Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: People are responsible for providing their own security. I do not understand how that follows. If someone is kidnapped and has not purchased any protection, no one is going to come looking for them.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: People are responsible for providing their own security. I do not understand how that follows.
Stranger: People are responsible for providing their own security.
People are responsible for providing their own security.
I do not understand how that follows.
If someone is kidnapped and has not purchased any protection, no one is going to come looking for them.
Perhaps. So, what does that have to do with the discussion between me and Spidey?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Spideynw:How does someone derive the right to represent the child against her parents?
Spideynw: Also, is sex inherently wrong? If not, then why is sex wrong with a child whereas changing the child's diaper is not?
tacoface,
Recently you've only offered cheerleading and your use of the word "reality" in numerous posts recently. Maybe if you had something more to offer other than your take on 'reality' it would be helpful.
Stranger:A child is property because no one outside the family is allowed to take it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, the parents simply have custody, not ownership.
Spideynw:Semantics game.
tacoface: It's pretty obvious Stranger has this thread won and it's truly disturbing how out of touch with reality some of you are.
It's pretty obvious Stranger has this thread won and it's truly disturbing how out of touch with reality some of you are.
Thanks. We'll take note of how your bootlicking reflects badly on us.
nirgrahamUK: The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA.
The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA.
Until a brain in a vat actually happens I'll believe that.
nirgrahamUK: if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights.
if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights.
If that's possible.
nirgrahamUK: Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents.
Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents.
And when a person doesn't understand rights does that mean they can be violated? of course not.
nirgrahamUK: dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
dead humans are dead. This is about human nature. life, liberty, and property - that whole shabang.
Stranger:That is a fact, not an argument. Children obtain protection from their parents because the parents have the right to exclude strangers, i.e. they own the children.
Stranger:Whether or not parents should be murdering their children is a moral argument that is irrelevant to a principle of universal law.
Stranger:If they do murder their children, it is a matter of internal family law and does not concern you.
Spideynw:Do you think imprisoning someone without consent is wrong? Well, I imprison my child in her room every night, without her consent.
Aster_Lacnala:A question on positive obligations... Driving drunk carries with it the possibility of getting into an accident and hurting someone, possibly other than myself. If I choose to do so anyway, and someone else is hurt, don't they have a claim against me? While it was certainly an accident, I still have an obligation to make reparations to them. Now, someone choosing to have sex does so knowing that it carries the possibility of pregnancy. Even condoms and pills aren't 100% effective. The pregnancy may not have been the desired outcome of the sex, but it was still a risk. In the same way, doesn't a parent have an obligation to the child created?
Driving drunk carries with it the possibility of getting into an accident and hurting someone, possibly other than myself. If I choose to do so anyway, and someone else is hurt, don't they have a claim against me? While it was certainly an accident, I still have an obligation to make reparations to them.
Now, someone choosing to have sex does so knowing that it carries the possibility of pregnancy. Even condoms and pills aren't 100% effective. The pregnancy may not have been the desired outcome of the sex, but it was still a risk. In the same way, doesn't a parent have an obligation to the child created?
wilderness, you know generally speaking I'm a fan, but I don't understand your criticisms, you seem to have not comprehended what I had written.
Could you try again?
I would also encourage KoB to have at me, if I have laid out whoppers, I do trust his insight in such matters.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: wilderness, you know generally speaking I'm a fan, but I don't understand your criticisms, you seem to have not comprehended what I had written. Could you try again? I would also encourage KoB to have at me, if I have laid out whoppers, I do trust his insight in such matters.
I don't understand your criticisms. And you don't seem to have comprehended what I had written. same question to you.
nirgrahamUK: The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA. if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights. Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents. dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA. if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights. Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents. dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
This makes sense. In discussions pertaining rights, the mental faculties of animals are used as a benchmark (as opposed to their DNA). Whether something has rights I believe is determined by whether it is autonomous, which of course would require a mind.
wilderness: nirgrahamUK:The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA.Until a brain in a vat actually happens I'll believe that.
nirgrahamUK:The root of our moral agency is in our *minds* not in out DNA.
my brain is in the vat of my body. the point is that moral agency does not stem from DNA, it stems from other attributes rational ability, will etc. now in humans these attributes manifest in adults, i believe they manifest in children too, but i deny they exist in zygotes, hence i note a grey area in childhood, which i understand to be a significant feature.
wilderness: nirgrahamUK:if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights.If that's possible.
nirgrahamUK:if aliens have *minds* but lack human DNA they will have rights.
wilderness:And when a person doesn't understand rights does that mean they can be violated? of course not.
wilderness: nirgrahamUK:dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.dead humans are dead. This is about human nature. life, liberty, and property - that whole shabang.
nirgrahamUK:dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.
nirgrahamUK: my brain is in the vat of my body. the point is that moral agency does not stem from DNA, it stems from other attributes rational ability, will etc. now in humans these attributes manifest in adults, i believe they manifest in children too, but i deny they exist in zygotes, hence i note a grey area in childhood, which i understand to be a significant feature.
The point being, that human beings are potential moral agents. Even 70 year olds are potential moral agents. A criminal that stole might turn their life around and recognize life one day. Shouldn't they have this opportunity?
The DNA is to point out the species, but is not at all about whether the person is a moral agent or not, and whether they know it or not. DNA is a solid demarcation that this discussion is not about dogs. That's all.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:And when a person doesn't understand rights does that mean they can be violated? of course not. no, the discussion is not about teleologically comprehensible beings that have reason and wills but yet lack understanding merely of the field of knowledge known as ethics,
no, the discussion is not about teleologically comprehensible beings that have reason and wills but yet lack understanding merely of the field of knowledge known as ethics,
But it is about that. That's why potential is always ever-present. I mean it is about the knowledge - *mind* - correct?
nirgrahamUK: and in particular the role that rights play. my point is only that for beings for whom it is not appropriate to analyse by appeal to teleology, beings that have no reason or will,can never be said to be 'violated' since 'violated' is a concept that only applies to teleological beings of the type mentioned above. 'violated' implies 'logically possibility of them refusing; and this refusal (or lack of telological consent) not being acknowledged by another party who goes expressly against their wishes' you know this since you are aware there is no debate over whether teapots are ever violated or chairs are violated. or dead humans are violated, or human bodies with beating hearts and healthy skin suffering from braindeath 'violated'.
and in particular the role that rights play. my point is only that for beings for whom it is not appropriate to analyse by appeal to teleology, beings that have no reason or will,can never be said to be 'violated' since 'violated' is a concept that only applies to teleological beings of the type mentioned above. 'violated' implies 'logically possibility of them refusing; and this refusal (or lack of telological consent) not being acknowledged by another party who goes expressly against their wishes' you know this since you are aware there is no debate over whether teapots are ever violated or chairs are violated. or dead humans are violated, or human bodies with beating hearts and healthy skin suffering from braindeath 'violated'.
yes but we know the baby is a human, thus why I brought up the DNA, and not a teapot. Even a baby controls, though limitedly, him or her self. And so does a monkey, but a monkey will never in their life-time recognize the theory of rights but a baby has that ability and so does a 70 year old man/woman.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness: nirgrahamUK:dead Humans for example. Zygote's do not have minds.dead humans are dead. This is about human nature. life, liberty, and property - that whole shabang. and you agree that Zygotes lack minds but didn't want to come out in agreement with me ???
sorry, I was focused on the statement "dead Humans for example". What do zygotes have to do with this?
nirgrahamUK: my brain is in the vat of my body.
my brain is in the vat of my body.
lol
by the way, you know I wasn't talking about that kind of vat.
zygotes are humans that lack minds and are not moral agents.
70 year olds that you refer to, i assume they are human and alive. they are not 'potential' moral agents. they are moral agents. perhaps you are confused by moral agent, into thinking that it is meant that they act ethically instead of acting evily. thats is not what is meant by the phrase. (ignore if this was not the confusion)
nirgrahamUK: zygotes are humans that lack minds and are not moral agents. 70 year olds that you refer to, i assume they are human and alive. they are not 'potential' moral agents. they are moral agents. perhaps you are confused by moral agent, into thinking that it is meant that they act ethically instead of acting evily. thats is not what is meant by the phrase. (ignore if this was not the confusion)
My theory includes the concept "potential". It is Aristotlean and I've read not only him but Aquinas discuss this concept in the book "On Human Nature". It makes complete sense to me that to get from here to there - there has to be the potential of a 'there' to get to. Children have the potential to get to 'there'. Monkey's don't. Keyboards don't. Tea kettles don't. I believe, let me know if I'm wrong, it's been some time since I read about teleology (sp?), but I think to understand telogy the concept of potential is necessary.
potential moral agency is not the same as moral agency. it actually underlines the fact the moral agency whilst possible in some contingent future, is nevertheless not present, not actual. to say that something is 'potental moral agent' is to admit that it lacks moral agency.
not really. it means it is potential within the agent extant. meaning, the intellect needs a potential to become actualized. without the existence of a potential realization then the actualization will not happen. we don't know everything right off the bat. we learn. the intellect is capable of potentially realizing 'rights' but doesn't actualize this knowledge until it is actualized. teapots and monkey's will not do this.
Spideynw: All kinds of things can affect a child.
All kinds of things can affect a child.
These false analogies you churn out only bear one result. They exemplify your indifference to human suffering and logic.
Spideynw: Who are you to decide what is best for my child?
Who are you to decide what is best for my child?
What not who.
yes, later when they have changed enough the expectation is that they will start to do it. they do not do it before the begin to do it. indeed they are not doing it, when they are merely potential.
i dont see how waving your hand and saying 'potential' helps solve the sorites paradox vis moral agency in humans
nirgrahamUK: yes, later when they have changed enough the expectation is that they will start to do it. they do not do it before the begin to do it. indeed they are not doing it, when they are merely potential. i dont see how waving your hand and saying 'potential' helps solve the sorites paradox vis moral agency in humans
it's teleological. without potential then there isn't any actualizing going on. It just is. And humans are deliberate and not of the cause-effect billard ball realm.
edit: and I have no idea what 'sorites paradox' is and don't know if it matters, but i could be wrong on it mattering.
wilderness:it's teleological
human adults are presently moral agents with potential to do various action.
zygotes are not presently moral agents they lack potential to do any 'action' (teleological interpretation) in the present, though there is an expectation that if things flow right for the piece of biological mechanics, it might emerge out a mind, and thus become comprehensible under a teleological framework and be capable of achieving its various potentials.
wilderness:edit: and I have no idea what 'sorites paradox' is and don't know if it matters, but i could be wrong on it mattering.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/: The sorites paradox is the name given to a class of paradoxical arguments, also known as little-by-little arguments, which arise as a result of the indeterminacy surrounding limits of application of the predicates involved. For example, the concept of a heap appears to lack sharp boundaries and, as a consequence of the subsequent indeterminacy surrounding the extension of the predicate ‘is a heap’, no one grain of wheat can be identified as making the difference between being a heap and not being a heap. Given then that one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it would seem to follow that two do not, thus three do not, and so on. In the end it would appear that no amount of wheat can make a heap. We are faced with paradox since from apparently true premises by seemingly uncontroversial reasoning we arrive at an apparently false conclusion.
The sorites paradox is the name given to a class of paradoxical arguments, also known as little-by-little arguments, which arise as a result of the indeterminacy surrounding limits of application of the predicates involved. For example, the concept of a heap appears to lack sharp boundaries and, as a consequence of the subsequent indeterminacy surrounding the extension of the predicate ‘is a heap’, no one grain of wheat can be identified as making the difference between being a heap and not being a heap. Given then that one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it would seem to follow that two do not, thus three do not, and so on. In the end it would appear that no amount of wheat can make a heap. We are faced with paradox since from apparently true premises by seemingly uncontroversial reasoning we arrive at an apparently false conclusion.
I can just imagine Stranger and Spidey watching the news.
Anchorman: A local police precinct has been found of secretly operating a child sex trafficking ring.
S&S: Unbelievable! Those statist pigs violated our property rights!
Anchorman: In other news, a loving father has been charged with raping his three year old female daughter.
S&S: RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
Reporter ...... she is undergoing re-constructive surgery at St. Gloria's hospital.
Spidey: The nerve! Who are the statists to decide what benefits another man's child?!? Why... they wouldn't arrest the father for changing his daughter's diaper or telling her to go to her room! Hypocrites!
Stranger: I concur. Both of the parent's and child's rights have been violated. I demand justice for this kidnapping!
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:it's teleological what is?
the action of potential intellect realization and actual intellect realization. without the former there is no latter and people are condemned to billard balls, but that's not true. I'm probably not doing justice to On Human Nature, but I'm trying.
nirgrahamUK: human adults are presently moral agents with potential to do various action. zygotes are not presently moral agents they lack potential to do any 'action' (teleological interpretation) in the present, though there is an expectation that if things flow right for the piece of biological mechanics, it might emerge out a mind, and thus become comprehensible under a teleological framework and be capable of achieving its various potentials.
zygotes are not children post-birth. that's confusing the discussion don't you think.
Capital Pumper:I can just imagine Stranger and Spidey watching the news.
I don't watch the "news". Other people's problems are tiresome.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
wilderness:the action of potential intellect realization
there is no teleological 'action' of potential intellect realization. a zygote does not 'teleologically act' on its its potential to start to have a mind. it is merely caused to begin to have a mind. it is simply an error to analyse zygotes through a teleological frame; i.e. supposing it to have reason, will etc, and wondering when it will choose to act to start to have a mind....
wilderness:zygotes are not children post-birth. that's confusing the discussion don't you think.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:the action of potential intellect realization there is no teleological 'action' of potential intellect realization. a zygote does not 'teleologically act' on its its potential to start to have a mind. it is merely caused to begin to have a mind. it is simply an error to analyse zygotes through a teleological frame; i.e. supposing it to have reason, will etc, and wondering when it will choose to act to start to have a mind....
It is, again, a human zygote. It will have a mind. We know this. And if it grows to not have one due to some mutation of one form or another, then that's what happens. The more 'undeveloped' the zygote grows, then that's what happens. I don't see the need to avoid "potential". A human has the potential to understand rights. Whether two or 60. That's the whole idea is a human will realize such, and if I need to wait to dialogue with a human for a span of ten years, because they are not in my life right not now (live geographically in a different location) or whether they are in grade-school trying to understand 1+1=2, it doesn't matter. Humans have the potential and the intellect has the potential therefore to realize such. Why else argue rights in the first place if there is the potential that a human will come along and NEVER have the potential to understand rights but all else checks out fine on the health meter?(nevermind about the next issue, I clarfied it here)
wilderness:A human has the potential to understand rights.
there is nothing relevant, special, important, significant, about potential.
wilderness: Why else argue rights in the first place if there is the potential that a human will come along and NEVER have the potential to understand rights but all else checks out fine on the health meter?(nevermind about the next issue, I clarfied it here)
you are a potential ballerina, but i wont treat you like a ballerina and book you to perform on stage.
a larva has the potential to be a butterfly, but if you throw it out the window it will splat on the ground.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:A human has the potential to understand rights. there is nothing relevant, special, important, significant, about potential.
yes there is. again it was important, and i know i'm not doing it justice, for Aristotle and Aquinas to provide very lengthy discussions, more than one chapter on this concept when it came to discussing human nature.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness: Why else argue rights in the first place if there is the potential that a human will come along and NEVER have the potential to understand rights but all else checks out fine on the health meter?(nevermind about the next issue, I clarfied it here) the issue is over whether he presently understand ANYTHING. whether he presently has a mind. you are a potential ballerina, but i wont treat you like a ballerina and book you to perform on stage. a larva has the potential to be a butterfly, but if you throw it out the window it will splat on the ground.
and if you throw a child out on the ground it goes splat, but it, and NOT the larva, had the potential to understand it's rights were violated. A baby is a long-term investment. Save it for a rainy day. Evict it if the renter is changing it's plans.
wilderness:and if you throw a child out on the ground it goes splat, but it, and NOT the larva, had the potential to understand it's rights were violated.
a)at the point when it is thrown, is it at the zygote boundary of childhood and mindless or is it to the adult boundary of childhood and mindful?
b) when might it understand its rights were violated?
Since I don't have the book and got it on an inter-library loan, I'll refer to wiki and provide what I know from reading that particular book as being notably worthwhile:
1st: "The theory of Potentiality and Actuality is one of the central themes of Aristotle's philosophy and metaphysics. With these two notions, Aristotle intends to provide a structure for the comprehension of reality. Potency refers, generally, to the capacity or power of a virtual reality to come to be in actuality. In broad terms, potency is a capacity, and actuality is its fulfillment."
2nd: "Aristotle argues against those who claim that potency is only a mental concept (that is, not a real sense of being). In Metaphysics IX, 3-4, he argues against Megarics, who claimed that potency could only be had by a subject when the subject was actually performing a specific action. Aristotle claims this is not logical, because then one would only possess a potency when one was excerting its corresponding act. A man who is sitting, for example, would not have the potency to stand. He would only have the potency of standing while actually standing. Aristotle believes this to be paradoxical. He, therefore, believes:
Act is, therefore, the primal sense. Potency is always said in reference to it. Accordingly, the different senses of act, which Aristotle also recognizes, must correspond to different senses of potency."
3rd: "According to Aristotle, there are three great senses of act: movement (kinesis), form, and knowledge."
--
Potency is always in reference with what is actual, even the potential of knowledge and the actual knowledge are a process of a "real sense of being". Potential is an aspect of Aristotlean realism that is not something trival. As it states above, it is a part of the central tenet of what Aristotle has to say in all of his philosophy.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:and if you throw a child out on the ground it goes splat, but it, and NOT the larva, had the potential to understand it's rights were violated. a)at the point when it is thrown, is it at the zygote boundary of childhood and mindless or is it to the adult boundary of childhood and mindful? b) when might it understand its rights were violated?
It doesn't matter. It had the potential because it IS a human being. It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn't matter.
K.C. Farmer: Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.” Axiom 1 should be re-worded to - "every sentient being is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body". It makes no sense to apply it to children, since they cannot act intelligently. It also makes no sense to exclude non-humans, that may be able to act intelligently. Alas, Mr. Rothbard will be unable to make your suggested changes.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.” Axiom 1 should be re-worded to - "every sentient being is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body". It makes no sense to apply it to children, since they cannot act intelligently. It also makes no sense to exclude non-humans, that may be able to act intelligently.
K.C. Farmer:Axiom #1: “every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body.”
Axiom 1 should be re-worded to - "every sentient being is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body". It makes no sense to apply it to children, since they cannot act intelligently. It also makes no sense to exclude non-humans, that may be able to act intelligently.
Alas, Mr. Rothbard will be unable to make your suggested changes.
He wouldn't need to anyway.
Children and Rights - Rothbard
If anyone hasn't read that yet... ya'll need to.
Aster_Lacnala:A question on positive obligations... Driving drunk carries with it the possibility of getting into an accident and hurting someone, possibly other than myself. If I choose to do so anyway, and someone else is hurt, don't they have a claim against me? While it was certainly an accident, I still have an obligation to make reparations to them.
No. Drink driving has nothing to do with it. (Assuming state roads, i.e not a private one that has stipulated road rules) If there is a violation of the NAP and destruction of property, then yes.. but not because of the drinking. Many good LewRockwell.com articles on this.
Aster_Lacnala:Now, someone choosing to have sex does so knowing that it carries the possibility of pregnancy. Even condoms and pills aren't 100% effective. The pregnancy may not have been the desired outcome of the sex, but it was still a risk. In the same way, doesn't a parent have an obligation to the child created? Rape may be an exception, but certainly this would apply to any consensual sex. Freedom to do as you please does not mean freedom to ignore the consequences of risks you take.
No. See; pg 23-24 Block's Uncompromisable (copied from pdf, spelling mistakes etc.)
Individuals only have a right not to be aggressed against. The fetus is not being aggressed against by eviction from a woman's womb, which is her property; that is, this "facility" is owned by the woman not the fetus. On the contrary, the fetus aggressor, albeit not purposefully, is the initiator of violence.
All fetuses have equal rights. They are all equally innocent. Consider those who are created as the result of rape. Clearly, here, there was no agreement or consent or invitation between the mother and the baby. But such a fetus is stdl a trespasser; it is in effect a parasite to the woman who does not want that fetus in her body. She has a right to evict it. The private property rights position on this issue is thus a moderate one. Pro-abortion radical feminists and others who think they have a right to kdl fetuses, even if it is possible to evict them without harm, represent one extremeii5 in this debate. They hold the view that it is the pregnant woman's right to determine whether or not that fetus will live this apply only in the case of rape. This position defends a woman's choice to abort when intercourse for the purpose of procreation occurs voluntarily, but later on she decides not to carry the baby to term. Women have a right to lull their unborn children, even if medical technology exists which would save it, in this view.On the other side of the spectrum are the anti-abortionists, who would violate the woman's right to her own body to the extent of insisting that a trespasser, a parasite, be allowed to remain there for nine months against her will. [156]This position is also unjustified, from a libertarian point of view. The position herein advocated is to allow for eviction, not killing; it does not support trespassers "rights" over those of the legitimate owner of the maternal property in question. Causation is not directly a legal concern. The law is a normative science; causation is at most an element in a positive science. It is a category mistake to connate causation and rights violations. We are not now involved with positive causality, only with normative rights violations. All sorts of harm are caused by people, and these actions would not be proscribed because they are all well within our rights. Certainly, in the case of rape there is no such cause. The woman is a totally innocent victim. She did not cause that baby to come into being. The reason that fetus came into being was "caused" by the rapist. The key is not causation. Our perspective does not deal with cause but rather with rights violations. The key is not who caused the death, it is rather who violated the rights of the individual. Rights are not violated by evicting a parasite or trespasser. The bottom line, here, is the question of legality: under what conditions is it justified to use force? In our own personal view, abortion is an evil; we oppose it. It would be nice if all women carried babies to term, and that as a result there were fewer, or better yet, no people killed in this mariner. We are pro-people. '&k also oppose drugs, alcohol, cigarette smolung, and chocolate eating. We try hard not to do any of these things. However, we would not impose a penalty on ourselves or anyone else for engaging in these actions. It is the same with abortion. The real question is, "What penalties should be imposed for engaging in this practice?" not whether or not it is virtuous or moral to indulge in them.The anti-abortionist position, to be logically consistent, would have to hold this action as premeditated, first-degree murder. If the death penalty is justified in any case, it is justified in this one. It should apply to the woman who gets an abortion and to the doctor or whoever performs it. Ifthat kind of penalty is not imposed, there is an inconsistency that is incompatible with just principles of law. The logic of the premises is not beingfollowed.The position put forth here, in contrast, is one of eviction not of killing.
