You have dismissed the parasite argument (which was probably your stronger position) to adopt your second position, namely, that a human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrary point in its development.
It's not a theological debate. It is an ethical one with practical ramifications. Once the premise has been established that human beings are only worthy of life when x, then x can become anything.
Biologically, Monkeys are not human beings. The two are different species. This argument also suffers from the fallacy of false equivalence.
My position is based in reason, logic and fact. What is your position based in?
Not one person on this thread has addressed the initial post. Neither have they refuted the initial premise because EVERY argument has either re-iterated the original point (human beings are only worthy of life if x), or have committed one or more logical fallacies in trying to refute the point.
The parallel with Hitler is valid. The philosophical argument is that some human beings are worthy of life, others are not. Pro-abortionists maintain the same philosophy. Getting offended does not change the logical equivalence.
Your analogy about babies being able to drive suffers from the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The human being already has all the needed potential to remain alive. It takes a wilful external act to remove the life.
Your computer example is an even worse analogy. The proper analogy would be to compare your computer hard drive to a sperm cell.
Racial characteristics are genetically determined. You really do need to read some biology texts.
Your comparison of skin cells is another logical fallacy of false equivalence. Biologically, an egg is an egg. A sperm is a sperm. It is the fusion of the two that creates a new human being. Please read a good biology text on sexual reproduction.
Your argument bascially boils down to: A human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrarily selected point in its normal biological development.
Again, this is philosophically no different than Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.
Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based on where it is located in relationship to other human beings.
This position is no different rhetorically or philosophically to Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is suffers the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.
You have just reiterated my initial post. At some point, the human being WILL have all those characteristics. It is simply a matter of development. Therefore, you have determined that human beings at an arbitrary stage of development are unworthy of life. Again, I ask. How is this position different than Hitler maintaining that humans beings without certain genetic traits are unworthy of life?
A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.
A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.
Birth is a stage in the development of a human being when it can survive independent of the mother. It is NOT the point at which the embryo becomes human. Biologically, that point occurred at conception.
A decomposing body is dead. Comparing them is the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Your positions are simply factually incorrect. I suggest you read some biology texts.
Biologically, human life only began once. Also, biologically, a new human being (member of the species homo sapiens) begins at conception. Your opinions are contrary to the biological facts of the case.
The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite. Biologically, it is a developing human being going through the natural biological growth process. Your opinion on the matter is contrary to the biological facts of the case.
All you have done is reiterate my first post: That pro-abortionists claim a human being is only worthy of life when it has reached an arbitrarily defined stage of growth or development.
The initial question stands. How is this position ethically different than Hitler maintaining that only human beings with certain genetic traits are worthy of life?
Water is a tremendous heat sink and a great moderator of climate. I seriously doubt the arctic ice cap will completely melt, because the release of addtional cool water will be a heat sink that will tend to cool the air masses over the arctic again. All we're seeing here is an equilibrium shift. Probably something that has happened many times in the past.
Personally, I think it would be fun to have Britain go back to the climate it had during the Roman occupation. Dry, warm and sunny.
No, people who understand biology, and that a fertilized human egg is a genetically distinct Homo Sapien in its early developmental stage want EMBRYONIC stem cell research stopped for the very simple reason that it involves the ethically damnable practice of farming and harvesting some human beings for the benefit of other human beings.
Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying.
The real issue here is and always has been the philosophy that some human beings are worthy of life, and others aren't, and the people with the power to enforce it are the ones who get to make the decision.
Hitler maintained that only human beings who had certain genetic characteristics were worthy of life.
Pro-abortionists and their ilk maintain that only human beings who have reached a certain stage of development are worthy of life.
Please explain to me the ethical difference in the two positions.
Soviet Russia, and China both STARTED just the way Marx and Engels wanted. They were surprised it didn't happen in the industrialized capitalist nations, but the nationalization of all industry, a powerful central state and the murder, if necessary, of all capitalists, was very much part of Marx' and Engel's idea of how the Communist revolution would start. What DIDN'T happen is the "natural" dissolution of the central authority to be replaced by the worker's paradise.
