Round and round…
You are classifying some humans as less than human. And like all of those in history, you cannot see your own false judgement.
- Status
You are classifying some humans as less than human. And like all of those in history, you cannot see your own false judgement.
W
Wozza
Guest
Neither are yeti or aliens or unicorns or dragons. None of which I would accept as being a basis for an argument.Wozza:
Sigh. I thought we went over this ground already. Angels are not logically contradictory. Whether they actually exist or not is irrelevant.
W
Wozza
Guest
Nobody has said anywhere in this thread that a fertilised egg is not human. Which posts are you reading? You don’t seem to understand the difference between what is human and what can be classed as a person.Wozza:
Round and round…
You are classifying some humans as less than human. And like all of those in history, you cannot see your own false judgement.
W
Wozza
Guest
I have to keep repeating myself because you are not following the discussion? It’s not too much trouble but it is disconcerting that a majority of posters have difficulty following simple propositions.Wozza:
Where? Or you can repeat if it’s less troublesome.
It matters because if a woman doesn’t consider what she is carrying to be a person then she will have no problem in deciding to have an abortion.
Is that clear enough?
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
This thread has almost been up for a month and there are more than four hundred posts.
W
Wozza
Guest
You’ve been involved since post 33 or thereabouts. Have you simply skipped sections? Have you not bothered to follow the whole discussion? But then expect people to repeat arguments out of context for your benefit?Wozza:
This thread has almost been up for a month and there are more than four hundred posts.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I’m not going to be able to remember everything. If you wanted me to repeat something for your benefit I won’t mind doing so.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It depends on whether it is possible for there to be an intellect or whatever it is if there is no brain. This has to exist in order to prove that a brain is not necessary otherwise it is just an assertion. It is also important to consider that goal posts will shift to having an intellect or whatever and the fetus will need to possess those qualities in order to qualify.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
“What” can be classed as a person? “What”.vz71:
Nobody has said anywhere in this thread that a fertilised egg is not human. Which posts are you reading? You don’t seem to understand the difference between what is human and what can be classed as a person.Wozza:
Round and round…
You are classifying some humans as less than human. And like all of those in history, you cannot see your own false judgement.
Like black people, Jews, Armenian’s, Hutus, and whoever else doesn’t meet your subjective definition of personhood? They are “whats” not whos…ok
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That accusatory writing style doesn’t help anyone. It would be best to use a logically coherent argument instead of a emotional. It hasn’t worked the many times you used it in the past on this individual, so a different approach should at least be considered.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
You’ve only been arguing one point against me. And you forgot it? Well, I don’t mind repeating myself up to a point. I seem to have to do a lot of it in any case.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I debate many things on the forums and the point I was arguing about was that thought experiment.
W
Wozza
Guest
Fair enough. My apologies.
G
goout
Guest
edited…
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
What exactly do you desire to accomplish?
E
EZweber
Guest
Why not? Hypothetical beings and scenarios play a vital part of many arguments. If a being is logically possible, it obviously has some bearing on reality. For example, if I determined exactly how a yeti would be biologically constituted, I could make deductions on other things based on that information.
G
goout
Guest
edited …
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
After consideration, your fraternal correction is well taken and I need to apologize for the harsh tone of my posts.
I apologize to @Wozza for being neither patient nor kind. I would like to say my intentions were good, but they were not.
I hope you have a peaceful evening.
W
Wozza
Guest
Your apology is accepted. Thank you for that post. I appreciate that it’s an emotional subject and I admire your passion in regard to your views.VanitasVanitatum:
After consideration, your fraternal correction is well taken and I need to apologize for the harsh tone of my posts.
I apologize to @Wozza for being neither patient nor kind. I would like to say my intentions were good, but they were not.
I hope you have a peaceful evening.
Perhaps all has been said on the matter that needs to be from either side.
W
Wozza
Guest
We are not talking abstractions. We are talking about concrete reality.Wozza:
Why not? Hypothetical beings and scenarios play a vital part of many arguments. If a being is logically possible, it obviously has some bearing on reality. For example, if I determined exactly how a yeti would be biologically constituted, I could make deductions on other things based on that information.
Why not use zombies as an example? Hypothetically of course. You say we could. So that’s a human (dna etc) but has no mind. Hypothetically. So we could kill it.
Or a non sentient alien. Hypothetically. Which will have a mind. Hypothetically. But could we kill that? Hypothetically?
Or a human that has had his brain replaced by a computer. Or a dragon with a human brain. Or an intelligent insect. Where do we stop?
If you want to head down imaginary avenues then you can make up any scenario to support your position.
- Status