Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
bertieinexile wrote: »Let me try to sum up the basis of what we are disagreeing on, nozzferrahhtoo. You are insisting that if anyone wants to engage with you on whether a life in the womb is a human being - and therefore deserving rights and protections - they must do so on the basis of a reductivist biologically measurable definition of personhood.
Amazing how you keep wanting to summarize my position rather than give your own, and when you do so you insist on doing so in a way that never actually captures what my position even is.
I have insisted on no such thing. What I DO insist on is that anyone who wants to afford rights and moral concerns to an entity have a coherent basis for doing so that they can articulate. MINE is a definition of personhood that recognizes that sentience is an inextricable element. But I have no way insisted that be anyone elses position. You have shoved that in my mouth for me.
If you see another basis for affording an entity rights, I am all ears. But alas no one on this thread has done so other than to scream taxonomy terms at it in a way that only begs the question.
So it is a bit rich to moan about "other definitions" when no one appears to have actually yet offered any.bertieinexile wrote: »But because that is not how most people think.
I do not believe you are in a position to declare what "most people think". Have you conducted a study? Have you asked "most people"? I doubt it. I think you just enjoy, on numerous occasions, imagining what "many" or "most" people think in a way that wholly suits you. This is far from the first time I have had to call you on that move.
However I suspect if you bothered to conduct an actual study you will find "most people" actually do think that way. Or even if they do not explicitly, they still ACT on it. For example if you ask 1000 people which they would rescue from a burning building if they could only rescue one..... and then offered them several combinations like frog/cat dog/monkey mouse/dolphin or any other combination you like..... and you plotted the results on a graph you will find the choices people make scale 1:1 EXACTLY in relation to the choices capacity for sentience. In fact in many cases their interest in that sentience is such that will often save ONE instance of it (lets say a chimpanze) over MULTIPLE instances of another (say 50 dogs) showing their investment in the capacity for sentience as a whole is such they value ONE instance of a higher form of it more than many lower forms of it.bertieinexile wrote: »Most of us don't see other people as people based on something about them we measure biologically.
This sentence is not grammatically coherent so forgive me if I respond to something you are not actually saying. But if I read it right you are making my point for me. Most of us do not see other people as people based on biological factors, but on sentience factors. I 100% agree. That is basically, in a nutshell, what I have said all along. So much so that I can only assume you have simply grammar farted and mistyped what you meant to say.
I reckon if I put your body on a perfect life support system, and transferred your sentience into a machine that looked like a toaster, and I brought the person who loves you most in the whole world into the room and told them they could take the supported body OR the toaster home to keep forever..... I think we both know which one they would pick AND why they would pick it. They would take YOU home, your sentience, and they would have absolutely no issue with the lack of an underlying biology. Showing that nothing biological, let alone anything in the you tube video you post over and over, is all that relevant at all.bertieinexile wrote: »I think we can therefore agree on one thing. You are out on a limb with this.
First I was "extreme" now "out on a limb". You do like these little phrases but aside from asserting them have failed to make a single one stick at all. I campaign for abortion up to and including week 16. That is right down the middle of the line moderate and average for pretty much every pro choice speaker I have heard or read. So unable are you to rebut the positions I hold, that the sole response open to you seems to be to mischaracterize it with little phrases like this, or by inventing "most people" and declaring to know what they think. Neither of which is impressive or supporting any level of credibility for you in general.bertieinexile wrote: »I think I speak for most of us
And there you go again. You speak for YOU. All the other people you claim to speak for, or to know what they think, you appear to have simply invented to argument ad populum your own positions to...... well to yourself I guess because no one else appears to have bought into it yet.bertieinexile wrote: »when I say that what you just described above is so untenable that it means either your reasoning is faulty or, more likely, at least one of your premises is also untenable.
Perhaps they are! But merely asserting or suggesting they are is not going to reveal that. Nor is imagining some "most people" agreeing with you that they are. To have a rational discourse on this subject you would have to engage in actually showing where and how they are. You appear unwilling and/or unable to do this. And that this is not telling or revealing to you on ANY level shows a lack of introspection I can only urge you to confront.bertieinexile wrote: »And I would offer that the untenable premise is that personhood has a biologically measurable definition.
