Text 18665, 254 rader
Skriven 2005-12-14 10:45:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] [
=================================
>>> Part 1 of 2...
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-
MVDV>>> That is not what I said. I *can* define murder. I am also sure
MVDV>>> that my definition will differ from yours.
>
>> So *your* definition is the proper one? I doubt that.
MVDV>> A definition is a definition. Every definition is arbitrary. They are
MVDV>> all equally "proper".
> That's nonsense! Evil is evil! There are absolutes in life.
MVDV> This reminds me of the cartoon showing a rat's nest and a text balloon
MVDV> where the little rat asks its mother: "mommy why are humans considered
MVDV> a harmfull species?"
SCENE: A small rattlesnake slithering alongside a large
rattlesnake. The small snake speaks, "Momma, am I toxic?"
OK, that cancels out your speaking-animal, diversionary
tactic ... heh heh heh ...
>> So you think a fertilized human egg may end up as a carrot --
>> or some other vegetable or perhaps a cat?
MVDV>> Ah, argumentation trick #71. Start with "so you think" and than make
MVDV>> it look like the opponent supports something he never said.
> You didn't actually *say* it but your implication is clear ...
MVDV> Only when you use false logic.
Since *I* never use false logic does that mean you agree?
MVDV>> What I said is that a fertilised egg is no more a human
MVDV>> being than a carrot.
> Hence implying the equivalence ...
MVDV> False logic. Of the type:
MVDV> A carot is not a human being.
MVDV> This is not a human being, hence it must be a carrot.
See above re my *never* using false logic ... [sigh] ...
MVDV>> Of course, a fertilised human egg will never grow up to
MVDV>> become a cat. But that does not make it a human being.
> Oh, then there is one specific moment when the pre-human
> becomes a human? When is that "Magic Moment"?
MVDV> Ah, the old "magic moment" argument.
MVDV> Answer: there isn't one.
Oh? How can that be? Time exists as a continuum from conception
to birth. If the "object" isn't human at the beginning then
moves to the end of that continuum where it *is* a human, at some
precise moment it has changed from non-human to human. You
cannot deny that!
> When does this take place? Using your logic it *must* exist
MVDV> No, that is *your* logic, not mine.
> since there's a contuum from the instant of the fertilized egg
> to the actual birth of the baby.
MVDV> I take it you mean "continueum". Yes, there is.
"continuum"
> Both of us agree, I think, that what is *born* is a human.
MVDV> Can it talk, can it drive a car, is it allowed to vote? I'd say it is
MVDV> not a human being yet.
Wow! So a newly born "thing" *still* is not human at birth?
> I'll be interested in seeing how you evade this "Magic Moment"
> definition ... heh heh heh ...
MVDV> There is no "magic moment".
How can that be? (Re-read the stuff about the continuum, above)
MVDV> However, for practical purposes we have defined a rather large number
MVDV> of these "magic moments". When exactly there take place differs from
MVDV> culture to culture.
MVDV> Overe here there is a "magic moment" 24 weeks after conception. at
MVDV> that point it is assumed that the fetus can survive when seperated from
MVDV> the "life support system" of the mother.
So a fraction of a second *prior* to that exact instant the
"object" is not human?
MVDV> Then there is birth of course. The baby gets a name and is entered in
MVDV> the records.
MVDV> When the child is four years old, it goes to school. Another magic
MVDV> moment.
MVDV> Fourteen is the age of consent.
MVDV> Sixteen is the age that one may drive light motor cycles and other
MVDV> motor vehicles such as tractors.
MVDV> At eighteen one can get a full drivers licence. And a very "magic
MVDV> moment": one may vote.
MVDV> The last "magic moment" is at 21. That is the legal age of maturity.
MVDV> Only then may one open a bussines and owe real estate.
MVDV> So you see, society does not accept someone as a fuly fletchd human
MVDV> being until 21 years and 9 month after conception... ;-)
Now you enter a *new* term in a futile attempt to save yourself
from defeat, "full-fledged human being" ... [sigh] ... and you
clutter the landscape with a bunch of "magic moment" events
hoping in vain I'll forget that we were discussing not common
events in life but that magic moment when an "object" is
suddenly, magically a *human* ...