That was just one of their mistakes. Their big, major flaw was their basic theory of dialectic materialism. That is demonstrably false, and their entire philosophy depends on it. So, it's no wonder that their philosophy fails, too.
That statement is simply demonstrably false. EVERY nation that has implemented Communism as described by Marx and Engels has ALWAYS developed in a brutal, tyrannical, murderous regime.
The ideology itself is inherently flawed because it is based on incorrect premises.
Ah, the lovely logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Feature-wise, Jaguar matches XP professional, not XP Home.
This is the same trick with software that PC apologists use for Mac hardware. Find some crippled white-box PC and compare the price with the highest-end Mac you can find and call the Mac overpriced.
Apple's versioning is as follows:.x = new release = full price.xy = maintenance upgrade = free.
So, 10.1 was full price. 10.1.1 was free. 10.2 was full price. 10.2.6 was free. 10.3 is full price. 10.3.x will be free. 10.4 will be full price, etc.
Apple does not sell upgrade CDs. You buy a full install. This means you don't need to have any previous version of OS X on the machine. So compate the right things. So let's put this in terms the Microsoft Marketing Influenced(TM) can understand.
I paid $129 for the full version of OS X. You paid $299 for the full version of Windows2000 Professional.
I paid $129 for the full version of Jaguar. You paid $399 for the full version of WindowsXP Professional.
I will pay $129 for the full version of Panther. You will pay >$399 for the full version of Longhorn Professional.
Now who should we laugh at?
For all the ranting slashdotters do on how stupid the non-tech/geek person is, I find it hilarious that such a logical, programmer-centric versioning system totally confuses said slashdotter.
I guess MS was pretty smart to call Winnt 5 Windows 2000, and Winnt 5.1 Windows XP, or you'd all be screaming about that $399 "upgrade" as well.
No, the fear, paranoia, and general conspiracy theory kookiness of people like you in response to the Patriot Act is what you get when you make decisions based in hysteria.
This just goes to show you what you get when you let hysteria drive your decisions.
Punch card voting machines are very reliable and secure, but because of some whipped up hysteria and misinformation, we're scrapping a perfectly good system for a nightmare boondoggle.
More information on Chimeras
on
Chimera Twins Story
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This link has some good information on Chimeras. Including a discussion of the lady featured in NPR.
>People these days want to watch their "reality TV" a "escape reality" (I have heard people say that too many times not to laugh).
They want to ignore what is really out there and would rather be forcefed a bunch of made up, scripted, bullshit on network/cable TV.
Translation: Those people are idiots, and I'm smarter than they are.
You know you said it, you know you think it, and you think we're stupid enough to buy it when you deny it.
And the fact you were modded up as insightful for basically proving my original point in trying to deny my point shows that the idiots are not the ones outside the slashdot community.
The other alternative is that you are not so much smarter than everyone else that you are the only one who gets it, but rather that other people do not have your paranoia.
News flash for you. You are not Neo. You are not being watched. Your keystrokes are not being monitored by covert agents of the government. You are simply not important. Deal with it.
Illegal being the key word in your post. It would be an illegal search and seizure. That means against the law. Quit watching so much TV and get a life. Not every cop or government bureaucrat is part of some conspiratorial covert operation to track your every movement. For one, the government isn't that competent, and secondly, you simply aren't worth the effort, your own delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
You have dismissed the parasite argument (which was probably your stronger position) to adopt your second position, namely, that a human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrary point in its development.
It's not a theological debate. It is an ethical one with practical ramifications. Once the premise has been established that human beings are only worthy of life when x, then x can become anything.
Biologically, Monkeys are not human beings. The two are different species. This argument also suffers from the fallacy of false equivalence.