Interestingly however my position is not based on a fixed or full definition of personhood. Rather I identify ATTRIBUTES that are pre-requisites of it and notice they are absent in a 16 week old fetus. That means a full definition of personhood is not required. A full definition of something is not required if you know some of it's attributes, and those attributes are not present. If someone says "I can not define X fully but I know Y is one of it's attributes" I can then say "Well this thing here does not have Y at all, so whatever this thing is, it is not X".bertieinexile wrote: »(And for those playing at home and feeling that maybe a different definition might work; if you abandon 'personhood begins with regular brain waves/sentience' then all the other definitions -Gastrulation, Early Organ formation, Quickening, Thalamus formation -put the definition of personhood earlier.
The difference is I have offered a wealth of reasoning and arguments as to why sentience is a required aspect/attribute of personhood. You have merely LISTED words like "organ" "thalamus" and left them hanging. You are skipping the important step. Simply asserting a list of words at us still leaves all the work ahead of you to make a link. And as I noted before generally the things you list happen in other mammals too but you are not assigning them "personhood" so you have done a double-fail in that A) You have not linked the listed things to personhood at all and
you have not explained why other entities with those things do not get personhood. This goes BEYOND the "begging of the question" as a fallacy really.bertieinexile wrote: »all thanked him for it.
Yet is it not funny, and telling, that you continue to A) not actually rebut my arguments just moan about me having made them and claim that the majority of my "followers" as you put it do not agree with me despite my posts being thanked and yours not. This just tells me one thing.... you would be better rebutting my points directly, rather than moaning about them or fantasising what you WANT to believe others think about them. As neither of those approaches appears to be getting you.... well.... anywhere.bertieinexile wrote: »Still you've got to admire nozzferrahhtoo's willingness to stick with this all the way
I am genuinely curious about your approach to this conversation. You really do appear to be contriving to demonstrate that you are engaging in it in the worst possible faith. Ignoring one whole post. Then moving from talking with me to talking ABOUT me. And now in a post directly to me you have shifted to talking about me in the third person. I can guess at a few psychological motivations for these moves, but I would not want to assume things as readily as you appear to enjoy doing. So I can but ask.... what is your motivation, goal and intention with these otherwise entirely insipid and crass behaviours?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Yeah_Right wrote: »Looney Lefty!! Bull****. I'll have you know that most of my political views would be firmly right wing.
So's your user name
0 -
-
-
BabysCoffee wrote: »I will make a 5 euro donation to the Together for Yes campaign the next time someone says that Abortion on demand will be the result of repealing the 8th
It will so.
Don't belive it for a minute but hope you still donate
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Amazing how you keep wanting to summarize my position rather than give your own, and when you do so you insist on doing so in a way that never actually captures what my position even is.
I have insisted on no such thing. What I DO insist on is that anyone who wants to afford rights and moral concerns to an entity have a coherent basis for doing so that they can articulate. MINE is a definition of personhood that recognizes that sentience is an inextricable element. But I have no way insisted that be anyone elses position. You have shoved that in my mouth for me.
If you see another basis for affording an entity rights, I am all ears. But alas no one on this thread has done so other than to scream taxonomy terms at it in a way that only begs the question.
So it is a bit rich to moan about "other definitions" when no one appears to have actually yet offered any.
I do not believe you are in a position to declare what "most people think". Have you conducted a study? Have you asked "most people"? I doubt it. I think you just enjoy, on numerous occasions, imagining what "many" or "most" people think in a way that wholly suits you. This is far from the first time I have had to call you on that move.