Nice try, but you *still* lose ... heh heh heh ...
MVDV>> A pile of bricks and bags of mortar is not a house either.
> But, unlike an embryo which takes on the appearance of a human
> being later in life thus confirming its earlier humanity,
> bricks and mortar do *not* have to end up as a house. They might
> end up as a mere wall.
MVDV> An embryo does not have to end up as a human being either. Many a
MVDV> fertilised egg never makes it to the uterus. There are spontaneous
MVDV> abortions and still borns.
If an embryo ends up dead, it dies as a human ...
> Your analogy is fatally flawed.
MVDV> No, it is a very good analogy.
You may consider it that. *I* don't, and I doubt if most people
would.
MVDV>>> There is no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.
>
>> That depends upon one's definition of "self-defense" ...
MVDV>> And you think your definition is the *proper* one? Ha!..
> It's a well thought-out definition ... when one is attacked or
> seriously threatened with attack, response is self-defense.
MVDV> Define "threat".
You're beginning to remind me of a prof I once knew of. When a
student would ask her a question, say, "what's the best way to
peel an apple?." (not an actual question used) The prof might
counter with, "What do you mean by 'peel'?" The student might
then say, "I mean to separate the apple peel from the body of the
apple usually with a knife." The prof might ask, "What do you
mean by 'body'?" This could go on-and-on until the bell rang
and the class was dismissed.
Hence your endless request for "definitions" is hereby denied.
> We cannot use ancient standards in modern times since present-day
> weapons are *far* too destructive for that. You threaten us
> -- you then receive our defensive strikes!
MVDV> A very dangerous attitude as it provides anyone with an excuse for a
MVDV> first strike. "Threat" is not objevtively definable.
It was believed Saddam threatened *us*! That's being objective
enough.
MVDV>> We had similar incidents here recently. People convicted of
MVDV>> murder and rape were released because new techniques proved
MVDV>> their innocence. One of them had been in jail for seven
MVDV>> years... We don't have the death penalty here.
> We didn't have it for quite a few years but it's been
> resurrected (no pun intended).
MVDV> Too bad. :-(
Yes, it is ...
> Rape convictions, especially, has been overturned because of
> later DNA evidence. Rape, almost always, involves the "He said.
> She said." arguments which all too often are decided in favor
> of the woman perceived a victim.
MVDV> Which creates opportunity for a miscarriage of justice....
Always ...
>>> Huh? Human life begins at *conception*!
MVDV>>> No, it doesn't.
>> That's merely your opinion ...
MVDV>> As it is merely your opinion that it does.
> But *my* opinion is strongly based on logic ...
MVDV> On false logic, see above.
Not so, see above.
MVDV>> It is not a fact, it is merely your opinion.
> I think my "opinion" can also be a "fact". In my opinion the
> surface of the sun is hotter than 100 degrees Celsius.
MVDV> That is not an opinion. That is a verifiable fact.
But it is also my *opinion*!
> The fact of the matter is that it is *far* hotter than
> 100 degrees C. My opinion is also a fact.
MVDV> No, whether or not that is a fact depends on the definition of "far".
MVDV> I might as well say that it is a "mere" 5500 K hotter.
See??! There you go again, using the old "Obfuscation by
Demanding Definitions" again ... [sigh] ... besides it has no use
here since *I* opined the sun is hotter, not "far" hotter than
100 degrees C. The "far" hotter came into play merely as a fact.
MVDV> And compared to the temperature of the *interrior* of the sn that is
MVDV> true of course.
>> The fact that *you* don't happen to believe it doesn't change
>> the fact one iota.
MVDV>> Indeed, my belief has nothing to do with it. The fact that your are
MVDV>> not objective remains independent of my belief.
> But what you claim as a "fact" is not that! So your argument
> falls apart!
MVDV> No, it is your "fact" that you are objective that is false. *Your*
>>> Continued to next message...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
|