D you have absolutely no ontological idea what "beliefs" are and you have absolutely no empirical way to determine whether I have any beliefs, and you have absolutely no way to check whether my beliefs correspond in any way to the words I use to describe them. Our "beliefs" only exist in the LANGUAGE in which I express them to you. It's all narrative.

We are attempting to narrate the way our minds work in language - doesn't work very well to be honest.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
But you are NOT being sensible.
Do you have an objective, epistemic criterion for asserting 'sensibility'? Or are you just communicating your disapproving value-judgment of my methods?

Again - I don't care if you think I am not being sensible. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.
If your opinion began mattering to me - I will adopt any narrative that bears your mark of "sensibility", "realness" or any other label that signifies your rubber-stamp of approval to make myself part of your in-group. I will SAY that I believe anything you believe - I will learn your language and I will speak it.

I'll virtue signal the fuck out of whatever you desire if it's to my benefit to do so.

It is all just language! It's way easier to change mine than to convince you to change yours.

I am pragmatic like that.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
If the answer is: "No, I do believe that SC is a very plausible thesis !",
You have no objective epistemic criterion for plausibility to discern a plausible from a non-plausible thesis!
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
Or are you just playing "devil's advocate"?
Playing devil's advocate is precisely HOW communication works! It's not just "playing devil's advocate for its own sake" - there is a method behind the madness.

By adding white noise to the communication channel (which i can later remove in my own head) I am increasing the signal strength. By taking a contrarian position I maximise the effectiveness of our communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_ ... sian_noise

The greater the distinction between your philosophical position, and the philosophical position I assume - the more contrast/differential between A and B - the more information emerges in the interaction.

I am exploiting this for my benefit - you aren't.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
then try sticking your middle finger up your arse a few times and then examine it. What you will find is that your middle finger is now covered in a layer of a substance called "shit", and "shit" is objectively real no matter
It doesn't matter if it's shit or candy. And it matters even less if it's real or just a placebo.

Unless you enjoy the placebo-taste of your finger after it's been in your ass, you are probably not going to put your finger in your mouth.

Even if your ass is full of skittles.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
what you or anyone else in your community/society/culture happens to call it ( some anglophone people call it (shit): faeces, "poo" or "crap";
Evidently some people in my society choose to call it "objective" and "real" in addition to "shit", "poo" and "crap.
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
"SHIT HAPPENS", Skeptic. That's why you need to abandon your flirtation with Social Constructionism, and "KEEP IT REAL. :D "
I am!

My narrative is more real than your narrative.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:36 am, edited 16 times in total.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: gaffo

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:54 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:01 pm
-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.
Sculptor,
You made several non sequiturs in your response.

You claimed I called all life equal, and therefore you said, quote, "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." This is nonsense in relation to what I said, because it has no relation to what I said.
1. I did not claim that all individual lives are equal.
2. I did not claim that individual lives do not have a beginning and an end.

I claimed that that machinery of life has been started a long time ago, presumably once, but now I claim also, possibly more than once.

You made the mistake of not distinguishing between the concepts of "life", "individual life" and "biological machinery". You made the mistake of taking all three and making them equal, or claiming that I made all three equal. Well, I never did.

You made another mistake in reading my post. You claimed that my statement was wrong, by saying this, I quote you: "No. Calling a child an adult is an abuse of language. You might as well call an egg, a Harvard professor." Calling a child an adult is wrong. But calling a child an adult is not wrong if proper delimiters of qualifications (or descriptions of differences) are given. Much like calling a chair a table is an abuse of language, but you can say "A chair has four legs like a table, but you sit on a chair and you put plates on a table." Both can have four legs, and as long as you give a properly delimiting description of their differences, starting at a common place that "they both have four legs" is not a mistake, abuse, or wrongness.

Calling a child an adult in the LEGAL sense is properly given when one says "a child is an adult with limited liability." I shan't go into details why it's not wrong, but if you respond and insist that I do, I just might (no promises that I will, however).

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: gaffo

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:00 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:12 am
until all of America ends up "brown-coloured" with an average IQ of 86. (Although it is very vulgar and absolutely not PC for me to actually say this , it is what a SHIT LOAD of native,white European Americans are actually very worried about right now !)
Sounds like the shitload of shits have an average IQ of 86 already. Because as an entire group of individuals, no matter what population you sample, has within itself an average IQ of 100. It can't be different from that, by definition.

A sample of SUB GROUP can have an average of 86 in comparison to another group, which could also be its superset; but the group WITHIN ITSELF has an average of 100 IQ points.

You said that the ENTIRE American nation will have an average IQ of 86. Thereby lies your inappropriate use of statistics.

To fear that the mathematically impossible will happen, takes a real moron like you, and others like you, who already possess this astronomically high IQ.
Last edited by -1- on Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests