PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
It's quite relevant if we are to discuss abortion rights. Why are you avoiding an answer? Typically answer avoidance is a suspect defense mechanism.
Biden Bots
- Thread starter ActionianJacksonian
- Start date
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I steer clear of herd mentalities.Thank God there's still some Democrats that haven't drank the Koolaid.
EDIT: I'm also not registered with any political party affiliation. I left the Dem part years ago.
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
This is the attitude more people need.
I'm pro choice, but to a point. Here in CO there is no limits really. WTF?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Because this has degenerated into a debate about de facto religion. Arguing with a positivist is tiresome and futile.
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
Let's get back to talking about how you're a Biden Bot then.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Identifying the inception of "personhood" is not a religious concept. You've also never seemed to be adverse to tangential dialogues. This implies that you have some defensive reason to not divulge your opinion on the matter.
Luckily, we are the Sanctuary State centrally located for MAGAT states in the surrounding areas.
What limits do you not like..the ones where you pull out?
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Defend that first claim.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Attack it specifically, so that I have something to defend. This should be a scientific concept, no?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
What science covers personhood?
Psychology is a medical discipline heavily salted with philosophy. There is no objective, natural science of psychology; no instrument that allows psychological tenets e. g. behaviorism to be submitted to objective test. There is no reduction to basic physical quantities such as mass, energy, luminosity, frequency etc., things readable on necessarily nonsentient instruments: the basic and indispensable coin of science.
So tell me of the science of personhood without resorting to the subjective, which is the camel’s nose of belief (which is the irreducible core of the subjective, and thus does not yield to science any more readily than astrology) under the tentflap of objectivity. There is no aspect of the subjective that is extricable from faith, the implacable opponent of all science.
This burden is on you, not me. The attempt to shift it does have some rhetorical elegance; I will give you that.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I could have done this more briefly: you stated that personhood is not a religious concept. Derive that counterintuitive claim from first principles.
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
Who said anything about pulling out,
?ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
This demonstrates the hard lefts true concept of personhood. It is to be given and taken at will by them, at any age. As you can see here, it is simply removed for half of adult voters.
It's fair to say that fine line of the birth canal can be moved forward with mentality such as this.
Last edited:
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
You always could be more brief, but you seem to prefer a word soup, in unrequited efforts with failed attempts to bolster your arguments.
So it seems to me that you don't know when personhood begins, and you feel the need to lean on religion for this definition, while at the same time rejecting such religious definitions, and unable to come up with one yourself. How's that supposed to work? If that is in fact the case, then I must yield, as I am left with great confusion as to your positions.
If that is in fact not the case, then my defense is that subjective definitions lie within the individual, and that those individual definitions may be made by both religious individuals as well as atheists. If atheists are also to self-discern this subjective point, then by definition it is not a religious concept.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
speaking of word soup, where did you address your claim regarding science and personhood? For someone who accuses others of concealing bias, you are seeming to practice the vice with a certain élan.
The science. Show it.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I didn't claim it, I questioned it, which is why there is a question mark at the end of my sentence. I thought that you viewed this stuff through a scientific lens, hence my question. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is a claim. It is the one I ask you to defend with links showing that science can treat of personhood. The appended insincere question-marked word is a rhetorical device that you are now exploiting. It is yet another demonstration that you are not seeking honest discussion.
Now please restrict yourself to posting links to the claimed science, an obligation you assumed voluntarily and unaided.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I don't know the science behind it. I assumed that you did, but you have clearly told me that there is not science available to address this issue, so I will believe you. I guess I will have to submit to your assertion that it is indeed the place of religion to identify personhood, and that there is no place for science in the matter. How does it feel to be right about that?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There can be no legitimate science behind a concept that reduces to religion. I state that personhood is such a concept. How I feel about it or about anything is not part of objective inquiry.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Then we are forced to rely on our subjectivity, which in this case, you have given the onus of to religion. Religion has an answer, but you do not.
Last edited: