(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. There's a distinction to be made between human being and person. Personhood draws in all sorts of other considerations, which is a deliberate attempt to muddy the discussion. That is: sentience, self awareness. Conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. A human is created at that point.

Yes, a human is, but not a human being.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

per·son/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.a human being regarded as an individual.

I'm not the one trying to muddy the discussion.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mothers with unborn babies that were both killed isn't immoral?

How wouldn't it be immoral? What thought process could possibly guide you reasonably to the idea that I or Esquire wouldn't consider it immoral?

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I guess Esq is on Gods side in that judgement then.

Why should either of us consider something wrong merely because believers think God considers something wrong? Do you suppose our position is to always think the opposite of whatever God is supposed to think? I believe you're capable of deeper thinking than this.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says.

I doubt you're accurately representing Esquire.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life.

See how those two sentences are at odds with each other? Doesn't sound like Esquire. It certainly sounds like you, misrepresenting him though.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life?

It can be, so...where does that leave your point?

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?

We're wired to care about our fellow humans more than other animals, just like chimps and gorillas are wired to care more about their fellows dying than other animals. That doesn't mean we should. I like moral agency as a divider between what we treat as murder and what we treat as mere killing, but in light of obvious reasons to be biased, I have to wonder whether that is just a cover to justify unfair moral sentiments.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

Or so you imagine.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 4:08 am)C4RM5 Wrote: Yea a majority of people on this website have sworn at me and said I was a monster because I like the idea of everyone having a chance at life.

I was hoping you were prone to hyperbole rather than outright lying. I am disappoint.

I have been noting but you are what I call nice because you haven't.

(October 12, 2014 at 11:04 am)C4RM5 Wrote: No I am talking about a chair I have never sat in before.

But you've sat in chairs before. You must have noted that they support the weight of the sitter far more often than they fail. And you'd notice any obvioius defects like a partly buckled leg or rickety appearance. You DO have facts when you believe a chair will support your weight. You might be wrong, but barring obvious defects, it's the smart way to bet, because of the facts.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 11:15 am)C4RM5 Wrote: I see nothing wrong in believing in a God who has revealed himself to me. Beliefs don't need a factual back, for instance I belief I don't really like the colour orange, there is no factual evidence does it mean it is wrong?

For there to be no factual evidence that you really like the color orange, you would have to be unaware that you like it. It might not be a fact for someone else, but YOU should know for a fact whether or not you like orange, or it would be meaningless to say you do.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 11:38 am)C4RM5 Wrote: Okay, glad to be called something else that a monster on this website.

Would you please link to or cite the thread and post number of two posts by different posters where you've been called a monster? If the majority of posters on this website have called you one, it shouldn't be too difficult a task. Though I admit it has been for me.

Don't you have it hard enough here without making stuff up to feel agrieved over?

---

(October 12, 2014 at 12:19 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Exactly but how does this prove that I didn't use my brain, I mean I wouldn't be typing without a brain. The reason I don't have facts is that I can't find a definition of a human.

Here you go, mate, first thing that pops up when you Google 'definition of human':

hu·man/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
noun
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 4:14 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I think being able to trust in something is a positive quality. For instance say for some reason you hanging of the edge of a large drop and someone is ready to pull you back up, do you let them pull you up and have faith or do you ask for factual evidence to prove that they can pull you up?

It's only a postiive quality if the thing you trust in is actually trustworthy. If it isn't, your trust is mislplaced, a mistake. I would trust a random stranger to help pull me up because most random humans are not THAT evil, and if they were they could just not try to help at all.

BTW, in your signature, wherever you have 'prove', the correct word would be 'proof'.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 4:19 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I trust the Bible which says no human should take away a life from someone else.

You said earlier that your belief that abortion is wrong is not based on religion. Have you now realized that it is?

If so, that brings us to: where in the Bible does it say no human should take away a life from someone else?

I hope you're not thinking of 'Thou shalt not kill'. The Hebrew word in that Commandment is more accurately translated as 'murder' than 'kill'. The imperative is against unlawful killing.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 2:15 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Okay but towards the start I said from a non religious view I still think it is wrong.

And later you said it's because you trust the Bible and the Bible says not to kill people.

Which are you going to stick with? One view requires you to explain your reasoning if you want us to take you seriously, and the other requires you to support your view Biblically if you want us to take you seriously.

