Abortion

[AProudLefty]

Some Trump supporters are against exceptions so naturally that's scary.

 

[IBDaMann]

AI Overview

It's hallucinating on you, or it's deliberately lying to you, or both.

 

[IBDaMann]

Some Trump supporters are against exceptions so naturally that's scary.

What exceptions should there be for contract killings for which they should be legal under those circumstances?

 

[AProudLefty]

What exceptions should there be for contract killings for which they should be legal under those circumstances?

Rape and incest.

 

[IBDaMann]

Rape and incest.

@gfm7175, do you believe that a Mafia boss has earned the right to put out a hit on someone by having slept with his own sister (i.e. a clear case of incest)? @AProudLefty is indicating that as long as the person who is putting out the hit has adequately engaged in incest, that such a hit is thoroughly justified.

Obviously this is a truly compelling argument and I just wanted your take on it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Rape and incest.

@gfm7175, do you believe that men and women who have been raped have earned the right to put out hits on others, sort of as "reparations" for having been raped? @AProudLefty is indicating that people who have been raped deserve some sort of killing supremacy as a "consolation prize" to use as therapy, I imagine.

Obviously this is a truly compelling argument and I just wanted your take on it.

 

[gfm7175]

@gfm7175, do you believe that a Mafia boss has earned the right to put out a hit on someone by having slept with his own sister (i.e. a clear case of incest)? @AProudLefty is indicating that as long as the person who is putting out the hit has adequately engaged in incest, that such a hit is thoroughly justified.

Obviously this is a truly compelling argument and I just wanted your take on it.

Wow. Compelling indeed. However, it's still a contract killing and it's still an innocent living human who is receiving the death penalty for a deliberate choice that another living human made.

 

[gfm7175]

@gfm7175, do you believe that men and women who have been raped have earned the right to put out hits on others, sort of as "reparations" for having been raped? @AProudLefty is indicating that people who have been raped deserve some sort of killing supremacy as a "consolation prize" to use as therapy, I imagine.

Obviously this is a truly compelling argument and I just wanted your take on it.

VERY compelling! I do sympathize with the rape victim, however, it's still a contract killing and it's still a case of an innocent living human receiving the death penalty due to a shitty choice that another living human made (and an atrocity that another living human endured).

 

[Scott]

As I've stated previously, I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

It is totally irrelevant what you cannot find.

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion,

It was your assertion that you were too incompetent to find something.

Not, it wasn't. For the audience, my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like.

Wait, that would mean that each of us can determine our own political positions willy-nilly.

I was discussing word definitions, not political positions.

 

[Scott]

Just as I can have a rational discussion about a political position... I can explain the definitions I use.

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words. An example would be a definition of an abortion that states that it is the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, causing the death of the fetus. No one would disagree with that definition as far as I know. People -would- disagree with defining an abortion as a killing or a contract killing, and I strongly suspect that's why they don't use such a definition.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about,

The only thing causing confusion is your deliberate EVASION.

I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree here.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means.

Nope. You are one of the "sides" and you simply refuse to accept anything other than that which allows you to control what is allowed to be said.

I am certainly -on- one of the sides. As to what can be said, I have no control over that. What I -do- have control over is on how I define words. Generally speaking, I defer to dictionary definitions, but when those are unavailable, I decide the definitions of words on my own, based on what I think makes the most sense.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means. I've found that we -can- do this with the term living human- essentially, the boundaries of what a human life can be is that it has to have at least one human cell, such as a sperm,

Nope. There's no heartbeat.

There is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats, so I see no logical reason why the definition of the compound term "living human" needs to include a heartbeat. The only thing that I think is required is that it be a stage of the development of a human being.

By the way, the DNA of the sperm that creates a new living human differs from the DNA of the new living human created.

I find your statement somewhat misleading. I think a more accurate description is that the male sperm's DNA is combined with the female's egg DNA and that together, they create a fertilized egg, also known as a zygote. From Wikipedia:
**
A zygote (/ˈzaɪˌɡoʊt/; from Ancient Greek ζυγωτός (zygōtós) 'joined, yoked', from ζυγοῦν (zygoun) 'to join, to yoke') is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes.

The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information of a new individual organism.

The sexual fusion of haploid cells is called karyogamy, the result of which is the formation of a diploid cell called the zygote or zygospore.
**

Source:

Zygote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means. I've found that we -can- do this with the term living human- essentially, the boundaries of what a human life can be is that it has to have at least one human cell, such as a sperm, and can go all the way to the final stage of human development, that of an elderly citizen. What we -can't- do is agree on where the boundary should be, but I've found that this term can be useful when talking about multiple stages of human development, such as both the preborn -and- the born stages. When I want to be specific as to what stage I'm referring to, I simply use the term that defines said stage to avoid any confusion as to what I'm referring to.

If you wish to create such a "stage" or "category", be my guest.

I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.

 

[IBDaMann]

... my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."

Exactly. You make my point for me. You insist that you are too incompetent to find the meanings of the words "living" and "human" ANYWHERE ... not even right in this thread where they are simply provided to you.

What do you expect anyone to do about your shortcomings?

 

[IBDaMann]

I was discussing word definitions, not political positions.

You were playing word games to protect your supremacy position.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.

Why do you omit urination and defecation?

 

[IBDaMann]

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use.

Nope. The problem arises when you reject tautologies and math under the pretense that they are somehow matters of opinion with which one can simply disagree.

 

[Yakuda]

Unfortunately, Yakuda isn't very good at restraint. He loves his insults.

I respect this about you. You really don't get into the "insult hurling" game like many folks on here do (heck, I'm even guilty of hurling insults here and there).

No I've never been very good at restraint but I only hurl insults at assholes when they're being assholes. This jackass Scott is playing games with definitions. Sorry if I don't hold that shit in very high regard.