Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Yes. genome. We agree on that. What I'm saying is that its not a full human yet. For that time and conception are needed.
Just like an amount of brick is the early developmental stage of a building. But do you think that it is a building yet ? I don't think so, so let's not call a construction finished until its finished.
Nop. Still nop. I'm in fact very cartesian and close to pure scientific process here. I don't make a statement about individuality in early stages, I only make it when science says to us that its fair to make it: at the appearance of consciousness.
On the contrary, what you are doing is creating a narrative. A narrative where individuality can come depite the non existence of consciousness. Which is quite problematic on a scientific level and political level when we talk about the right of abortion.
hmm nop. Like I told you, the one who is confusing science with philosophy here is you mate. You are putting the characteristic of individuality on something that doesn't have consciousness yet. And you create a narrative were the end of construction predate the appearance of the last building block.
In short you are describing the existence of a building before the end of its construction
The genom are the building block, they are not the construction. The construction is only finished when its finished.
Not really, the fact of saying that individuality appears at the emergence of consciousness is not a "subjective" statement, its the best description of a biological process we have yet. Its therefore an objective scientific observation.
Yes you are
Then stop using science to create false narrative.
Again no. its not an individual yet. You are again creating a false narrative, you are describing a building before the end of the construction. A member is a individual, a human zygot is a building bloc.
I'm not. Simply because your sentence is wrong. Its not a human being yet. its just the building blocs of a human being. Again, you are arguing that a bunch of bricks should not be removed (because they are causing harm) because they are already a finished construction, when they are not.
You are building a false narrative using science. And that's something I kinda hate if you ask me.
A foetus is the early stages of a human, its not human yet. Therefore there is no reason to say that its human unless you want to give pro life and antiscience people reason to believe that we should take the rights of body owners from them.
This is a very bad comparison, we are talking here about a life form that is taking the life ressources of another body without consent. We are not talking here about organ transplant.
Yup. That's explained by science.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/
Brain death implies the lost of consciousness and the impossibility of recovering. What you are talking about are the same reflexes the body of a cutted head chicken has.
Because the arguments of pro life is not "save human babies" its "save life"
Biological meaning "that it has all the potential biological building bloc to create lifeform"
I can hear that, but that's not what I hear from them. But this might be a problem of perception.
Plants for example.
Just like an amount of brick is the early developmental stage of a building. But do you think that it is a building yet ? I don't think so, so let's not call a construction finished until its finished.
Nop. Still nop. I'm in fact very cartesian and close to pure scientific process here. I don't make a statement about individuality in early stages, I only make it when science says to us that its fair to make it: at the appearance of consciousness.
On the contrary, what you are doing is creating a narrative. A narrative where individuality can come depite the non existence of consciousness. Which is quite problematic on a scientific level and political level when we talk about the right of abortion.
hmm nop. Like I told you, the one who is confusing science with philosophy here is you mate. You are putting the characteristic of individuality on something that doesn't have consciousness yet. And you create a narrative were the end of construction predate the appearance of the last building block.
In short you are describing the existence of a building before the end of its construction
The genom are the building block, they are not the construction. The construction is only finished when its finished.
Not really, the fact of saying that individuality appears at the emergence of consciousness is not a "subjective" statement, its the best description of a biological process we have yet. Its therefore an objective scientific observation.
Yes you are
Then stop using science to create false narrative.
Again no. its not an individual yet. You are again creating a false narrative, you are describing a building before the end of the construction. A member is a individual, a human zygot is a building bloc.
I'm not. Simply because your sentence is wrong. Its not a human being yet. its just the building blocs of a human being. Again, you are arguing that a bunch of bricks should not be removed (because they are causing harm) because they are already a finished construction, when they are not.
You are building a false narrative using science. And that's something I kinda hate if you ask me.
A foetus is the early stages of a human, its not human yet. Therefore there is no reason to say that its human unless you want to give pro life and antiscience people reason to believe that we should take the rights of body owners from them.
This is a very bad comparison, we are talking here about a life form that is taking the life ressources of another body without consent. We are not talking here about organ transplant.
Yup. That's explained by science.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/
Brain death implies the lost of consciousness and the impossibility of recovering. What you are talking about are the same reflexes the body of a cutted head chicken has.
Because the arguments of pro life is not "save human babies" its "save life"
Biological meaning "that it has all the potential biological building bloc to create lifeform"
I can hear that, but that's not what I hear from them. But this might be a problem of perception.
Plants for example.
I dare you to read a science book, and not a french feeling bloggers blogposts
That's just a philosophical point - "personhood" will have different meanings to different people meaning that it appears at different stages in development, meaning that what some may consider a "person" is just a lump of meat to the other person
[automerge]1703918798[/automerge]
Anyway, both of those development stages are humans.
Whether you think one of them looks disgusting and the other doesn's is just your personal preference and has no bearing on biology...which I know Logiko is not familiar with
That's just a philosophical point - "personhood" will have different meanings to different people meaning that it appears at different stages in development, meaning that what some may consider a "person" is just a lump of meat to the other person
[automerge]1703918798[/automerge]
Anyway, both of those development stages are humans.
Whether you think one of them looks disgusting and the other doesn's is just your personal preference and has no bearing on biology...which I know Logiko is not familiar with
Last edited:
It's honestly disgusting how far some people will deny an unborn baby in it's early stages of development, But then they'll completely be sympathetic towards the crazy mental cases who think their another sex altogether. Just more Double standards and hypocrisy.
Deny Biological Nature for Social Bullshit.
Deny Biological Nature for Social Bullshit.
Funny, I'm the only poster here who is quoting science papers. Don't try to lecture me on that, you risk ridiculizing yourself here. You guys are really not example of scientific vertue, in fact for the most part, you are anti science 
Not yet, its just a prenatal stage of human. I'm sure you don't call a bunch of thousand brick a building until its finish, right ? So why are you doing it for humans ?
A foetus WILL developp and become human (between week 15 and week 20), but its not a human yet.
For my part, I'm not denying the existence of unborn baby. What I'm explaining is this inexistence of sentience/conscience characteristics and cerebral activities in a early stage foetus. Those are the reasons why we are human in the first place, without it, we are just like plants, but a little bit more gross. We are building blocs.
If you want to use pro life argument, go ahead, but those won't be helped by science.
Not yet, its just a prenatal stage of human. I'm sure you don't call a bunch of thousand brick a building until its finish, right ? So why are you doing it for humans ?
A foetus WILL developp and become human (between week 15 and week 20), but its not a human yet.
For my part, I'm not denying the existence of unborn baby. What I'm explaining is this inexistence of sentience/conscience characteristics and cerebral activities in a early stage foetus. Those are the reasons why we are human in the first place, without it, we are just like plants, but a little bit more gross. We are building blocs.
If you want to use pro life argument, go ahead, but those won't be helped by science.
Yeah no and i dont care about the philosophical personhood shit when im strictly talking about the biological perspective. Its a living human being in the earliest developmental stages. That is based in the relevant science.
[automerge]1703929233[/automerge]
Science doesnt dictate when personhood begins. Thats entirely philosophical and you dont know what you are talking about.
Science can tell us when consciousness begins, sure, but it is you who says that dictates the beginning of personhood.
And you really arent reading my posts. When i say biologically a zygote is a living human being, that doesnt have anything to do with abortion rights and im still N O T pro-life lmfao.
[automerge]1703929370[/automerge]
No im not. Im just saying biologically it is a member of the species homo sapiens, which it is. That isnt about any characteristics you use to evaluate personhood at all
[automerge]1703929379[/automerge]
Dense motherfucker
[automerge]1703929596[/automerge]
Thats not what i called subjective either.
I called subjective at what point one should assign value to the new human life that emerged. You think the value comes with consciousness, whereas pro-life people say it comes with being human, even in the developmental stages before consciousness.
Can you like actually read my posts instead of just going back to your script?
[automerge]1703929618[/automerge]
Im not.
[automerge]1703929233[/automerge]
Science doesnt dictate when personhood begins. Thats entirely philosophical and you dont know what you are talking about.
Science can tell us when consciousness begins, sure, but it is you who says that dictates the beginning of personhood.
And you really arent reading my posts. When i say biologically a zygote is a living human being, that doesnt have anything to do with abortion rights and im still N O T pro-life lmfao.
[automerge]1703929370[/automerge]
No im not. Im just saying biologically it is a member of the species homo sapiens, which it is. That isnt about any characteristics you use to evaluate personhood at all
[automerge]1703929379[/automerge]
Dense motherfucker
[automerge]1703929596[/automerge]
Thats not what i called subjective either.
I called subjective at what point one should assign value to the new human life that emerged. You think the value comes with consciousness, whereas pro-life people say it comes with being human, even in the developmental stages before consciousness.
Can you like actually read my posts instead of just going back to your script?
[automerge]1703929618[/automerge]
Im not.
Last edited:
You are not, you are naming a zygot a human. Its not scientific, its ideologic. A zygot is the prenatal, preembryon stage of a human, its NOT a human yet, it only has its blueprint. Those are not the same things.
Words matter. Science matter.
Technically yes it does. Since we know identity begins with conscisousness and we know that consciousness begins between the 15 and 20 th week of the development, then when can they that the prestage of the identity and therefore the personnality of a human starts developping between the 15 and 20 th week of the development in the womb.
FIrst define what you mean by personhood then we will speak, second, there is no need to state where personhood (if that's really a real word) begins, we only need to know where consciousness begins.
What I means is that you are giving arguments to pro life propagandist here by trying to place a narrative on identity on science.
The only thing we kneed to know is where consciousness begins as it is what differenciate us from plants. From there we can act.
Such concept as "personhood" are irrelevant and human are don't start becoming human predevelopment, they can only become human AFTER they gets the basic animal characteristic that is consciousness. Before that, we are just building blocs in development. Not finished constructions
Words matter. Science matter.
Technically yes it does. Since we know identity begins with conscisousness and we know that consciousness begins between the 15 and 20 th week of the development, then when can they that the prestage of the identity and therefore the personnality of a human starts developping between the 15 and 20 th week of the development in the womb.
FIrst define what you mean by personhood then we will speak, second, there is no need to state where personhood (if that's really a real word) begins, we only need to know where consciousness begins.
What I means is that you are giving arguments to pro life propagandist here by trying to place a narrative on identity on science.
The only thing we kneed to know is where consciousness begins as it is what differenciate us from plants. From there we can act.
Such concept as "personhood" are irrelevant and human are don't start becoming human predevelopment, they can only become human AFTER they gets the basic animal characteristic that is consciousness. Before that, we are just building blocs in development. Not finished constructions
Nah you just arent getting it and you are not able to distinguish between the biology and the philosophy.
Im gonna repeat for the 5th time or something: im talking about a zygote biologically being human, ad evident by the unique full human genome. That has nothing to do with whether we ascribe value of personhood or abortion or anything.
One can accept the biology and accept that it is a living human being while still also saying that it doesnt have the value of personhood and is therefore fine to be terminated for whatever reason the mother has to terminate it.
[automerge]1703930108[/automerge]
The new body also didnt consent to start existing. Thats the fault of the mother who engaged in sexual activities. Pro life people then talk about the inherent responsibility that comes with that and are against terminating a new human life for the convenience of the mother, even if it is lowkey a parasite.
[automerge]1703930194[/automerge]
Yeah i dont think you listened to alot of pro life voices lmao. Its about the value of human life, often religiously motivated, which i mentioned earlier as well
[automerge]1703930232[/automerge]
So are braindead people not human according to your logic?
[automerge]1703930277[/automerge]
Thats not answering the question or elaborating your previous statement
[automerge]1703930311[/automerge]
Yeah then you arent listening to them bruh, what can i tell you
[automerge]1703930527[/automerge]
Technically adults are also just a lump of cells, just organized in a different way. Thats why i never got this point of the prochoice crowd, its kinda retarded
[automerge]1703930569[/automerge]
Not surprising though.
[automerge]1703930904[/automerge]
Who says thats the issue though? For pro life people thats just not true, for them it is the issue of it being a human life.
And depending on views of personhood, a babies personhood isnt self evident necessarily
[automerge]1703931036[/automerge]
Transgenderism is a legit condition. Iirc there are studies in the brain activity aligning more with the gender identity than the biological sex.
Most pro lgbt people dont think transgender people change sex
[automerge]1703931291[/automerge]
Isnt that legally the case as well?
Im gonna repeat for the 5th time or something: im talking about a zygote biologically being human, ad evident by the unique full human genome. That has nothing to do with whether we ascribe value of personhood or abortion or anything.
One can accept the biology and accept that it is a living human being while still also saying that it doesnt have the value of personhood and is therefore fine to be terminated for whatever reason the mother has to terminate it.
[automerge]1703930108[/automerge]
The new body also didnt consent to start existing. Thats the fault of the mother who engaged in sexual activities. Pro life people then talk about the inherent responsibility that comes with that and are against terminating a new human life for the convenience of the mother, even if it is lowkey a parasite.
[automerge]1703930194[/automerge]
Yeah i dont think you listened to alot of pro life voices lmao. Its about the value of human life, often religiously motivated, which i mentioned earlier as well
[automerge]1703930232[/automerge]
So are braindead people not human according to your logic?
[automerge]1703930277[/automerge]
Thats not answering the question or elaborating your previous statement
[automerge]1703930311[/automerge]
Yeah then you arent listening to them bruh, what can i tell you
[automerge]1703930527[/automerge]
Technically adults are also just a lump of cells, just organized in a different way. Thats why i never got this point of the prochoice crowd, its kinda retarded
[automerge]1703930569[/automerge]
Not surprising though.
[automerge]1703930904[/automerge]
Who says thats the issue though? For pro life people thats just not true, for them it is the issue of it being a human life.
And depending on views of personhood, a babies personhood isnt self evident necessarily
[automerge]1703931036[/automerge]
Transgenderism is a legit condition. Iirc there are studies in the brain activity aligning more with the gender identity than the biological sex.
Most pro lgbt people dont think transgender people change sex
[automerge]1703931291[/automerge]
Isnt that legally the case as well?
Last edited:
No its not. It is the Zygot or the embryon or the foetus OF a member of the homo sapiens sapiens specie. Like I said previously, its not finished until its finished.
You can't call an individual the building blocs of an individual, its illogical.
I only follow the scientific datas and the definition of consciousness. Its not the individual I'm interested in in that context, its the consciousness. That's what separate us from plants, its therefore what should matter objectively to say if we should or should not stop the development of a foetus.
I read them, the problem is that, just like pro life, you are calling a member/human/individual what is in fact just a building bloc for a future individual. You are therefore naming a human a potential for humanity, not a human. That's why I say that you give arguments to pro life propagandist by saying this.
Again, the one using philosophy (and not biology) is you. I'm not the one naming a zygot or a foetus or a embryon a "human/individual/member" of a specie, you are. Again, because you are confusing the building blocs with the ending of the construction. That's why I use the metaphor of the building.
Sadly, it didn't make you tick, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, that's precisely the problem
:cheers:
No, if you accept biology, you accept the biological term and you don't change them. A individual/unite (animal/human) is NOT a zygot or an embryon or a foetus. Its a finished (in the post natal sence) and developped individual.
There is no "consent" if there is no sentience. When you move a plant into your room, do you say that the plant didn't "consent" to be moved ? No. That's why we can move around or kill plants without being afraid for them.
Unless there is a miracle conception that allows a embryon to get consciousness on day 1, there is not "consent" involve. What you are talking about is a baby, therefore a lifeform in the womb that developped consciousness, and in the case of a baby, there is no debate about the right of abortion, its prohibited (and its logical). But what we are talking about is not a conscious lifeform, but a lifeform that can be removed without repercussion on someones consciousness and therefore harm them. That's why the women's choices must be prioritized.
