Is a blastocyst a human being?

[AzurePhoenix]

Because of the reasons you

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.

maybe it would help both sides if we took a moment and you would cleary and primly define for us both terms as you percieve or understand them ("human" and "human being" separately).

[ParanoiA]

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.

[ParanoiA]

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.

[Sayonara]

Maybe we should approach this from a new perspective.

 

ParanoiA, do you consider yourself to be [equivalent to] a blastocyst?

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

but being a being has nothing to do with genetics, it's about the conscious state of the particular entity in question. The "being" part of "human being" can be tacked on to any functionally aware creature, maybe even an artifically created one. You could call a raven a being, a dog and a chimp and a dolphin, probably even an octopus and others, but not a slug or an ant or a tree (based on current understandings of course)

 

The being part of the creature is the active, thinking mind of the creature in question. A blastocyst has no awareness or perception, consciousness, thought, no mind. Neither does a braindead human. I'm not saying you have to be intelligent or smart, even George Bush could qualify for being-hood.

 

The rest? individual cells and tissues? the dna? organs and skin, hair, the entire human body and even the brain itself? not human beings, just human.

[Dak]

They are already human beings and can be proven genetically.

 

no they can't.

 

they can be prooven to be human geneticaly, but not human a beinng. there is no genetic, nor scientific, definition of, nor test for, human beingness

 

consider: a severed limb is not a human being; however, there is no genetic test that will distinguish between a recently severed limb (human, but non-human-being) and an arm attached to a human (human, and part of a human being).

[AzurePhoenix]

consider: a severed limb is not a human being; however, there is no genetic test that will distinguish between a recently severed limb (human, but non-human-being) and an arm attached to a human (human, and part of a human being).

Now don't be too hasty to generalize. the hand named Thing from The Adams Family would count as a being

[ParanoiA]

The rest? individual cells and tissues? the dna? organs and skin, hair, the entire human body and even the brain itself? not human beings, just human.

 

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.

[Royston]

but not a slug

 

What deranged nonsense is this !?!

 

I wish I'd stuck with human-being in my last post, there was just a slight nagging thought that human and human being are incredibly similar terms, only because when we say 'human' on it's own, you associate the word with human-being. The only time this changes is when we are referring to a body part, DNA, et.c where we'd say 'human hair' or 'human DNA.'

 

So to get all the semantics cleared up, a 'human' is not a sufficient description for this type of discussion...it has to be ultimately clear that it's a human-being that's being discussed, and 'being' as the word suggests is 'to be' (overlooking any existential connotations to the word) which clearly suggests self-awareness (at least at some level) when we say 'human being.'

 

ParanoiA, you mentioned losing an arm...well you've already developed from the non-aware blastocyst, to a 'one-armed self aware human-being.' If you remove your brain, you are a 'clinically dead human.' All the stages before you reach a level of self awareness do get fuzzy, but a blastocyst is not one of them, and somebody who has had their brain removed certainly, cannot be considered a 'human being.' Would you say a skeleton is a human-being...a pile of ashes, where would it stop. Sorry that I'm repeating myself, and this all seems rather obvious, I just thought it was important to define the terms a little.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

it's not about parts at all. There isn't a single part in the human body that is the human being, nor any combination of them stuck together, not even the entire human. The being part of the human is the mind itself. The parts all put together onyl build up to the human organism outlined in the genetic blueprints.

 

Hypothetically say that the human soul and spirit was real, no tangible body, no biology, no dna, but the conscious mind existed intact. THAT spirit would be the being. The corpse or brain-dead body left behind would be the human organism.

 

Again hypothetically, if an artificial lifeform could attain a true "mind," self-awareness, consciousness, it would be no less of a being than a functional, conscious human. Ever see "Short Circuit," "Bicentennial Man," or "I-Robot"? Those robots would count as beings.

 

There is the human organism, the physical body made up of all the various tissues and stuff outlined in the dna. Then their is the mind, that which makes an entity a being. It is only when you put both the human organism and the coscious mind of that organism together that you get a human being.

