Application of Philosophical Concepts

PaleRider · #**201** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Mutants can be considered "non human beings", some religions say that any child born outside the womb would not have a "soul". But much more to the point, science doesn't say that it is a human being. What you have quoted is interpretations of scientific data, but that is dependent on what you bring to the interpretation (i.e. it is a moral decision).

Mutants? Which ones? Mutant ninja turtles? Name a birth defect that disqualifies a child from being a human being?

And you are presenting religion as credible science? Why not just conceed the point rather than debase yourself to that level?

What I have quoted for the most part are medical school textbooks. Are you making the claim that medical schools are not teaching science? And being human is not a moral decision. There is nothing you can do that would make you into something other than a human being. You could certaily act like a non human, but you can never be anything but a human being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

No it doesn't. Hey, I am all for you trying to equate the two, but they do not. Science is non-value added. It is a simple listing of fact. Laws detail what humans decide the facts mean. Different thing.

So science says that blacks are human beings. The law says that they are not. Are blacks indeed not human beings and can legally be bought, sold, worked like animals in the field and put down when they are no longer usefull or has the society made a terrible error in judgement and denied human beings their basic human rights and completely ignored the facts in favor of what they want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

You really are a one hit record. Your entire argument is false and it is nothing more than a lame appeal to authority. W J Bryan had this figured out when he attacked evolution, if science shows us anything it is that the strong eat the weak. Would you REALLY want laws based on that premise.

I am still waiting for you to prove any part of it false.

As to the apppeal to authority, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the term means. Here, let me help you out.

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

The references I have provided have been from medical school textbooks on the subjects of embryology, fetology, OB/Gyn, and developmental biology, and peer reviewed medical journals. They are experts and are more than qualified to make the statements. I have made no appeal to authority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Think about that and then rethink your position.

Why? You have proved no part of my position wrong. You made a false claim that my argument is based on a fallacious appeal to authority, and you seemed to be offering up "some religions" as credible science.

I am still waiting on a rational argument for killing a child for the crimes of its parent. Do you have one or not?

PaleRider · #**202** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexi

That's why he got his name on the "dumbest" list, bottom half with the dipshit fucktards... LOL

The dumbest (least informed) posters on AWE

Funny. He only lists people who have handed him his ass or those who he won't even speak to for fear of being handed his ass. Considering that you believed elroy the computer guy reperesented credible science, I am not surprised that you would find that idiot credible either.

Lexi · #**203** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 06:54 AM

And that's what makes you a dipshit, fucktard, Idiot..

Hey, my name wasn't on either list was it?? LOL

PaleRider · #**204** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexi

And that's what makes you a dipshit, fucktard, Idiot..

Hey, my name wasn't on either list was it?? LOL

Of course not. You never handed anyone their ass in a debate. You represent no threat to his imagined intellectual superiority so therefore you are just fine in his book.

TakuanSoho · #**205** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Mutants? Which ones? Mutant ninja turtles? Name a birth defect that disqualifies a child from being a human being?

Ignorance you know is not appealing in a debate. If you believe in the principles of evolution (and since you are SUCH a big fan of science, of course you do), you understand the point. Species evolve. At some point the child will not be the same species as the parent, hence it is possible for a Homo Sapien to have a non Homo Sapien child.

Quote:

And you are presenting religion as credible science? Why not just conceed the point rather than debase yourself to that level?

No I am not. If anyone is, you are. That is one of many things you don't get.

Quote:

What I have quoted for the most part are medical school textbooks. Are you making the claim that medical schools are not teaching science? And being human is not a moral decision. There is nothing you can do that would make you into something other than a human being. You could certaily act like a non human, but you can never be anything but a human being.

Already explained how it is possible in science. It is not a fact that a Homo Sapien (i.e. human being) will ALWAYS give birth to a human being. That you are saying otherwise shows you have no understanding of science. Classification in science is not an absolute (indeed nothing in Science is an absolute), it is somewhat arbitrary based on the best information at the time.

Quote:

So science says that blacks are human beings. The law says that they are not. Are blacks indeed not human beings and can legally be bought, sold, worked like animals in the field and put down when they are no longer usefull or has the society made a terrible error in judgement and denied human beings their basic human rights and completely ignored the facts in favor of what they want?

Science used to say that blacks were not human beings, but a "devolved" part of it. And the people who said that (read progressives) had a ton of science to back this up. What happened was the people made a moral decision and decided that the differences were cosmetic and not important enough to make a distinction (and I agree with that). But to say that "Science" said this is stupid. And your pathetic attempts at race baiting pretty much shows that your argument is failing and you are desperate to end it.

Quote:

I am still waiting for you to prove any part of it false.

And I have now done it 4 times. Again because you are incapable of understanding anything I said doesn't mean that you haven't been proven false.

Quote:

As to the apppeal to authority, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the term means. Here, let me help you out.

I suggest you think about what you wrote. You are not arguing your position, you are appealing to something you don't understand and then demanding that I bow to it. That is an appeal to authority.

I have shown that your statement "Human beings will always give birth to human beings" is false. Mutation occur and in keeping with the theory of evolution it is possible for one species to give birth to a descendant species (for instance a horse can give birth to a mule). Is a mule a horse? Nope. Likewise the same is potentially true of humans.

Furthermore, I have shown that classification is not an absolute. Where people draw the lines has changed over time. Only 75 years ago science argued that other races were separate, and that argument CAN still be made today scientifically. However, we as a group, have decided to include all in a single group. That isn't science, but morality. Once again science is not about making value judgments, it is about providing facts. Value judgments based on those facts is the province of morality.

For instance, medical testing on humans. Nothing scientifically wrong with that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few scientifically (survival of species), however we have decided that the opposite is true, the needs of the many should NOT dominate the needs of the one. This is a moral, not a scientific decision.

Likewise abortion is a moral decision. A fetus, if left alone will develop into a human child. Do we have the right to destroy this? My answer is yes, I believe that a woman should have a choice in the matter. Your answer is no, that the process has started and destroying it is murder.

I have no issue with your belief that this is the case. I would defend your right to say this. What I am attacking is your ignorant use of science to support your position. I have no issue with using science, but the way you are using it would lead to things YOU DON'T WANT. The issue is that YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. You do NOT want this to be a "scientific" decision, because what YOU will get is eugenics and all sorts of nasty outcomes. The problem is that you are too welded to your lack of understanding to see the harm your position causes when you make "science" the final decider on what is fundamentally a moral issue.

Suburbanite · #**206** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 01:56 PM

i know you're not that in tune with thinking, but science in no way dictates that the needs of the many outway the few. thats not science! nothing about that statement has anything whatsoever to do with science.

Quote:

Ignorance you know is not appealing in a debate. If you believe in the principles of evolution (and since you are SUCH a big fan of science, of course you do), you understand the point. Species evolve. At some point the child will not be the same species as the parent, hence it is possible for a Homo Sapien to have a non Homo Sapien child.

I've never heard of such a misunderstanding of how evolution works. This isn't X-Men, genetic drift is now powerful enough to ever create a new species, only progressively change the make up of the current species. You think humans will one day not be humans? That we'll reclassify ourselves when we drift far enough away? That one DAY a non-human child will be born? WOW! You've been watching too much X-Men.

TakuanSoho · #**207** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

I've never heard of such a misunderstanding of how evolution works. This isn't X-Men, genetic drift is now powerful enough to ever create a new species, only progressively change the make up of the current species. You think humans will one day not be humans? That we'll reclassify ourselves when we drift far enough away? That one DAY a non-human child will be born? WOW! You've been watching too much X-Men.

I admit that I simplified, but the point still stands on the classification. One day, looking back, scientists will say this was homo sapien, this was not homo sapien.
Hence, a homo sapien gave birth to a non homo sapien.

Of course it will be on a continuum, but birth is a continuum as well.

PaleRider · #**208** (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Ignorance you know is not appealing in a debate. If you believe in the principles of evolution (and since you are SUCH a big fan of science, of course you do), you understand the point. Species evolve. At some point the child will not be the same species as the parent, hence it is possible for a Homo Sapien to have a non Homo Sapien child.

Do you understand the concept of genetic drift? Even a little bit? Can you provide even one single example, in the entire history of the earth of two parents of one species producing an offspring of another species?

I find it absolutely laughable that you will later suggest that I am ignorant with regard to science after you have made this statment. If you don't understand the science, why not simply admit that you don't and conceede the point rather than debase yourself to this level?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

No I am not. If anyone is, you are. That is one of many things you don't get.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

some religions say that any child born outside the womb would not have a "soul".

In response to my challenge for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. Maybe you can point out which part of my position is religious in nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Already explained how it is possible in science. It is not a fact that a Homo Sapien (i.e. human being) will ALWAYS give birth to a human being.