And let's not start tthe sexism by blaming things on women who have sex (while ignoring the fact that men are responsible beings also) or this will get ugly real fast.
If you knew how many I debated with mate....
I had training before coming on this forum you know..
Brain dead people are technically dead by the standards of our actual knowledge. So yes, they are not human anymore, they are human's corpses with remaining nerve activities.
Not saying that the body don't deserves respect (after all, we are social specie, it would be harsh to throw away the body even if technically, its nothing but an empty shell), but that's now up to the family or the one who made a will for his remainings in the first place.
Maybe we will find a way to resurrect dead corpse in the future to make them human again, but we are not there yet.
I have to admit, I stopped listening to them at one point, so their argument might have evolves during the last decade.
You can't call an individual the building blocs of an individual, its illogical.
I only follow the scientific datas and the definition of consciousness. Its not the individual I'm interested in in that context, its the consciousness. That's what separate us from plants, its therefore what should matter objectively to say if we should or should not stop the development of a foetus.
I read them, the problem is that, just like pro life, you are calling a member/human/individual what is in fact just a building bloc for a future individual. You are therefore naming a human a potential for humanity, not a human. That's why I say that you give arguments to pro life propagandist by saying this.
Again, the one using philosophy (and not biology) is you. I'm not the one naming a zygot or a foetus or a embryon a "human/individual/member" of a specie, you are. Again, because you are confusing the building blocs with the ending of the construction. That's why I use the metaphor of the building.
Sadly, it didn't make you tick, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, that's precisely the problem
:cheers:
No, if you accept biology, you accept the biological term and you don't change them. A individual/unite (animal/human) is NOT a zygot or an embryon or a foetus. Its a finished (in the post natal sence) and developped individual.
There is no "consent" if there is no sentience. When you move a plant into your room, do you say that the plant didn't "consent" to be moved ? No. That's why we can move around or kill plants without being afraid for them.
Unless there is a miracle conception that allows a embryon to get consciousness on day 1, there is not "consent" involve. What you are talking about is a baby, therefore a lifeform in the womb that developped consciousness, and in the case of a baby, there is no debate about the right of abortion, its prohibited (and its logical). But what we are talking about is not a conscious lifeform, but a lifeform that can be removed without repercussion on someones consciousness and therefore harm them. That's why the women's choices must be prioritized.
And let's not start tthe sexism by blaming things on women who have sex (while ignoring the fact that men are responsible beings also) or this will get ugly real fast.
If you knew how many I debated with mate....
I had training before coming on this forum you know..
Brain dead people are technically dead by the standards of our actual knowledge. So yes, they are not human anymore, they are human's corpses with remaining nerve activities.
Not saying that the body don't deserves respect (after all, we are social specie, it would be harsh to throw away the body even if technically, its nothing but an empty shell), but that's now up to the family or the one who made a will for his remainings in the first place.
Maybe we will find a way to resurrect dead corpse in the future to make them human again, but we are not there yet.
I have to admit, I stopped listening to them at one point, so their argument might have evolves during the last decade.
Unfortunately its the other way around, you are being ideological, whereas im not even positioning myself on abortion lul
[automerge]1703932573[/automerge]
Bruh you are so dense.
Science doesnt tell us that personhood starts with consciousness. I dont care to define personhood. Why arent you getting it lmao. Im speaking on the biological aspect. Personhood is the philosophical aspect. People have varying views on when personhood starts. You think its with consciousness, prolife people may think its when life starts.
[automerge]1703933325[/automerge]
Im giving arguments to pro life propagandists while not being pro life myself. Alright buddy.
You are wrong. Im saying what im saying regardless of abortion, and i emphasized that a couple times before. This is getting into strawman territory
[automerge]1703933360[/automerge]
Great for you if you think this way. Other people will disagree
[automerge]1703933505[/automerge]
Doesnt matter whether its "finished". If we go by that its not finished until late teens when reproduction is a viable option. And if we go even further the body still grows and changes after that.
