almight him/her self. See how easy it is to make up rediculous
statements, I can do it to Paul.
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Science, common-sense (not so common in your house it seems) and
> English grammar both prove me to be correct, and irrational
emotional
> pleas prove you right. You might want to learn how to spell the
word
> "grammar" before you criticize it in others.
>
> Your well-debunked argument of..... If they say it has no human
life
> (whether it's a fetus, a brick, or a dog), mention the Nazis or the
> KKK and say they didn't recognize the human life in Jews, blacks,
or
> whatever else.... proves nothing other than the fallacy of your
> arguments.
>
> I say a brick has no human life, and you say the Nazis didn't think
> Jews had human life. Does this prove anything? Does a brick have
> human life? No. A fetus has no more human life than a brick and
if
> you claim the KKK thought the black people had no human life, it
does
> nothing to prove your argument.
>
> I haven't dehumanized anything. To claim I have dehumanized a
fetus
> is to claim I've dehumanized a brick. You can't dehumanize
something
> that wasn't human in the first place.
>
> Your arguments are circular and mine are linear...
>
> YOU: I say a fetus has human life.
> ME: No it doesn't. It has no human levels of sentience, but even
if
> it did, it's within the body of another which means it has no
rights.
> YOU: You're dehumanizing a fetus.
> ME: No, I'm not.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
wrote:
> >
> > Mark you might be confusing the terms, Paul does all the time as
he
> > doesn't acknowledge a difference. We can argue about when to
attach
> > the quality of being Human, as Paul does, though science and
english
> > gramer show Paul to be wrong. Or we can Argue about personhood,
and
> > to argue about when to asign personhood with out any
consideration
> > to the attribute of being human is what I find uncompromisably
> > objectionable. To claim a thing as human, but not a person is
> > exactly how prejudice and racism were capable of resulting in
what
> > we call atrocities. Dehuminization of a human being is the
catalyst
> > for atrocity, it is the seperation of your definition #1 from
your
> > definition #6 and I reject it at all levels Mark.
> >
> > Terry, I hope you notice I do stand for things, and if they are
not
> > the same as that wich you stand for, it does not mean I have
some
> > evil plot to trash your 'philosophical triumpf'.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Uncool,
> > >
> > > As for your fist paragraph:
> > > Racism, prejudice and ageism are red herrings. Obviously
> > > personhood is not dependant on those criteria. No one here is
> > > debating that. We are discussing personhood and abortion in the
> > > context of different stages in human reproduction, where very
> > > simple classifications can be made.
> > >
> > > As for your second paragraph:
> > > I continue to fail to make any sense out of around 75% of your
> > > posts, but this paragraph is a topper. Please try to improve
your
> > > writing skills. Your writing is so substandard that until you
> > > improve it, I (and others I imagine) can not tell if the
problem
> > > lies with your writing or your logic. Of course your writing
may
> > > occasionally work for you by mimicking success: when no one CAN
> > > respond.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ************
> > > {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> > > "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> > > case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's
instructions.
> > > There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive
at a
> > > unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and
fulfill
> > > its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> > > unjust lawsuits.
> > > See www.fija.org
> > > [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Its so much more than a simple logical process Mark. Its a
very
> > > complex process. Who gets to be a person? Are only whites
> > > persons,
> > > or perhaps only whites are full persons? Are only naturaly
born
> > > citizens persons? One ethnic group only? A certain age?
> > > Classifications are not made on absolute truths but rather
biased
> > > by
> > > the culture issuing the classification.
> > >
> > > Rights are biased, the apply to all and are not handed out on
a
> > > biased choice. Those are privledges, and I find nothing more
> > > unlibertarina than the idea of trying to claim rights are
> > > something
> > > deligated out by a temporaly dependant definition.
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uncool,
> > > >
> > > > "Human" vs "person" is nothing more than a simple process of
> > > > classification. There's nothing inherently prejudicial about
> > > it.
> > > > All snails are mollusks but all mollusks are not snails. A
> > > > snail-shell is "of-snail", but a "snail-person" is more than
> > > just
> > > > a shell. All humans are mammals, but all mammals are not
human.
> > > A
> > > > human-fetus is "of-human", but a "human-person" is more than
> > > just
> > > > a fetus. These divisions are logical and impart no more
> > > > discrimination than they deserve.
> > > >
> > > > -Mark
> > > >
> > > > PS: Thanks for writing clearer.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