You have explained nothing. You have shown that you don't have even a small grasp of the biological sciences and you have effectively introduced science fiction into the discussion and attempted to pass it off as actual science. Again, feel free to provide an example of two parents of the same species producing an offspring of another species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

That you are saying otherwise shows you have no understanding of science. Classification in science is not an absolute (indeed nothing in Science is an absolute), it is somewhat arbitrary based on the best information at the time.

That is rich. You suggesting that I don't have an understanding of science. You who is presenting science fiction as if it constituted an actual argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Science used to say that blacks were not human beings, but a "devolved" part of it. And the people who said that (read progressives) had a ton of science to back this up.

Show me some of this "science". There was fabrication, fiction, fantasy, falsification, and fabrication, but no science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

And I have now done it 4 times. Again because you are incapable of understanding anything I said doesn't mean that you haven't been proven false.

You have said it 4 times but you have yet to "prove" anything. Why don't you just admit that this is an emotional issue for you and you and where this issue is concerned, you are unable to bring your intellect to bear. I undersand that you are reaching and grasping for something that seems like the rational argument I asked for, but you are failing miserably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I suggest you think about what you wrote. You are not arguing your position, you are appealing to something you don't understand and then demanding that I bow to it. That is an appeal to authority.

I understand the science perfectly. It is you who has failed to provide anything beyond your unsubstantiated opinion and some science fiction to support your position.

And once again, it is only an appeal to authority if you bring in an expert in a field other than that being discussed. If I brought in a computer expert's opinion on what is and isn't a human being, that would be an appeal to authority. Bringing in medical doctors who are respected leaders in the fields of developmental biology, embryology, fetology, and OB/Gyn constitues actual support for my position. You are clearly over your head here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I have shown that your statement "Human beings will always give birth to human beings" is false. Mutation occur and in keeping with the theory of evolution it is possible for one species to give birth to a descendant species (for instance a horse can give birth to a mule). Is a mule a horse? Nope. Likewise the same is potentially true of humans.

You have "shown" nothing other than maybe a potential for writing "B" grade science fiction. Once more, I challenge you to provide an example of two parents of the same species producing an offspring of a different species.

I do thank you for your "mule" example. It provides uncontrovertable evidence that you simply don't have a grasp of the science you are attempting to discuss.

Horses are Equus caballus. If you breed two horses, their offspring will invariably be Equus caballus. When you look at a mule, you are seeing a hybrid that results from the mating of Equus caballus (horse) and Equus asinus (donkey), not a mutant offspring of two horses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Furthermore, I have shown that classification is not an absolute. Where people draw the lines has changed over time. Only 75 years ago science argued that other races were separate, and that argument CAN still be made today scientifically.

You have shown nothing. I would be interested in seeing whatever "science" you have that suggests that other races are not human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Likewise abortion is a moral decision. A fetus, if left alone will develop into a human child. Do we have the right to destroy this? My answer is yes, I believe that a woman should have a choice in the matter. Your answer is no, that the process has started and destroying it is murder.

You have yet to offer up any evidence that an unborn at any stage is something other than a human being. Simply stating that they are not human beings does not constitute anything but your own unsubstantiated opinion. Do feel free to provide some actual support for your argument if you want it to have any weight at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I have no issue with your belief that this is the case. I would defend your right to say this. What I am attacking is your ignorant use of science to support your position.

Funny that you would call me ignorant with regard to science when clearly, it is you who does not even have a grasp of the basics. You have proven that you are indeed ignorant in the science you are attempting to discuss to the point that no assessment you make of anyone else's argument has any validity at all as you clearly couldn't tell a valid argument from one that is pure fancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I have no issue with using science, but the way you are using it would lead to things YOU DON'T WANT. The issue is that YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I hold two degrees in hard sciences. A BS in one that is not biological in nature and an MS in one that is. The non substance of your argument so far proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is ignorant in the sciences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

You do NOT want this to be a "scientific" decision, because what YOU will get is eugenics and all sorts of nasty outcomes.

Eugenics was a pseudoscience. Aside from that, how does acknowledging that we are human beings from the time we are concieved lead to eugenics? I would be interested to hear the line of logic that connects the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

The problem is that you are too welded to your lack of understanding to see the harm your position causes when you make "science" the final decider on what is fundamentally a moral issue.