You are forcing your philosophical/ideological views on the biological perspective.
[automerge]1703933751[/automerge]
Ye and im not interested in the consciousness, neither are prolife people. Which you would know if you would actually read my posts. And thats not objective at all. Pro life peeps think human life is intrinsically valuable and even a zygote is a valuable human life because it has the potential of acquiring consciousness if you dont kill it off.
[automerge]1703933801[/automerge]
Yeah no thanks
[automerge]1703933847[/automerge]
Its correct though. Which is why you have to deflect with philosophical shit.
[automerge]1703934111[/automerge]
An human adult is human, sure. A human fetus is also human, just a different developmental stage. Your individuality nonsense is irrelevant for biology, thats philosophy. Im well aware the abortion debate also incorporates philosophy, but i wasnt necessarily talking about abortion, i was talking about biological life. We already settled life starting at conception. The conversation should have ended then if not for your inability to view the biology disconnected from the abortion debate
[automerge]1703934180[/automerge]
Im not though. From the very beginning i said i dont care about the philosophy here lmfao.
[automerge]1703934501[/automerge]
So its not just it didnt consent but even that it couldnt
[automerge]1703934658[/automerge]
Thanks captain obvious, both parties have responsibility. What would i do without your wisdom.
[automerge]1703934792[/automerge]
Yeah doesnt sound like it at all lmao. You arent even getting the basic premise of pro life that its about human life. Or have you seen pro life peeps being pro vegan or anything?
[automerge]1703935063[/automerge]
They are dead humans as opposed to living humans.
[automerge]1703935101[/automerge]
I think you stopped listening very early
[automerge]1703932573[/automerge]
Bruh you are so dense.
Science doesnt tell us that personhood starts with consciousness. I dont care to define personhood. Why arent you getting it lmao. Im speaking on the biological aspect. Personhood is the philosophical aspect. People have varying views on when personhood starts. You think its with consciousness, prolife people may think its when life starts.
[automerge]1703933325[/automerge]
Im giving arguments to pro life propagandists while not being pro life myself. Alright buddy.
You are wrong. Im saying what im saying regardless of abortion, and i emphasized that a couple times before. This is getting into strawman territory
[automerge]1703933360[/automerge]
Great for you if you think this way. Other people will disagree
[automerge]1703933505[/automerge]
Doesnt matter whether its "finished". If we go by that its not finished until late teens when reproduction is a viable option. And if we go even further the body still grows and changes after that.
You are forcing your philosophical/ideological views on the biological perspective.
[automerge]1703933751[/automerge]
Ye and im not interested in the consciousness, neither are prolife people. Which you would know if you would actually read my posts. And thats not objective at all. Pro life peeps think human life is intrinsically valuable and even a zygote is a valuable human life because it has the potential of acquiring consciousness if you dont kill it off.
[automerge]1703933801[/automerge]
Yeah no thanks
[automerge]1703933847[/automerge]
Its correct though. Which is why you have to deflect with philosophical shit.
[automerge]1703934111[/automerge]
An human adult is human, sure. A human fetus is also human, just a different developmental stage. Your individuality nonsense is irrelevant for biology, thats philosophy. Im well aware the abortion debate also incorporates philosophy, but i wasnt necessarily talking about abortion, i was talking about biological life. We already settled life starting at conception. The conversation should have ended then if not for your inability to view the biology disconnected from the abortion debate
[automerge]1703934180[/automerge]
Im not though. From the very beginning i said i dont care about the philosophy here lmfao.
[automerge]1703934501[/automerge]
So its not just it didnt consent but even that it couldnt
[automerge]1703934658[/automerge]
Thanks captain obvious, both parties have responsibility. What would i do without your wisdom.
[automerge]1703934792[/automerge]
Yeah doesnt sound like it at all lmao. You arent even getting the basic premise of pro life that its about human life. Or have you seen pro life peeps being pro vegan or anything?
[automerge]1703935063[/automerge]
They are dead humans as opposed to living humans.
[automerge]1703935101[/automerge]
I think you stopped listening very early
Last edited:
