| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 mickeyrat |
#341 | |||
|
Posts: 1689 07/04/09 18:07:00 |
Not by any known definition of sentience.
you would be well advised to apprise yourself of the conversation's details before making yourself look stupid. ~But, in a larger sense, these brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.~
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
whulge |
#342 | |||
|
Posts: 1275 07/04/09 18:09:32 |
you would be well advised to apprise yourself of the conversation's details before making yourself look stupid.
Is it your assertion is that you're using a definition of sentience that is based on the context of this conversation and not a dictionary definition? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
mickeyrat |
#343 | |||
|
Posts: 1689 07/04/09 18:24:37 |
yawn. read the thread, dude. I have no time to waste on you. In the way I used it, it doesn't conflict with your definition above.
Dismissed. ~But, in a larger sense, these brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.~
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
whulge |
#344 | |||
|
Posts: 1275 07/04/09 19:54:31 |
In the way I used it, it doesn't conflict with your definition above.
It conflicts with all the definitions that I linked. You asserted sentience is part of the genome. Sentience is the state of being sentient. Potential for sentience is not sentience. If you disagree, make an argument to support your position. Making up your own usage is not very convincing. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
mickeyrat |
#345 | |||
|
Posts: 1689 07/04/09 22:27:27 |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
you are obviously a dullard in some respects, whulge, so I guess I need explain. Because I can no more separate sentience out of the human genome than I can the human appendix. They are BOTH characteristics of the human genome. I didn't say the genome is sentient. I said the development of sentience is a characteristic, all other things being equal, of the development of the human genome, just as is an appendix. Now, it's always possible that a person can be born without an appendix. That doesn't make him any less a human being. Anymore than being born without a brain means that you are not a human being. But, OTHERWISE, sentience is an integral part of the development of the genome, unless something happens to otherwise disturb that natural development. That's not the same thing as saying that genome is sentient. So, please remain dismissed. You could have gleaned all this simply by reading the preceding posts, and obviating any need on my part to repeat myself. Not that I have any objection to hearing myself talk, but, still... ~But, in a larger sense, these brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.~
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Geezes |
#346 | |||
|
Posts: 3923 07/05/09 10:57:49 |
Does the fact that the first thing Mickeyrat does to anyone who is not agreeing with him, or does not answer his silly crap point by point, stupid
really make him look smarter to anyone but Mickeyrat ?
|
|||
|
|
||||
 Scoundrel.peoplespoliticsiii |
#347 | |||
|
Posts: 4752 07/05/09 11:10:26 |
Geeze, a turnip has more intellect than you so I suggest you heed was mickey says.
Scoundrel Says," |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Geezes |
#348 | |||
|
Posts: 3923 07/05/09 13:44:59 |
Are you chasing your tail again, Skippy ?
You're such a good, boy, yes you are. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
nateonthenet |
#349 | |||
|
Posts: 486 07/05/09 17:42:42 |
does it cause pause that a personal attack on rat for making a personal attack is to be guilty of that with which you accuse others?
And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that
goin' for me, which is nice. Carl Spackler
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
PAPenny |
#350 | |||
|
Posts: 261 07/05/09 20:42:14 |
~Is there any other circumstance where you would do that ? This is not you reaching an "indifference point" of
(say) 1 to 1 and "opting" for the "alive" one........... you are condemning 10 "lives" to "death" over 1 life.......
and I know it's not "emotion" because "emotion" didn't stop you taking the 10 "will eventually be unfrozen ones"~
That is comparing apples and oranges TGP, of course no one would the choose the hypothetical life of 10 embryo's in a flask (which is not even possible to have) over the life of a child. Much more realistic would be 5 pregnant women vs. 1 child, if you going to use meaningless metaphoric situations. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
TheGreasyPole |
#351 | |||
|
Posts: 2832 07/06/09 10:22:14 |
That is comparing apples and oranges TGP, of course no one would the choose the hypothetical life of 10 embryo's in a flask (which is
not even possible to have) over the life of a child.
Much more realistic would be 5 pregnant women vs. 1 child, if you going to use meaningless metaphoric situations. OK PAPenny, I'll phrase it the way you want it phrased. It'll make it tricky....... but we can do it......... On one line of the tracks we have..... 51 mothers and their 51 four-year-old daughters. (102 "post-fetal humans") on the other........ 50 mothers and their 50 nine-year-old daughters (100 "post-fetal humans") Who do you rescue ? the 102 lives or the 100 lives ? Easy question to answer, no ? Save those 102 lives........ thats 2 more lives saved ! Thats a better result. 2 additional lives. Now....... take 5 years off everyones life.......... On one line of the tracks we have..... 51 mothers holding their positive pregnancy test results in hand. (51 "post-fetal humans", 51 fertilised eggs) on the other........ 50 mothers and their 50 4-year-old duaghters (100 "post-fetal humans") It's trickier (as we've got the additional complicatiuon of the mums in there.)........ but do you rescue the "50 mums + 50 daughters"......... or the "51 pregnant mums"......... you tell me ? Personally, I'd defininitely rescue the 100 "sentient humans" on the track and leave the 51 pregnant mums...... would you rescue the 51 pregnant mums to leave the 100 "other humans", including 50 "4-year-old-daughters" on the track ? It's messy......... because we included a factor we did not need to include for the experiment in there (the mums)...... and so it's not as clear as the example with the "messy mums" written out of it......... but, like most people, I suspect you are leaning towards the 100 "actual walking around humans" in the second case over the 51 pregnant mums. Yours, TGP
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop
telling the truth about them. - Adlai Stevenson
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Geezes |
#352 | |||
|
Posts: 3923 07/06/09 11:51:43 |
nateonthenet wrote: Ever notice how the Conservatives best arguments depend on holding others to higher standard then they themselves, collectively, have ? Does that not infer that they actually expect liberals to be better then they are? What does that say about how they really are ? Sorry, to have failed your expectation, Nate, by being just like those others that you would never criticize, provided they are supporting your political position, by any means possible. Oh, well, so it goes. Have a fine day, Nate. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
PAPenny |
#353 | |||
|
Posts: 261 07/06/09 16:53:50 |
~but, like most people, I suspect you are leaning towards the 100 "actual walking around humans" in the second case
over the 51 pregnant mums.~
Why do you have 51 pregnant mom's? Doesn't matter though, this is just to show how stupid your scenario is. There would be many factor to take into account when life and death are involved. Narrowed down all life is precious and for a human being to think they have the right to decide which lives are "worth more" is ludicrous. Simple solution...if you don't want a baby don't take risks with sex activity that could produce one. Is it really to much to ask for a person to assert that small level of responsibility and digression in their lives?!? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
whulge |
#354 | |||
|
Posts: 1275 07/06/09 18:39:21 |
all life is precious and for a human being to think they have the right to decide which lives are "worth more" is ludicrous.
Yet that's what the military does every day. But the "pro-life" folks don't really care about collateral civilian casualties. To them, certain lives are more precious than others. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
whulge |
#355 | |||
|
Posts: 1275 07/06/09 18:53:55 |
you are obviously a dullard in some respects, whulge, so I guess I need explain.
Maybe if you would publish your special dictionary, we could reference that to follow your "thinking." I didn't say the genome is sentient. Yes, you did. Here's your quote, again: "Sentience is part of the genome. It is part of what goes into the integrated organism." If you'd said potential for sentience is part of the genome, that would have been correct. I said the development of sentience is a characteristic, all other things being equal, of the development of the human genome, just as is an appendix. No, you didn't. See your quote above. Now, it's always possible that a person can be born without an appendix. That doesn't make him any less a human being. Anymore than being born without a brain means that you are not a human being. But, OTHERWISE, sentience is an integral part of the development of the genome, unless something happens to otherwise disturb that natural development. That's not the same thing as saying that genome is sentient. Thanks for the clarification, though I still hold your wording is very imprecise. As the definitions show, sentience is a state of being. When you wrote "Sentience is part of the genome. It is part of what goes into the integrated organism" you can see why it appears you are ascribing sentience to the genome. So, please remain dismissed. You could have gleaned all this simply by reading the preceding posts, and obviating any need on my part to repeat myself. Not that I have any objection to hearing myself talk, but, still... I read them. They were unclear to me. But we can't all be as exceptionally smart as you. Or as humble. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
mickeyrat |
#356 | |||
|
Posts: 1689 07/06/09 22:55:22 |
When you wrote "Sentience is part of the genome. It is part of what goes into the integrated organism" you can
see why it appears you are ascribing sentience to the genome.
No, I can't. I could if I had said. "The genome is sentient." I didn't. Since I said it was part of what goes into the integrated organism, there would be no reason to assume that I was saying the genome itself was sentient. As for my "imprecision" of language, two things. First, imprecision is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't have any trouble understanding what I said. I'm sorry that you need a dictionary to follow this conversation. Speaking of which, second, had you bothered to actually read this thread, you would have understood what I was saying, and wouldn't need to run to your online dictionary to look up sentient. You would have understand that I was describing the acquisition, not the "potential", the acquisition of what is normal and inherent in the human genome. I don't expect you to agree with me on the issue...however, I don't think it's a whole lot to ask that you at least read the threat before starting in with the usual catty comments from your corner. By the way, your jibber-jabber about war has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sorry that you're so intellectually retarded that you can't conceive that someone can support the use of troops in war, even at risk of their lives, or engage in war, even at risk of collateral casualties and yet still at the same time have an opinion on abortion that leads them to believe that we can do a bit more to stop unnecessary instances. I'm sorry that you have such a hard time with the concept, the rest of us really don't, and don't need every conversation on abortion sidetracked by your red-herrings. ~But, in a larger sense, these brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.~
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MssRobin |
#357 | |||
|
Posts: 4004 07/07/09 00:03:10 |
First, imprecision is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't have any trouble understanding what I said. I'm sorry that you need a dictionary to follow this conversation. rat. What rubbish ... if the writer can't get his message across with precision, that's the writer's problem, not the reader's. You didn't have any trouble understanding what you said ..'cos you wrote the bs in the first place, but many others .... precisely because of your lack of precision as a writer ... do. Don't you know anything at all about penmanship? All the adversity I've had in my life, has strengthened me. You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be
the best thing in the world for you."
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mickeyrat |
#358 | |||
|
Posts: 1689 07/07/09 00:37:38 |
ms. robin, you remain one of the least pleasant people on the board.
Then again, if I were looking into the long loneliness of old age, no significant others, no children, nothing to occupy my time, I suppose I'd be unpleasant as well. Have a nice day. ~But, in a larger sense, these brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.~
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MssRobin |
#359 | |||
|
Posts: 4004 07/07/09 00:54:05 |
I note your hypocrocisy. After you have insulted me, again, you tell me to have a nice day! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Yobbo |
#360 | |||
|
Posts: 2351 08/06/09 13:23:23 |
Forget petty disagreements.
Cowardice Among 'Christian' Leaders: Why the Churches Are Largely Mum on Torture Anyone harboring doubts that the institutional Church is riding shotgun for the system, even regarding heinous sin like torture, should be chastened by the results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Who but the cowardly crew leading the "Christian" churches can be held responsible for the fact that many of their flock believe torture of suspected terrorists is "justified?" Those polled were white non-Hispanic Catholics, white Evangelicals, and white mainline Protestants. A majority (54 percent) of those who attend church regularly said torture could be "justified," while a majority of those not attending church regularly responded that torture was rarely or never justified. I am not a psychologist or sociologist. But I recall that one of the first things Hitler did on assuming power was to ensure there was a pastor in every Lutheran and Catholic parish in Germany. Why? Because he calculated, correctly, that here would be a force for stability for his regime "There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll |
|||
|
|
||||
you bunch of liberal 
's."
Your ignorance is astounding. 