It's okay to feel it's wrong. If you feel it's wrong, don't have an abortion or put anyone in a position where they might have one because of your actions.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I'm less a fan of forcing women to take a fetus to term against their will. There's no point where I would think it's okay to confine a woman to prevent her from having an abortion, for instance. I don't consider abortion murder, I would not think it appropriate to punish the mother or the physician for murder...would you?

I handle my dislike of abortion by not getting anyone pregnant who doesn't want to have my baby. I hope you will follow suit.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: It does but you just want me to kill people.

We'd rather you not. Can you point out what post led you to believe any of us want you to kill people? Can you point to a post where any of us indicated we want you to have or perform an abortion?

The only thing in terms of action that's been asked of you is that you don't impose your opinion on others in the form of law without being able to justify it with more than your personal likes and dislikes.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I have been noting but you are what I call nice because you haven't.

Thank you, but you know it isn't actually true that over half the pwople on this website have sworn at you and called you a monster, right? It's not even true of over half the people on this thread, despite your comments that we want to kill babies and want you to kill people, which is a far worse thing to say about people than using a 'bad' word or two.

(October 13, 2014 at 5:37 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 13, 2014 at 2:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: lol esq please put your handbag away. You were trying to be condescending. Admit it. It's plain for everyone to see.

"It's just obvious!" is not a compelling argument. I've already explained my position, by what possible means could you have more information on my life by which to gainsay it?

It's a compelling argument where you're talking to someone who knows nothing about you and is no way in hell going to know you might have some anecdotal reason for being rude.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. There's a distinction to be made between human being and person. Personhood draws in all sorts of other considerations, which is a deliberate attempt to muddy the discussion. That is: sentience, self awareness. Conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. A human is created at that point.

Yes, a human is, but not a human being.

hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

per·son/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.a human being regarded as an individual.

I'm not the one trying to muddy the discussion.

You seem to be doing it again. I doubt anyone thought I meant human 'being' as in more that a member of the human species. You're being pedantic.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mothers with unborn babies that were both killed isn't immoral?

How wouldn't it be immoral? What thought process could possibly guide you reasonably to the idea that I or Esquire wouldn't consider it immoral?

Thanks for agreeing with me.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I guess Esq is on Gods side in that judgement then.

Why should either of us consider something wrong merely because believers think God considers something right? Do you suppose our position is to always think the opposite of whatever God is supposed to think? I believe you're capable of deeper thinking than this.

That's not what I meant. I won't call you a liar. I'm not Esq. If you find yourself on the same side of an argument as God does not mean that you followed what you think God represents without thinking for yourself.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says.

I doubt you're accurately representing Esquire.

Well that's for him to defend don't you think. If you don't know, then why are you defending him?

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life.

See how those two sentences are at odds with each other? Doesn't sound like Esquire. It certainly sounds like you, misrepresenting him though.
Again, you're defending something that you don't know. That's exactly Esq's argument as far as I can see. Let him put that straight if he disagrees.
Above you introduced 'personhood' or 'being'. What was the point of that if not to reduce the scope of the argument to sentient life?

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='fr0d0' pid='771971' dateline='1413066775']
Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life?

It can be, so...where does that leave your point?

It leaves my point where I put it. I think it can be just. Esq and other people are arguing that it can never be just to take life.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?

We're wired to care about our fellow humans more than other animals, just like chimps and gorillas are wired to care more about their fellows dying than other animals. That doesn't mean we should. I like moral agency as a divider between what we treat as murder and what we treat as mere killing, but in light of obvious reasons to be biased, I have to wonder whether that is just a cover to justify unfair moral sentiments.

Then you agree with me.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

Or so you imagine.

So I deduce. I believe in God and this is what I deduce his position to be, if, as I believe, he can know everything.

(October 13, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 11:04 am)C4RM5 Wrote: No I am talking about a chair I have never sat in before.

But you've sat in chairs before. You must have noted that they support the weight of the sitter far more often than they fail. And you'd notice any obvioius defects like a partly buckled leg or rickety appearance. You DO have facts when you believe a chair will support your weight. You might be wrong, but barring obvious defects, it's the smart way to bet, because of the facts.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 11:15 am)C4RM5 Wrote: I see nothing wrong in believing in a God who has revealed himself to me. Beliefs don't need a factual back, for instance I belief I don't really like the colour orange, there is no factual evidence does it mean it is wrong?