My position is based in reason, logic and fact. What is your position based in?
Not one person on this thread has addressed the initial post. Neither have they refuted the initial premise because EVERY argument has either re-iterated the original point (human beings are only worthy of life if x), or have committed one or more logical fallacies in trying to refute the point.
The parallel with Hitler is valid. The philosophical argument is that some human beings are worthy of life, others are not. Pro-abortionists maintain the same philosophy. Getting offended does not change the logical equivalence.
Your analogy about babies being able to drive suffers from the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The human being already has all the needed potential to remain alive. It takes a wilful external act to remove the life.
Your computer example is an even worse analogy. The proper analogy would be to compare your computer hard drive to a sperm cell.
Your argument bascially boils down to: Human beings are worthy of life only if they do not cause me any inconvenience or hardship.
Racial characteristics are genetically determined. You really do need to read some biology texts.
Your comparison of skin cells is another logical fallacy of false equivalence. Biologically, an egg is an egg. A sperm is a sperm. It is the fusion of the two that creates a new human being. Please read a good biology text on sexual reproduction.
Your argument bascially boils down to: A human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrarily selected point in its normal biological development.
Again, this is philosophically no different than Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.
Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based upon how it receives sustenance.
This philosophically no different than Hilter's Final Solution. To maintain otherwise commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.
Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based on where it is located in relationship to other human beings.
This position is no different rhetorically or philosophically to Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is suffers the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.
You have just reiterated my initial post. At some point, the human being WILL have all those characteristics. It is simply a matter of development. Therefore, you have determined that human beings at an arbitrary stage of development are unworthy of life. Again, I ask. How is this position different than Hitler maintaining that humans beings without certain genetic traits are unworthy of life?
A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.
A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.
Birth is a stage in the development of a human being when it can survive independent of the mother. It is NOT the point at which the embryo becomes human. Biologically, that point occurred at conception.
A decomposing body is dead. Comparing them is the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Your positions are simply factually incorrect. I suggest you read some biology texts.
The fallacy of appeal to authority. What day a culture celebrates has nothing to do with the biological fact of human development.
Biologically, human life only began once. Also, biologically, a new human being (member of the species homo sapiens) begins at conception. Your opinions are contrary to the biological facts of the case.
The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite. Biologically, it is a developing human being going through the natural biological growth process. Your opinion on the matter is contrary to the biological facts of the case.
All you have done is reiterate my first post: That pro-abortionists claim a human being is only worthy of life when it has reached an arbitrarily defined stage of growth or development.
The initial question stands. How is this position ethically different than Hitler maintaining that only human beings with certain genetic traits are worthy of life?
Mod points, where are you?
Water is a tremendous heat sink and a great moderator of climate. I seriously doubt the arctic ice cap will completely melt, because the release of addtional cool water will be a heat sink that will tend to cool the air masses over the arctic again. All we're seeing here is an equilibrium shift. Probably something that has happened many times in the past.
Personally, I think it would be fun to have Britain go back to the climate it had during the Roman occupation. Dry, warm and sunny.
No, people who understand biology, and that a fertilized human egg is a genetically distinct Homo Sapien in its early developmental stage want EMBRYONIC stem cell research stopped for the very simple reason that it involves the ethically damnable practice of farming and harvesting some human beings for the benefit of other human beings.
Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying.
The real issue here is and always has been the philosophy that some human beings are worthy of life, and others aren't, and the people with the power to enforce it are the ones who get to make the decision.
Hitler maintained that only human beings who had certain genetic characteristics were worthy of life.
Pro-abortionists and their ilk maintain that only human beings who have reached a certain stage of development are worthy of life.
Please explain to me the ethical difference in the two positions.
Soviet Russia, and China both STARTED just the way Marx and Engels wanted. They were surprised it didn't happen in the industrialized capitalist nations, but the nationalization of all industry, a powerful central state and the murder, if necessary, of all capitalists, was very much part of Marx' and Engel's idea of how the Communist revolution would start. What DIDN'T happen is the "natural" dissolution of the central authority to be replaced by the worker's paradise.
That was just one of their mistakes. Their big, major flaw was their basic theory of dialectic materialism. That is demonstrably false, and their entire philosophy depends on it. So, it's no wonder that their philosophy fails, too.
That statement is simply demonstrably false. EVERY nation that has implemented Communism as described by Marx and Engels has ALWAYS developed in a brutal, tyrannical, murderous regime.
The ideology itself is inherently flawed because it is based on incorrect premises.
You will pay $800 for a new PC. I will pay $750 for a new Mac.
--
It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
--Winston Churchill
Ah, the lovely logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Feature-wise, Jaguar matches XP professional, not XP Home.
This is the same trick with software that PC apologists use for Mac hardware. Find some crippled white-box PC and compare the price with the highest-end Mac you can find and call the Mac overpriced.
Now, this being modded as funny is REALLY sad.
.x = new release = full price .xy = maintenance upgrade = free.
Apple's versioning is as follows:
So, 10.1 was full price. 10.1.1 was free. 10.2 was full price. 10.2.6 was free. 10.3 is full price. 10.3.x will be free. 10.4 will be full price, etc.
Apple does not sell upgrade CDs. You buy a full install. This means you don't need to have any previous version of OS X on the machine. So compate the right things. So let's put this in terms the Microsoft Marketing Influenced(TM) can understand.
I paid $129 for the full version of OS X. You paid $299 for the full version of Windows2000 Professional.
I paid $129 for the full version of Jaguar. You paid $399 for the full version of WindowsXP Professional.
I will pay $129 for the full version of Panther. You will pay >$399 for the full version of Longhorn Professional.
Now who should we laugh at?
For all the ranting slashdotters do on how stupid the non-tech/geek person is, I find it hilarious that such a logical, programmer-centric versioning system totally confuses said slashdotter.
I guess MS was pretty smart to call Winnt 5 Windows 2000, and Winnt 5.1 Windows XP, or you'd all be screaming about that $399 "upgrade" as well.
What absolutely amazes me is that people so casually accept that "patch and reboot" is an acceptable aspect of an operating system.
In a rational world, Windows should have been tossed out of the business door two years ago as a piece of junk product.
I'll just keep reading all this panic and scrambling from the quiet comfort of my OS X machine.
No, the fear, paranoia, and general conspiracy theory kookiness of people like you in response to the Patriot Act is what you get when you make decisions based in hysteria.
This just goes to show you what you get when you let hysteria drive your decisions.
Punch card voting machines are very reliable and secure, but because of some whipped up hysteria and misinformation, we're scrapping a perfectly good system for a nightmare boondoggle.
This link has some good information on Chimeras. Including a discussion of the lady featured in NPR.
g yP ages/M/Mosaics.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biolo
>People these days want to watch their "reality TV" a "escape reality" (I have heard people say that too many times not to laugh).
They want to ignore what is really out there and would rather be forcefed a bunch of made up, scripted, bullshit on network/cable TV.
Translation: Those people are idiots, and I'm smarter than they are.
You know you said it, you know you think it, and you think we're stupid enough to buy it when you deny it.
And the fact you were modded up as insightful for basically proving my original point in trying to deny my point shows that the idiots are not the ones outside the slashdot community.
The other alternative is that you are not so much smarter than everyone else that you are the only one who gets it, but rather that other people do not have your paranoia.
News flash for you. You are not Neo. You are not being watched. Your keystrokes are not being monitored by covert agents of the government. You are simply not important. Deal with it.
Illegal being the key word in your post. It would be an illegal search and seizure. That means against the law. Quit watching so much TV and get a life. Not every cop or government bureaucrat is part of some conspiratorial covert operation to track your every movement. For one, the government isn't that competent, and secondly, you simply aren't worth the effort, your own delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.