ParanoiA

The fact you don't agree with some of what I say comforts me. That's not an ad hom attack either - I genuinely believe that. And we've already been down this road where someone insults me and when I fight back here you come casting judgement on me and nothing is said about them. This is clearly a conflict of interest for you, as a moderator, since you like anyone who disagrees with me, and I like anyone who disagrees with you. And yes, your posts compared with this judgement does smack of Kettles, pots and blackness...

My hangup on this approach is that there is no good reason other than an appeal to familiarity to base it on that. That's why I started looking at this from a common denominator standpoint. These characteristics you refer to can be added or taken away, and we're still left calling the being whatever it was before we added or took away these characteristics. And then at what point does something "become" a characteristic. How much of the nervous system has to be built before it can be called a nervous system? 10%? 40%? 90%? When you finally decide on a percentage, subtract .0000001 from that and try convincing yourself that's NOT a characteristic until we add that .0000001 percentage. I'm not saying there has to be a definitive line. But starting with the cell and first generation of a genetic sequence happens to be one. And I think it's a good one. All I have to do is shift my paradigm, question the accepted establishment's ideas of "being". I don't think I've successfully done that, actually, but I'm more convinced of it than any other line drawn at what constitutes a human being.

Oh, he doesn't want to go there...believe me. I'm hung like a 2nd grader...

AzurePhoenix - I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to repeatedly insult me. If your argument is so sound, then you shouldn't need to resort to the level of politician to prove yourself. Get your self help therapy somewhere else. This forum is for debate, not to stroke your ego. If you need that, try a psychology forum where ego is a debate in and of itself. Whether you believe it or not, I do get your point, so you really don't need to keep repeating it over and over again. The point you keep missing, is that I don't care about what you call the "mind", precisely because of how and why it is created. You're focusing on the result, the "mind" irregardless of the logistics of it's makeup. The fact that you have a "mind" makes you a being. I don't agree with that because this "mind" IS the physical components. So, even if I don't have a mind yet, as a blastocyst, I have the map of my "mind's" creation. Since I believe the majority of your "mind" is the result of biological processes, then it would be consistent that the blastocyst contains the blue print for its "mind". A post-birth human being will have this "mind" in action and will exercise the functions of the "mind". The blastocyst simply hasn't developed that attribute yet, but biological building instructions that will create the brain so that the "mind" can become active, are present and set in motion. I don't agree that a bedridden brain-dead person is not a human being. Their quality of life isn't there. I would certainly describe them as not a human being in discussion. I would agree they are just meat. But as a poetic, moral sense only. In reality, they are a human being. They are 99.999% the same as you...just brain stopped functioning. A physical part on their body quit working. But they are still alive. You, apparently think the "mind" is some significant milestone - even though it's just a part of the development of a human being. Some beings have a more complex or simple "mind". Some beings don't have a "mind" at all. But they have a brain that works very similar to yours. Your "mind" is a subjective abstract that you seem to think makes a "being". That doesn't seem logical to me. In a "personhood" sense it does, but not literal. Anyway, we're not going to agree, but it's been fun, up until your last crappy little post. When you drop the attitude and just debate, you're a great poster. When you start referring to colons and lodged body parts you spoil the debate and just piss people off. I think your misanthropic tendency is just an excuse to treat people like sh!t and not feel bad about it.

Ok, so that's my fault and I apologize, but it wasn't exactly obvious. After all of the grief in the posts preceding that post, and the tone mixed with a direct consequence of the context of my post, I couldn't help but see it as anything other than a smart ass rebuttal rather than a continuation in the spirit of it. Anyway, I need to finish beating this nail in with my penis. Real men don't need hammers.

Amendment 2 is still on top with 97% reporting. It kept flip flopping like John Kerry last night - one minute it was winning, next it was losing. I was afraid some republican heavy district was going to trash it last minute. So, here's the good news in Missouri: Amendment 2 is passed Amendment 3 is defeated ( a smoker's tax to provide money for kids ) Minimum wage is increased ( I believe to $6.50 / hour from $5.15/hour.) No taxes for veteran resources ( something about tax exemption for veteran related stuff ) Bad news in Missouri: No libertarians were elected ( it's a conspiracy ) Lying, cheating, rich hypocritical democrats got elected

Uh oh...how about shaving just the jewels?

That is exactly the tone I have pictured in my head too. I'm not Carlin or Hicks, those guys are geniuses, but that was the intended direction of that post. I thought it was obvious...

I respectfully disagree. The bedridden vegetable doesn't have a mind, but is still a human being. Poetically he is not a human being, but realistically he is a human being. Most of your arguments seem to center around this completeness of mind, presence and awareness - using hypotheticals to single it out, which I understand but it's all poetry to me. The blastocyst contains the code that will be responsible for the basic layout of this mind - the brain, blood, neurons, chemicals and etc. I guess I just see the mind as more of a biological consequence than an environmental one. For instance, consider a dedicated republican. A republican can receive the same information as you or I, but he will interpret it as a republican. He will cherry pick the information that satisfies his republican outlook and forget or write off the rest. I see the physiological layout of the brain and the associated parts and fluids as the "republican" - taking in information like the rest of us, but understood and received as a republican. So, I don't believe that environment and life experiences actually shape someone as much as their predisposed biological makeup has shaped them. This is also why I don't believe serial killers can be cured psychologically. They're made that way - something is wrong with this neurological system in a physical way. I think that's why I reject the mind thing so much, because it's just media storage and processing. The hard drive and RAM don't make the computer - it's the processor that makes the computer. The sum of the computer parts make what we call a computer - but any of these parts can be taken away and it's still a computer. Here I go with parts again... Poetic rationale, yes. And I agree with it on that level. I don't think it's an accurate rationale though. Does an ant realize itself? How about bacteria? Are they conciously aware? Are they not a being? It really seems like most of you are using lawyer type arguments to rationalize itty bitty things as irrelevant non-beings. Because it's microscopic, it obviously has no value - so we must define something about ourselves that they don't have so we can reject them from our group. Hey, how about the abstract mind / awareness thing? Yeah, if we define a being as having to have a mind and be aware somehow, then that creates the partition we're looking for. Nice analogy. The cake is the fully developed thing. The batter contains all of the ingredients of the cake, it is "cake" in its early form. Now any of the ingredients by themselves, don't make the cake. And removing salt or butter won't make it "not" be a cake - but the sum of the ingredients make it a cake - we call this batter in the pre-bake stage. After you bake it, then it is a fully formed cake. I know you're rolling your eyes now, but at least I'm consistent.

Poor bascule...he repeatedly makes gloriously foolish comments and doesn't realize how ridiculous he looks. All because he doesn't read. Is that another social norm gone awry? Is reading overrated now?

I am so surprised at you. How would a soul retain thoughts without the cortex to retain them? I know you said hypothetically. Well how about hypothetically giraffes were orange and could fly? Ok, that's stupid too, I won't go there. But your thoughts, moods, happiness, depth, intellect, all essesntially you are the result of the tissue and organs you're calling mere parts. Chemicals and neurological systems working with tissue, muscle, blood - all of this creates what you think of as thought. It is you. It is your soul that you're talking about. I can't look at that hypothetically because that hypothetical is circumventing the point. That would be like us arguing whether birds can fly over trees, and then you offer the hypothetical that "suppose birds can't fly"...I know you didn't mean to do that, but... I still get your point, and I file it away under great arguments to use when debating human value and at what stage of a human being's existence it attains that value. I just don't agree that the mind itself is the being. Besides, then you introduce value by experience. If you're two months old, then your mind hasn't had time to be really anything compared to a 50 year old mind. Maybe I'm reaching here, but the mind thing doesn't click with me at all. I'll think this out a little more tonight, but I need some herbal relaxation and TV time right now.

I agree. It's the sum of those parts that create a functioning being. I would say only animals can be "beings". The thing is though, if you're defining us by certain parts only and disregarding the significance of others, then lack of parts surely must eject us from that definition. And you can't do that with the parts you mentioned.

Glider - All of your points are excellent points, but, to me, they ALL support the concept of personhood or moral lines of significance rather than proof that it's not a human being. They're very compelling, but not enough for me. The idea that you can search for food and a blastocyst can't is cherry picking independence. So you can search for food. Good. Can you create it? How do you make iron? How do you make oxygen? How do you make water? Are you doing all of that stuff? Nature is. You just go get it - not that it's easy - but that's all you're doing. You're just as dependent on nature as the blastocyst is. True, the blastocyst needs a little extra - and so will you when you deteriorate in your old age. But you'll still be a human being. I reject the notion of potential in this case, because I'm not basing their potential attributes to apply for human membership. They are already human beings and can be proven genetically. Any of these attributes, like brains, limbs, feelings can be removed from grown humans and they are still considered human beings so how can you then base it on these same removable attributes? I guess I should clarify that only attributes that are consistent among ALL human beings - attributes that when removed result in not being a human being any longer. The heart, lungs, liver, bones - there's a ton of stuff you could remove and would still consider a human being. But, genetics - now that you can't remove and still be a human being. If your DNA was altered just a tiny bit, you could be a monkey or dolphin.

Well I guess I would define human in that any and all parts that belong to a human being. Like hair, cells, limbs..etc. The human being would be the member of the genus homo, species homo sapien – it would be the summation of all of those available human parts as a living life form. So, if I lose an arm, or if my brain is removed, or I shed skin – those parts are human and I am still a human being. I am the summation of all available human parts in a working, living life form. That is if they can keep me alive without my brain. If I’m nothing but a dish of about 100 cells dividing and building my attributes then I am a human being – still being developed of course. I am the summation of all available human parts in a working living life form. If I’m 10 years old, I’m still developing and tweaking my attributes and I am still a human being. If I’m a bedridden vegetable, I am still a human being. Now, if we’re talking about morality and quality of life, then I would argue that at 100 cells I don’t have any quality of life. I don’t have any of the attributes in which to process life in any way remotely related in the most abstract sense with fully grown humans. Same with a bedridden vegetable, as far as a lack of quality of life. There is no personhood available in those examples.

Because of the reasons you used to say it wasn't human to begin with. It doesn't have any feeling. No cognition. No personhood. For those reasons, I don't believe it has earned any rights whatsoever - only what its maker gives it. The maker being mom, or a lab tech...whatever the case may be. I may very well be playing semantics myself, even though it's not my intention, I just believe a blastocyst is a human being in a very early stage of existence. Later it will begin to look more like the rest of us, and thus we will start to relate more with it - see it more person-like. During all of this, it has not earned any rights to life other than what its maker grants it. When it is born, separated from its mother, then it has its own right to live in my mind. The rights I speak of are an arbitrary moral line that Sisyphus has pointed out. I draw the line there because I can't see forcing a person to do or not do anything with their body. As long as the baby is in the womb, then I say it grows and lives per HER discretion. It's HER body. It's HER creation. Now, growing a human to term in a lab would open a sticky can of worms that I have no opinion on as of yet. If there was something womb-like being used, I would probably draw my arbitrary moral line when it's removed, but I'm not sure really.

I'm not sure what your beef is. I'm agreeing with you. I pluralized the word village for a reason. So yes, I believe he has commited genocide. But others in this forum have apparently started some threads on the subject and they've gone further into it all, so I'd dig into those if you're really curious about it. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you'd reject the DUDE label - that's a cultural insult where I come from. We would have to walk 10 paces and then turn and throw poo at each other until submission...

Yeah, and I think YT made a good point about jeopardizing the beer funds - that really appealed to my shallow nature.

Ok, before I fall victim to the onslaught of criticism for calling this a feminine thing, it's only due to tradition - not because I think it's a woman's duty or anything - although I do think it falls under "nesting" which women seem to be predisposed to do in some very general sense. But..I do most of the laundry in our house - including folding mind you, as well as nightly dish duty and vacuuming from time to time. I am also the primary cook of the house. This is in addition to the very masculine yard work and garage sweeping duties of course. I also keep my nails trimmed and I do use the nail file to smooth the edges when I'm done, which is fairly feminine, BUT I use my guitar playing as the excuse for that one so I can actually use a masculine defense if needed... Damn, I'm glad I got that listed...

Ok, now remember I'm a thick headed man...so what is that thing??

Ecoli, don't sweat it. You're definitely a man. I conveniently left out those "feminine" things I'm guilty of...

Actually I worked in a shop for 10 years before I got my sit-down white collar computer job. Funny, the bigoted misogynistic butt scratching folks didn't work there. They didn't put on lotion and talk about how they can be more sensitive, they put on lotion and talked about how many yards Emmit Smith ran for last Sunday - ha! Now those of us in the wood shop area didn't use lotion, because if you do you'll feel every splinter and things could slip out of your hand which is not cool around sharp rotating blades that don't discriminate wood from flesh. But it was fun talking about girls, sports and beer - it was flat out awesome. Being a man is kick ass.

Sounds more psychotic and in desparate need of theraputic attention..I'll stick with a Carlin influenced temper tantrum and ditch the mellodrama of fury and calculation...besides it leads to taking life too seriously which is a foolishly driven emotion

Finally...I was beginning to think they thought I made it up...

This is proof that she has no idea, despite telling her three different times now, that my post was a vent. When people get frustrated in doing what they believe is the right thing, then they vent. Venting is rarely logical. Kind of like when women get pissed and have to vent about "MEN!!!". They go on and on about how horrible we are and then two weeks later they have another man. Venting is good for you. It lets your impulses out in a non-violent way and hopefully will allow some chuckles for you and anyone listening to your vent. Then you can regain composure, and continue in your struggle to do what's right and fair with those in your life. Not real complicated....

Well, not that I blame you, but you assumed I was attacking Sisyphus rather than augment his post. He mentioned: It was those "some people" that I was referring to about having a sense of humor. Some people will take those sentiments to heart, and those people have no sense of humor. That was my point. Sisyphus is a well rounded logical person that I have a lot of respect for, and he can take care of himself, believe me. I have also enjoyed your misanthropic posts even though I despise misanthropism. If I took your posts too seriously, I too would see no humor in them and berate you for lack of imagination and close minded bigotry. But since that would be too obvious, I give you more credit than that. Perhaps that was misallocated. I don't live my life by that rant, and I'm actually surprised that after all of the posts I've made in this forum, that anyone would judge me so callously as you have on one venting post. But I'm not sorry. I'm going to cook up another one. And I hope it pisses you off twice as much as this one.