wilderness:tacoface, Recently you've only offered cheerleading and your use of the word "reality" in numerous posts recently. Maybe if you had something more to offer other than your take on 'reality' it would be helpful.
I'd hazard a guess, that this is why.
wilderness:It doesn't matter. It had the potential because it IS a human being..
I am confident those questions do matter.
wilderness: It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn't matter.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness:It doesn't matter. It had the potential because it IS a human being. It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn't matter. you don't even do me the courtesy of saying that you will not respond to my questions. dissapointing. I am confident those questions do matter.
wilderness:It doesn't matter. It had the potential because it IS a human being. It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn't matter.
you don't even do me the courtesy of saying that you will not respond to my questions. dissapointing.
But do you understand since you exclude "potential" in your theorizing, that my paradigm as what pertains to a valid question, not one rigid or bias, will apply here. You think "time" is a valid question. I don't because this has nothing to do with time. You're question is rigid and bias.
nirgrahamUK: wilderness: It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn't matter. so human zygotes without minds KNOW things , since it is in their NATURE...their 'human nature' ?I dont think i have abused your words to derive this....show that i have?
so human zygotes without minds KNOW things , since it is in their NATURE...their 'human nature' ?I dont think i have abused your words to derive this....show that i have?
fallacy of isolation. human zygotes are of the human species. We know their developmental stages of growth. To chop off the whole context is to isolate something that doesn't happen in isolation. thus why if the mother evicts a zygote, it will most probably die. But we know it's developmental growth stages that it will be a full grown human if all goes well and it therefore it has the potential to know rights. a human zygote doesn't change into a dog.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stranger:If they do murder their children, it is a matter of internal family law and does not concern you.Bullshit.
Question - does this forum have an ignore feature?
I do not want to read posts from individuals who believe murdering their children is justifiable.
nirgrahamUK: so human zygotes without minds KNOW things , since it is in their NATURE...their 'human nature' ?I dont think i have abused your words to derive this....show that i have?
put another way. the human brain gene is actual and it will potentially realize rights.
wilderness:But do you understand since you exclude "potential" in your theorizing, that my paradigm as what pertains to a valid question, not one rigid or bias, will apply here. You think "time" is a valid question. I don't because this has nothing to do with time. You're question is rigid and bias.
I think your error on potential is to confuse a teleological analysis of potential with a causal analysis of potential.
i.e. causal analysis:), the knife might be the device that cuts bread at tfuture time t. the knife might alternatively be the device that cuts a rope at future time t.the human with a mind, may be hit by a bus, the human without a mind might decompose.
teleological analysis:) the knife has no teleological potential. it does not act, and will not act. the human with a mind might act in this way or that, and so has potential. the human with no mind is like the kife with no mind and has no teleological potential.
wilderness:fallacy of isolation. human zygotes are of the human species. We know their developmental stages of growth. To chop off the whole context is to isolate something that doesn't happen in isolation. thus why if the mother evicts a zygote, it will most probably die. But we know it's developmental growth stages that it will be a full grown human if all goes well and it therefore it has the potential to know rights. a human zygote doesn't change into a dog.
Is this an admission that your sentance i quoted and responded to was too general and said too much. that you would agree with me that human zygotes do not KNOW things even though the nature of humans is to know things (I personally dont believe that it is the nature of humans to know things, i believe it is in the nature of humans-that-are-alive-and-possess-minds to know things, all other types of 'humans' do not have Knowing in their nature.)