It is clearly you who doesn't grasp what is being said here. I have never said that science is qualified to decide whether or not it is OK or not OK to kill unborn human beings. Clearly that is not an issue for science. Identifying unborns, at any stage as human beings, however is most certainly within the purview of science. In fact, only science is qualifed to say what is a human being and what is not for the same reason that whenever a new species is discovered, it falls upon science to determine what it is. What a creature is is not a moral decision. What to do with it is.

As a society, we have made the declaration that it is most definately not OK for one human being to kill another unless the one is threatening the life of the other. You have made the claim that unborns are not human beings and therefore it is OK to kill them. Can you substantiate your claim that they are not human beings in any non-science fiction way?

Lexi · #**209** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Do you understand the concept of genetic drift? Even a little bit? Can you provide even one single example, in the entire history of the earth of two parents of one species producing an offspring of another species?

I find it absolutely laughable that you will later suggest that I am ignorant with regard to science after you have made this statment. If you don't understand the science, why not simply admit that you don't and conceede the point rather than debase yourself to this level?

You said:

In response to my challenge for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. Maybe you can point out which part of my position is religious in nature.

You have explained nothing. You have shown that you don't have even a small grasp of the biological sciences and you have effectively introduced science fiction into the discussion and attempted to pass it off as actual science. Again, feel free to provide an example of two parents of the same species producing an offspring of another species.

That is rich. You suggesting that I don't have an understanding of science. You who is presenting science fiction as if it constituted an actual argument.

Show me some of this "science". There was fabrication, fiction, fantasy, falsification, and fabrication, but no science.

You have said it 4 times but you have yet to "prove" anything. Why don't you just admit that this is an emotional issue for you and you and where this issue is concerned, you are unable to bring your intellect to bear. I undersand that you are reaching and grasping for something that seems like the rational argument I asked for, but you are failing miserably.

I understand the science perfectly. It is you who has failed to provide anything beyond your unsubstantiated opinion and some science fiction to support your position.

And once again, it is only an appeal to authority if you bring in an expert in a field other than that being discussed. If I brought in a computer expert's opinion on what is and isn't a human being, that would be an appeal to authority. Bringing in medical doctors who are respected leaders in the fields of developmental biology, embryology, fetology, and OB/Gyn constitues actual support for my position. You are clearly over your head here.

You have "shown" nothing other than maybe a potential for writing "B" grade science fiction. Once more, I challenge you to provide an example of two parents of the same species producing an offspring of a different species.

I do thank you for your "mule" example. It provides uncontrovertable evidence that you simply don't have a grasp of the science you are attempting to discuss.

Horses are Equus caballus. If you breed two horses, their offspring will invariably be Equus caballus. When you look at a mule, you are seeing a hybrid that results from the mating of Equus caballus (horse) and Equus asinus (donkey), not a mutant offspring of two horses.

You have shown nothing. I would be interested in seeing whatever "science" you have that suggests that other races are not human beings.

You have yet to offer up any evidence that an unborn at any stage is something other than a human being. Simply stating that they are not human beings does not constitute anything but your own unsubstantiated opinion. Do feel free to provide some actual support for your argument if you want it to have any weight at all.

Funny that you would call me ignorant with regard to science when clearly, it is you who does not even have a grasp of the basics. You have proven that you are indeed ignorant in the science you are attempting to discuss to the point that no assessment you make of anyone else's argument has any validity at all as you clearly couldn't tell a valid argument from one that is pure fancy.

I hold two degrees in hard sciences. A BS in one that is not biological in nature and an MS in one that is. The non substance of your argument so far proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is ignorant in the sciences.

Eugenics was a pseudoscience. Aside from that, how does acknowledging that we are human beings from the time we are concieved lead to eugenics? I would be interested to hear the line of logic that connects the two.

It is clearly you who doesn't grasp what is being said here. I have never said that science is qualified to decide whether or not it is OK or not OK to kill unborn human beings. Clearly that is not an issue for science. Identifying unborns, at any stage as human beings, however is most certainly within the purview of science. In fact, only science is qualifed to say what is a human being and what is not for the same reason that whenever a new species is discovered, it falls upon science to determine what it is. What a creature is is not a moral decision. What to do with it is.

As a society, we have made the declaration that it is most definately not OK for one human being to kill another unless the one is threatening the life of the other. You have made the claim that unborns are not human beings and therefore it is OK to kill them. Can you substantiate your claim that they are not human beings in any non-science fiction way?

Another 20 minutes of NOTHING from a complete nincompoop, dipshit, fucktard , idiot..