However I suspect if you bothered to conduct an actual study you will find "most people" actually do think that way. Or even if they do not explicitly, they still ACT on it. For example if you ask 1000 people which they would rescue from a burning building if they could only rescue one..... and then offered them several combinations like frog/cat dog/monkey mouse/dolphin or any other combination you like..... and you plotted the results on a graph you will find the choices people make scale 1:1 EXACTLY in relation to the choices capacity for sentience. In fact in many cases their interest in that sentience is such that will often save ONE instance of it (lets say a chimpanze) over MULTIPLE instances of another (say 50 dogs) showing their investment in the capacity for sentience as a whole is such they value ONE instance of a higher form of it more than many lower forms of it.
This sentence is not grammatically coherent so forgive me if I respond to something you are not actually saying. But if I read it right you are making my point for me. Most of us do not see other people as people based on biological factors, but on sentience factors. I 100% agree. That is basically, in a nutshell, what I have said all along. So much so that I can only assume you have simply grammar farted and mistyped what you meant to say.
I reckon if I put your body on a perfect life support system, and transferred your sentience into a machine that looked like a toaster, and I brought the person who loves you most in the whole world into the room and told them they could take the supported body OR the toaster home to keep forever..... I think we both know which one they would pick AND why they would pick it. They would take YOU home, your sentience, and they would have absolutely no issue with the lack of an underlying biology. Showing that nothing biological, let alone anything in the you tube video you post over and over, is all that relevant at all.
First I was "extreme" now "out on a limb". You do like these little phrases but aside from asserting them have failed to make a single one stick at all. I campaign for abortion up to and including week 16. That is right down the middle of the line moderate and average for pretty much every pro choice speaker I have heard or read. So unable are you to rebut the positions I hold, that the sole response open to you seems to be to mischaracterize it with little phrases like this, or by inventing "most people" and declaring to know what they think. Neither of which is impressive or supporting any level of credibility for you in general.
And there you go again. You speak for YOU. All the other people you claim to speak for, or to know what they think, you appear to have simply invented to argument ad populum your own positions to...... well to yourself I guess because no one else appears to have bought into it yet.
Perhaps they are! But merely asserting or suggesting they are is not going to reveal that. Nor is imagining some "most people" agreeing with you that they are. To have a rational discourse on this subject you would have to engage in actually showing where and how they are. You appear unwilling and/or unable to do this. And that this is not telling or revealing to you on ANY level shows a lack of introspection I can only urge you to confront.
Interestingly however my position is not based on a fixed or full definition of personhood. Rather I identify ATTRIBUTES that are pre-requisites of it and notice they are absent in a 16 week old fetus. That means a full definition of personhood is not required. A full definition of something is not required if you know some of it's attributes, and those attributes are not present. If someone says "I can not define X fully but I know Y is one of it's attributes" I can then say "Well this thing here does not have Y at all, so whatever this thing is, it is not X".
The difference is I have offered a wealth of reasoning and arguments as to why sentience is a required aspect/attribute of personhood. You have merely LISTED words like "organ" "thalamus" and left them hanging. You are skipping the important step. Simply asserting a list of words at us still leaves all the work ahead of you to make a link. And as I noted before generally the things you list happen in other mammals too but you are not assigning them "personhood" so you have done a double-fail in that A) You have not linked the listed things to personhood at all and you have not explained why other entities with those things do not get personhood. This goes BEYOND the "begging of the question" as a fallacy really.
Yet is it not funny, and telling, that you continue to A) not actually rebut my arguments just moan about me having made them and claim that the majority of my "followers" as you put it do not agree with me despite my posts being thanked and yours not. This just tells me one thing.... you would be better rebutting my points directly, rather than moaning about them or fantasising what you WANT to believe others think about them. As neither of those approaches appears to be getting you.... well.... anywhere.
I am genuinely curious about your approach to this conversation. You really do appear to be contriving to demonstrate that you are engaging in it in the worst possible faith. Ignoring one whole post. Then moving from talking with me to talking ABOUT me. And now in a post directly to me you have shifted to talking about me in the third person. I can guess at a few psychological motivations for these moves, but I would not want to assume things as readily as you appear to enjoy doing. So I can but ask.... what is your motivation, goal and intention with these otherwise entirely insipid and crass behaviours?
Genuinely brilliant post. You have the patience of a saint0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement