-->
@MAV99
Your line of thought stems from a denial of the very basis of logic and critical thinking.
That is a harsh conclusion.
personhood
Posts
Total:
66
-->
@Shila
Not really.
He is saying that me trying to define something is just playing mind games when the definition of something is the very basis to any logical and critical thinking about that thing.
I find it to be quite intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly defining what you are talking about and still trying to act like you are being perfectly logical.
-->
@MAV99
I am not playing mind games. I don't care for those. You are not being g clear because you are not answering the question.
Then you confused about the mind game your playing. Go my post #6 and copy any comment that is not clearly stated, as you suggest.
I think you and OGP are lazy. Did you ever attempt even attempt to look at a dictionary.
Here is just one of dictionary definition, and it was the first, want to appear on goolge..."the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"the documentary attempts to get behind the icon, to a sense of her personhood"
Logic and critical thinking require knowing what a thing is to make a proper judgment of it. That is the very basis of all logic and critical thinking.
You are the one who lacks the use of logical common sense critical thinking or more likely to lazy.
Two seperate posts in this thread Ive been clear. Address copy and post any of the comments you suggest lack clarity.
You and OGP dont because you too lazy and would rather plan mind games.
What percentage of philosophy revolves around people playing mind games, semantics etc.
-->
@MAV99
Not really.He is saying that me trying to define something is just playing mind games when the definition of something is the very basis to any logical and critical thinking about that thing.I find it to be quite intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly defining what you are talking about and still trying to act like you are being perfectly logical.
Maybe anything outside of mathematical equations is out of his league. He likes to deal with numbers even when the odds are against him.
-->
@ebuc
Then you confused about the mind game your playing. Go my post #6 and copy any comment that is not clearly stated, as you suggest.
Ok, lets have a look.
Fetus/baby is a temporary organism of the pregnant woman.
the whole question greyparrot presented in this thread is about personhood. He even named the thread that. Here you are speaking of a fetus/Baby as a temporary organism. You then make the comparison to a man's gonads:
Is a mans gonads his ' property '? Of course, depending how legal system defines property.
Making any person wonder if you actually even know logic and the requirements to make comparisons in a logical setting. A gonad is nowhere near the same thing as a fetus. different functions, different types of tissue, etc. It is confusing that you are throwing together a bunch of different things to draw comparisons that do not exist and frankly have nothing to do with the central idea at hand: personhood.
Are any organs of any humans their personal ' property ', of course they are, depending on legal definitions of property.
Nobody with any logic says a fetus is an organ according to the medical definition of it. Why is this relevant to the topic at hand? Even in the context of property, which is not really the question here, you are still attributing to a fetus what anybody with any logical and critical thinking skills would say has nothing to do with the fetus. Like I said, without knowing what you are talking about, i.e. a definition, how can you say anything logical at all? All you have done is prove my point.
Virtual rape stems from religious patriarchal systems of thought, not from spiritually based 1st principles.
That is most certainly debatable, and what is "spiritually based 1st principles"?
Do no harm to self or others, without their consent, except in cases of self defense,
So as long as someone gives me consent to murder them, I am acting perfectly moral? Morality is not based on what an individual thinks is right. It is based on the nature of actions and consequences that follow. Do you seriously think anyone in a court of law would get away with murder if they say: "He said I could do it."?
protect personal property and that begins with the human organism { organs of the humans } and all of the atoms, molecules etc that compose the human organism,
Once again, because you cannot define and consequently think logically, you are throwing together unrelated things to try and prove a point that ultimately proves nothing. There is this axiom in philosophy that goes: He who proves too much, proves nothing. It means you dodge the question with irrelevant points that you ultimately miss the main point entirely.
independent sovereign nations, is dumb way forward for humanity.
That is debatable, and you give no reason why and this has nothing to do with personhood as this thread is discussing here. Once again you are totally missing the point.
Did you ever attempt even attempt to look at a dictionary.
Just because a dictionary has a definition for it does not mean it is a good definition. Maybe if you could think critically you would realize that "personhood: having the quality of being a person" is a horrible definition because all it says is "personhood= personhood". I am not being lazy when I ask for a good definition. If I was lazy I would just take the definition you got from google and use that.
What percentage of philosophy revolves around people playing mind games, semantics etc.
Arguing to define something is a critical part of philosophy. Unless you want to say that all the philosophers who spend hours trying to arrive at solid definitions in order to properly reason about something and make a proper judgement of it, are lazy, I would suggest you study and think about it a little bit more than what you have. Also, I do not think philosophy is semantics. That is more something that happens in law. Philosophy is the science of reason. What a thing is, is the basis of reason. Without it you cannot say anything with a proper judgement. Any solid logician and philosopher would say that.
Do you see what I am saying now? You can sit here all day and say that I am lacking logic and critical thinking and being lazy, but you are only dodging the question and frankly proving my point.
I am not trying to slam or burn you. But if you can't define and be clear then it is not worth talking to you. Definitions are important. Trying to define something is not being semantical, when you are trying to make a proper judgement of that thing.
-->
@MAV99
He just doesn’t get it!!