For there to be no factual evidence that you really like the color orange, you would have to be unaware that you like it. It might not be a fact for someone else, but YOU should know for a fact whether or not you like orange, or it would be meaningless to say you do.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 11:38 am)C4RM5 Wrote: Okay, glad to be called something else that a monster on this website.

Would you please link to or cite the thread and post number of two posts by different posters where you've been called a monster? If the majority of posters on this website have called you one, it shouldn't be too difficult a task. Though I admit it has been for me.

Don't you have it hard enough here without making stuff up to feel agrieved over?

---

(October 12, 2014 at 12:19 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Exactly but how does this prove that I didn't use my brain, I mean I wouldn't be typing without a brain. The reason I don't have facts is that I can't find a definition of a human.

Here you go, mate, first thing that pops up when you Google 'definition of human':

hu·man/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
noun
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 4:14 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I think being able to trust in something is a positive quality. For instance say for some reason you hanging of the edge of a large drop and someone is ready to pull you back up, do you let them pull you up and have faith or do you ask for factual evidence to prove that they can pull you up?

It's only a postiive quality if the thing you trust in is actually trustworthy. If it isn't, your trust is mislplaced, a mistake. I would trust a random stranger to help pull me up because most random humans are not THAT evil, and if they were they could just not try to help at all.

BTW, in your signature, wherever you have 'prove', the correct word would be 'proof'.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 4:19 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I trust the Bible which says no human should take away a life from someone else.

You said earlier that your belief that abortion is wrong is not based on religion. Have you now realized that it is?

If so, that brings us to: where in the Bible does it say no human should take away a life from someone else?

I hope you're not thinking of 'Thou shalt not kill'. The Hebrew word in that Commandment is more accurately translated as 'murder' than 'kill'. The imperative is against unlawful killing.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 2:15 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Okay but towards the start I said from a non religious view I still think it is wrong.

And later you said it's because you trust the Bible and the Bible says not to kill people.

Which are you going to stick with? One view requires you to explain your reasoning if you want us to take you seriously, and the other requires you to support your view Biblically if you want us to take you seriously.

It's okay to feel it's wrong. If you feel it's wrong, don't have an abortion or put anyone in a position where they might have one because of your actions.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I'm less a fan of forcing women to take a fetus to term against their will. There's no point where I would think it's okay to confine a woman to prevent her from having an abortion, for instance. I don't consider abortion murder, I would not think it appropriate to punish the mother or the physician for murder...would you?

I handle my dislike of abortion by not getting anyone pregnant who doesn't want to have my baby. I hope you will follow suit.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: It does but you just want me to kill people.

We'd rather you not. Can you point out what post led you to believe any of us want you to kill people? Can you point to a post where any of us indicated we want you to have or perform an abortion?

The only thing in terms of action that's been asked of you is that you don't impose your opinion on others in the form of law without being able to justify it with more than your personal likes and dislikes.

---

(October 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I have been noting but you are what I call nice because you haven't.

Thank you, but you know it isn't actually true that over half the pwople on this website have sworn at you and called you a monster, right? It's not even true of over half the people on this thread, despite your comments that we want to kill babies and want you to kill people, which is a far worse thing to say about people than using a 'bad' word or two.

You have to understand that I didn't accuse anyone of killing babies I just found out that you support the killing.

---

Thanks for the definition I honestly couldn't find one.

They're not babies!!

(October 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 10:55 am)C4RM5 Wrote: No not at all, I believe I can sit in a chair without it breaking, I don't have any facts does that mean it is not true?

If you think you don't have facts regarding the probability of a chair you're about to sit in breaking, you haven't thought your statement through at all.

I don't have any facts any where saying that my chair will hold me.

(October 14, 2014 at 2:54 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(October 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you think you don't have facts regarding the probability of a chair you're about to sit in breaking, you haven't thought your statement through at all.

I don't have any facts any where saying that my chair will hold me.

Where the hell do you shop for chairs? A plaice that is known for quality chairs or chairs that will likely as not collapse on you?? Is there a market for bad quality chairs where you live?

(October 14, 2014 at 2:54 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I don't have any facts any where saying that my chair will hold me.

Have you never encountered gravity before? Never seen a weight put atop a surface? You're essentially asserting that you've never been around physics before.

He's talking about guarantees though. There is no guarantee that the chair will hold him. That's where faith comes in. We have faith in the chair, based on the fact that they usually don't let us down. It's a shock when they do, with often funny consequences.

Confidence based on information and past performance =/= faith.