[ParanoiA]

it's not about parts at all. There isn't a single part in the human body that is the human being, nor any combination of them stuck together, not even the entire human. The being part of the human is the mind itself. The parts all put together onyl build up to the human organism outlined in the genetic blueprints.

 

Hypothetically say that the human soul and spirit was real, no tangible body, no biology, no dna, but the conscious mind existed intact. THAT spirit would be the being. The corpse or brain-dead body left behind would be the human organism.

 

Again hypothetically, if an artificial lifeform could attain a true "mind," self-awareness, consciousness, it would be no less of a being than a functional, conscious human. Ever see "Short Circuit," "Bicentennial Man," or "I-Robot"? Those robots would count as beings.

 

There is the human organism, the physical body made up of all the various tissues and stuff outlined in the dna. Then their is the mind, that which makes an entity a being. It is only when you put both the human organism and the coscious mind of that organism together that you get a human being.

 

 

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.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

Yes, it is stupid of you, thank you . It's clear that you're expanding beyond what I said, making false assumptions. The soul angle was simply to put the meaning into a more clearly understandable context, not to be taken as any more than a reference to help simplify the potentially vague concepts.

 

The hypothetical situation doesn't alter what the mind is, and doesn't seriously suggest a metaphysical nature for it, it's simply a demonstration that the mind is the whole idea of being a being, no matter how it resides, whether in a biological and functional organism, in the circuits of some computer that might not be that far off from reality, or in some ectoplasmic state that christians will be happy to hoot over.

 

The mind is cleary a construct of the biological brain, framed genetically, augmented with some randomness, and int he case of humans at the very least shaped by life experiences. It is entirely derived from biological sources. But that mind, however derived, is still the essence of being. An undeveloped or broken organism without a functional brain cannot create that mind, and so is non-being.

 

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.

You are placing all the weight in "why," not in "what." Just as you are defining the organism by the unique code within the dna itself rather than in the "intended" final organism, you are in this quote placing weight on where the mind comes from rather than what the mind is. But the fact is, a person without a functioning brain does not have a mind. That is undeniable. And without that mind, you are not a being. The rest is the shell that once but no longer supports or harbors a mind, the organism.

 

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...

you are again taking what I said out of context and generalizing, falsely I might add. And also, lots of birds can't fly.

 

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.

this isn't about value. I don't give a crap about people, you know that and have used that point to argue against me before. I definately consider pigs beings, but I won't turn down a BLT or two or three. And I certainly don't consider the deer antler on my desk a being, but I'll still beat the crap out of my siblings if they touch it.

 

But the mind is what makes something a being. If braindead, or without a brain or the functional equivalent, there is no mind. Thereby, if consciously aware mind = being, no mind = not a being. It's not a matter of value. It's simple rationale.

 

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.

maybe a baby isn't very complex, still malleable and fresh, and yeah, dumb as a rock, but it's still aware. It has a mind. I don't give a damn about the quality of the mind in question.

 

If I read your earlier definitions correctly, you claim that it is the intended sum of the parts, no matter what the phase in developement, in an organism that is still alive that makes it a being, and the rest is the simple human... building blocks? Aye? But that seems to me to be a sentimentalist view, not practical. A blastocyst isn't a complete human. Neither is a half-formed fetus. No more so than you would call raw cake batter a cake.

 

The complete human is that which reaches the purpose for which it is "designed," which is to breed and start the process over. Anything less is unfinished, an incomplete proximity of the aimed-for organism, useless in the lifecycle. And if you're braindead, you're no longer able to function as outlined either, you're incomplete.

 

If, again hypothetically , i were to shift to your outlook on the definition of a being as a "complete organism," then I'd still have to say you aren't a being unless you can either get knocked up or knock someone else up. Not to mention that fact that any brain-dead organism certainly isn't functional, and thereby complete, if its neurological systems aren't working.

[ParanoiA]

You are placing all the weight in "why," not in "what." Just as you are defining the organism by the unique code within the dna itself rather than in the "intended" final organism, you are in this quote placing weight on where the mind comes from rather than what the mind is. But the fact is, a person without a functioning brain does not have a mind. That is undeniable. And without that mind, you are not a being. The rest is the shell that once but no longer supports or harbors a mind, the organism.

 

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...

 

But the mind is what makes something a being. If braindead, or without a brain or the functional equivalent, there is no mind. Thereby, if consciously aware mind = being, no mind = not a being. It's not a matter of value. It's simple rationale.

 

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.

 

A blastocyst isn't a complete human. Neither is a half-formed fetus. No more so than you would call raw cake batter a cake.

 

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.

[YT2095]

I`de say Nearly Human.

 

for instance, if on a mission to Mars (or wherever) we were to bring one back and examine it, the exclaimation would be Wow, this thing`s nearly Human!

 

I think because it originates Here, doesn`t make it More Human. and so to further that, a Purely Objective look as such a scenario would be, is key to answering this question.

I can answer neither Yes or No to this, only Nearly or Almost.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

realistically that which made him a being is dead and gone. So he's a human. Meat.

 

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.

I used one hypothetical in order to elucidate my meaning. It was obvious you weren't paying attention to what I was saying, so I was forced to take it a step further into the hypothetical to clarify. But, obviously, you will contuinue to fail to pay attention to what I'm actually saying. It seems no matter how often I clarify the meaning and context of what I was saying, you continue to respond as if I were actually saying what you initially assumed I was. If you're going to argue this matter, argue with what I'm actually saying, not with what you want to pretend I'm saying.

 

And yes, there was a second hypothetical in regards to artificial intelligences, but it'd be superstitious to think that the consciousness of a biological organism couldn't be duplicated or aproximated if we built a compelx enough system, and that someday we very possibly might be able to do so.

 

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.

Yes, the conscious mind is a consequence of having a funcitoning brain able to cause the consequence, as I've pointed out multiple times before throughout this thrad, i agree with that entirely. But the entire essence of being a being is dependent on that simple consequence. The cause of that consciousness and where it comes from doesn't matter. Without the consequence, you aren't a being. That is what I was saying when I pointed out that in this case, being a being is dependent on what, not why.

 

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.

the brain is not the mind, it it simply what harbors and creates it, the cause of the mind but not the mind itself. Once that brain stops functioning, every bit of the brain might still be there, but the mind is gone. You can't deny that a corpse no longer has a mind. So I guess we should rephrase this "mind" business and start saying "a functional brain not only with the capacity for awareness, but actively displaying it." That's a mouthful though, so let's just call it a mind anyway for simplicity's sake.

 

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.

There are certainly ingrained dispositions, unique aspects of personality, faults and good traits, all sorts of stuff that are heavily influenced by genetics, but it's simply outrageous to claim that environment and experience don't go far to mold the raw elements of a person's mind, but, I don't see what nature vs nurture has to do with this argument. No matter what influences the form of a being's consciousness, it's still consciousness, so what's the point of this line of thought in relation to this whole debate?

 

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...

I don't disagree at all. But those cumulative bits of data all strung together are the mind, not that which it's all stored on. The mind is the consciousness itself. Consciousness is clearly not something to can remove on it's own and pick at and examine. It is woven into the physiology, created by it, altered and influenced by it, but it isn't it. And once it's biological medium fails, it's gone.

 

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?

If they're truly conscious, then yeah, they're beings. But science suggests many creatures below a certain level complexity are scarcely more than cold programming, devoid of actual awareness, simple responsive organisms. Not aware, not beings. Of course, they MIGHT be aware on some level, it's just damned difficult to say so.

 

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.

again, you're ignoring the fact that I don't care about whether something is conscious or not. It doesn't have to be aware or intelligent to be of value to me. I appreciate every lifeform but earwigs (an unfair prejudice), and it's well known that humans are rather low on my scale of appreciation. You keep turning my arguments back to value, but that is simply false, and you refuse to acknowledge that no matter how many times I have to refute you. Maybe this is about the value of humanity to others who might be interested in being vs non-being, but for me this is simply about the definition of a being. Please remove your head from your colon and pay attention to what I'm saying and arguing rather than what you want this argument to be about.

 

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.

exactly. but, as I'm sure you're aware, this analogy was in relation to being a "complete organism" in the sense of being fully functional as intended within the genes, by which I'm comparing baking to being able to breed. Just to be entirely clear just in case, this metaphor had nothing to do with whether or not the cake is a being. Just complete.

[ParanoiA]

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.

[GutZ]

I am just wondering is the process (Birth) the same for all organisms to an extent? Is there a stage that would make a human similiar to like say a monkey or whatever(minus DNA and such)?

 

If there is no vagueness at all I would find unfair to consider anything to be anything untill certian characteristics emerge. Like for example the very first biological step in a new being is already incapculated (Don't know if that's the right word) with a unique aspect (like DNA) yet there are sigificant differences between the first and final step.

 

I couldn't distinguish what stage would objectively be considered the human transformation, it's already has aspects from the first moment that can be recongizable to be human, if that were true.

 

So I would have to go with YT on this one and say Nearly, but vote "No" based on myself created criteria which makes a human, because I can't say it is or isn't.

[YT2095]

Ad Hom attacks on AP are hardly likely to sway an opinion to the positive!

not only that, I don`t agree with some of what you say either.

 

and as for:

I think your misanthropic tendency is just an excuse to treat people like sh!t and not feel bad about it.

 

Hmmm...does Kettle, Pot and Black spring to mind?

[ParanoiA]

If there is no vagueness at all I would find unfair to consider anything to be anything untill certian characteristics emerge.

 

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.

[ParanoiA]

Ad Hom attacks on AP are hardly likely to sway an opinion to the positive!

not only that, I don`t agree with some of what you say either.

 

Hmmm...does Kettle, Pot and Black spring to mind?

 

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...

[YT2095]

don`t flatter yourself, you DON`T interest me in the slightest.

and there`s no conflict of interests either, AP and others have been quite right for the most part, as for being a Moderator here, I fail to see how that changes my opinion of these errors you make, I`m sure other NON Mods can (and indeed Have spotted and subsequently pointed them out to you also).

so lose the Strawman tactics, it`s all to transparent what you`re doing.

 

stick to the Issues!

[AzurePhoenix]

so lose the Strawman tactics, it`s all to transparent what you`re doing.

 

stick to the Issues!

careful, asking him to stop strawmanedly warping what was said and stick to the issues is what got me diagnosed with a need for therapy.

[ParanoiA]

Hmm..interesting how the debate was going just fine, sticking to the issues, no name calling, no BS ego stroking until you two came along and jumped into the discussion.

 

AP started out awesome, making all kinds of sense, her professional writing style and humorous tone mixed with clever debate was very appealing. Then, she got elementary and short changed herself and used insults when she clearly didn't have to.

 

And of course, here comes YT with his hypocritical judgemental ideas of posting style and a thirst for self importance jumping on my case after I fight back.

 

How many times is it going to take before you two realize that insults derail debates? The person you are debating will ignore your point and focus on the insult - typical human behavior. They always have and they always will. They are all ego. Nothing but ego. They mean nothing other than to tell the other side you're out of real ammunition.

 

And I don't pretend to be above it all, believe me. It doesn't take much coaxing to get me childish and pissy. I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit it. But I sure as hell don't start it. I am very disappointed this discussion went this way. It was a cool debate.

[Sayonara]

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.

The only problem we are having in this thread is that the above only holds true if one is using your definition of "human being", and the overwhelming majority in this thread are stating quite flatly that their understanding of the term is different.

 

You have still not answered my earlier question: Do you believe that you (by which I mean mind, body, emotions, consciousness, etc - not just your genetic code) are equivalent to a blastocyst?

[YT2095]

And of course, here comes YT with his hypocritical judgemental ideas of posting style and a thirst for self importance jumping on my case after I fight back.

 

Oh you poor misguided fool

I`m as Important as I care to be, pointing out your Flaws neither adds nor detracts from this fact. get over yourself and your persection complex and Answer the More than reasonable questions that have been asked of you.

 

sidetracking won`t make them go away!