|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted March 17, 2010 03:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. They think the old should be killed because they are no longer "productive members of society."
Come on, Elodin - that's not what most people who are in favor of euthanasia believe, and it disgusts me to see you pervert the belief into something it isn't. Euthanasia isn't about forcibly killing people older than some arbitrary age against their will, like some version of Logan's Run. Euthanasia is about a person's right to end their own life. Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but to imply that every pro-choicer who is also pro-euthanasia must also be in favor of slaughtering everyone above age XX is just really dishonorable on your part.
God, sometimes it's just damn near impossible to ignore you.
But evidently it is not impossible to lie about what I said. I never implied that "every pro-choicer who is also pro-euthanasia must also be in favor of slaughtering everyone above age XX" so I would thank you not to lie about me.
I said, "many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia." Can you read? I said "many." Many does not impy all.
I also said,"They don't respect the right of innocent babies to live, why should they respect the right of the elderly and handicapped to live? Many don't." Can you read? I said many.
Lying about what I said is dishonorable.
Quote:
Quote:
So you claim that multiplying cells does not mean life?
Depends on how you define life. Though what should be considered is valueable life. You don't provide rights to the cells alone, it requires some kind of existence.
Oh please, "depends on how you define life." If it has multiplying cells it is alive. That is science.
If it has human DNA it is human.
Multiplying cells + human DNA + product of human conception = a human life.
Quote:
No. I claim that human DNA + multiplying cells is unlikely to be enough to determine a uniquely defined existing entity. Though if you can provide data telling otherwise, I'll of course accept your definition.
Checkmate.
When does human life begin
Quote:
Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.
Quote:
Quote:
What you have said is illogical. What if a plane crashes on a remote uncharted island. A mother and her infant survive. Your claim is that the mother is free to kill that infant.
If the island is indeed remote as I understand the term, then we have no power of the mother and yes she can do whatever she pleases, the same goes with anyone with power over someone else that we can't do anything about.
That statement is scary. You honestlyl think the mother has a right to kill her child just becasue she is on a remote island?
Quote:
The mother can always do what she pleases towards her body.
Then you have no problem with someone using their hands to choke you to death. After all, they can do with their body as they please without regard to how it affects anyone else.
Quote:
Quote:
So, my understanding is you think that it is the state that grants rights and no human rights exist apart from teh dictates of the state.
Rights are something we've invented. The one in sufficient power grants these rights. I see nothing weird in this.
So you think a person only has the right not to be raped becasue the governemnt says so. But if the government passes a law saying rape is ok, then you'd have no problem with that because human rights don't exist apart from the government.
Quote:
Also, why did you ignore the whole sperm cell stuff? Why not call these life? They've pretty much the same potential. That is under the right condition they turn into a living being.
Anybody would have to be an idiot to say a sperm cell is a human life. A sperm cell is a specialized cell produced by a human male. The human body has a number of specialized cells. Oh, no, a sperm cell will never grow into an adult because it is not a human. It is a specialized human cell. Sorry, you seem to lack some basic bioloical knowledge. You can take billions of sperm cells and place them in a woman who can't produce an egg and she will never become pregnant as a result.
Quote:
As is with the fetus, if you change the conditions it won't turn into a living being, if you don't it will.
Sorry, but a fetus is a living being. Show me, please, dead things that have multiplying cells. Sorry, science shows the fetus is alive.
Quote:
Why call a fetus alive and sperm cells not, when both depends on certain conditions, and thereby both have the potential to become human life? Or eggs from the woman for that matter?
A sperm cell is a living cell. A specialized cell produced by the human male. Only an idiot would call a sperm cell a human being. Please, present some logical statements.
Quote:
It is important to differ potential life and actual life.
Sorry, a fetus has multiplying cells, and so is not "potential" life. The fetus is alive. Again, the cells of dead organisms don't multiply.
Quote:
I mean, what would you do, if abort is illegal, and then the woman goes out and commit suicide?
Then the baby should be saved via c-section if possible.
Murder should not be legal just because some murderer might kill himself if it is not legal for him to kill someone he wants to kill.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 04:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh please, "depends on how you define life." If it has multiplying cells it is alive. That is science.
That's a definition.
We don't know what exactly defines life, and the understanding of life differs a lot from person to person. You have to be more clear on the matter.
Quote:
If it has human DNA it is human.
So a human hair i human.
Quote:
Multiplying cells + human DNA + product of human conception = a human life.
So a hair root held in existance is human?
Create a "robot" with all trais of humanity, except the lack of actually being human, that is, it is just a robot responding to the environment through some advanced coding. It is not some kind of observer, that views the world, it is an empty shell, that's coded to follow certain actions.
This will both have human DNA and multiplying cells, yet I'd claim it is not human to what I understand as human, or at least, it is not living to what I understand as living.
Quote:
Quote:
No. I claim that human DNA + multiplying cells is unlikely to be enough to determine a uniquely defined existing entity. Though if you can provide data telling otherwise, I'll of course accept your definition.
Checkmate.
When does human life begin
Before reading the link:
The link claims science, you claim it is acceptable to the definition I just made, I claim that is not possible, as what is contained in my definition is as of yet unmeasureable.
After looking at the link and the pdf document:
As I expected, the link tries to come up with a definition. They try to define when life starts, so I searched for how they define life in that link. You can't talk about life starting, without life being defined in the first place. If the definition does not equal the definition I proposed, your link is irrelevant.
Here's what I could find, on page 18:
Quote:
The question of precisely when a new human organism comes into existence wasn’t
a matter of practical importance until the advent of in vitro fertilization and human
embryo research. Consequently, scientists, philosophers, and bioethicists have
not considered this question in great detail until recently; and appealing to experts
(embryologists and ethicists alike) yields a plethora of opinions, often with very little
factual evidence to support them. To address this question based on the scientific
evidence, it is important to distinguish clearly between human cells and human
organisms.
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate
elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function
in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by
means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22 This
definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as
the distinguishing feature of an organism.
As should be noted, the "robot" I talked about, is a human organism, but it is not what goes under the definition of life I'd find acceptable.
Then, if I understand them correct, they argument that when a human is self manufactureable, life begins. However not even considering, this is still to the limit of the environment (the mother in this case). Page 23
Of course I could have read it wrong, but I saw nothing about what would satisfy the definition I proposed (which I also underscored did not matter in reality, as we don't have the power necessary anyway as of yet), so if that's contained in that document, then please link to it.
I honestly expected it to be some kind of undocumented claim, but as I see it, the pdf file is not relevant to what I wrote.
Quote:
You honestlyl think the mother has a right to kill her child just becasue she is on a remote island?
How do you understand rights? I think I defined it in my last reply. Rights are something that's given, by something with the power to give. Rights have no meaning when there's no power to give those rights. At least as I understand it.
So saying the mother has the right to anything, is meaningless. Talking about what she can and can't is something else though. She can kill her child. It is something she has not the right to, if there's a power to prevent it, but there isn't so the idea of right is meaningless.
Quote:
Quote:
The mother can always do what she pleases towards her body.
Then you have no problem with someone using their hands to choke you to death. After all, they can do with their body as they please without regard to how it affects anyone else.
Towards her body.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, my understanding is you think that it is the state that grants rights and no human rights exist apart from teh dictates of the state.
Rights are something we've invented. The one in sufficient power grants these rights. I see nothing weird in this.
So you think a person only has the right not to be raped becasue the governemnt says so.
Pretty much yes. We're completely dependent on a those who hold the power also uses it wisely. Just look at the human stupidity thread, you answered JJ on some links he posted, about someone getting whipped because they were raped. These people don't have that right, because the state does not provide it for them. At least in many cases one hears about.
Quote:
But if the government passes a law saying rape is ok, then you'd have no problem with that because human rights don't exist apart from the government.
Rights, and what I think is right, is not the same.
What those in power grants, that's the rights we've. What I think is okay and not is an entire different conversation.
If you look back to my previous replies, probably one of the first ones about this specific subject, you'd see I write my personal view towards the matter as well.
However just because I think something should be some way, does not mean I think people should be forced to follow it. People should be free to what they want to the limit of not limiting the freedom of others. That limit is defined through the ressources and technology we have. That is also what I use as the word, power, which means laws should be made from what actually makes sense given the current times.
I have tried to adress said issue with you several times, now I try again.
With the current ressources and technology available, we can't, to what I know, make a human being, at any given stage of creation, keep existing without dependency of uncontrollable environments.
Trying to control these environments goes against the freedom only limited by not limiting others freedom.
You see, the baby is thereby completely dependent on the mother, which makes it the mothers choice as to when the baby should leave her body. She can do towards herself as she please.
When the baby have left, we can do what is in our power to help.
With the current ressources and technology available, that power is sadly too limited for us to keep that baby alive, unless the stage of birth is sufficient late.
What I really find a crime, is when babies that can survive without complete dependency of any single person, but still needs help from society, or if you want, the state, that these babies aren't taken care of. However that is an entirely different subject.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, why did you ignore the whole sperm cell stuff? Why not call these life? They've pretty much the same potential. That is under the right condition they turn into a living being.
A sperm cell is a specialized cell produced by a human male. The human body has a number of specialized cells. Oh, no, a sperm cell will never grow into an adult because it is not a human.
Under the right circumstances it will. Exactly the same with the baby at any stage of complete dependency of the mother.
Quote:
You can take billions of sperm cells and place them in a woman who can't produce an egg and she will never become pregnant as a result.
You can also take any number of baby to be, place them in a woman whose body rejects them, and they'll never turn into a human.
You can also take billions of sperm cells, and place them under exactly those conditions that provide billions of life.
Or any number of baby to, place them under the exact condition that provides life.
The thing is, it is all potential, until something is truely living. When is something truely living then? According to you, as I understand it, when cells with human DNA are multiplying. I have shown examples of things I'd not call truely living that is consistent with your definition.
My own definition, I find better, and that's where we don't talk about a potential life anymore, but an actual life.
Quote:
Sorry, but a fetus is a living being. Show me, please, dead things that have multiplying cells. Sorry, science shows the fetus is alive.
Answer contained in above text.
Quote:
A sperm cell is a living cell. A specialized cell produced by the human male. Only an idiot would call a sperm cell a human being. Please, present some logical statements.
Answer contained in above text.
Quote:
Quote:
It is important to differ potential life and actual life.
Sorry, a fetus has multiplying cells, and so is not "potential" life. The fetus is alive. Again, the cells of dead organisms don't multiply.
Answer contained in above text.
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, what would you do, if abort is illegal, and then the woman goes out and commit suicide?
Then the baby should be saved via c-section if possible.
The baby is not at any stage yet where it can survive without the help of the mother, thereby being completely dependent on her.
Quote:
Murder should not be legal just because some murderer might kill himself if it is not legal for him to kill someone he wants to kill.
The point is, that it is not murder and then suicide. It is suicide of one self, and then someone that is completely dependent on you goes down as well.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 04:24 PM |
|
|
the value of human lives is considered a bit high when we face obvious overpopulation yet we are worried about saving a little ball of stemcell.
nooo humans are worth so much
(low unemployment rates)
We have to treat each one better than a million dollars
(running out of land and homespace)
The traumatized rape victims feelings about her own body mean nothing. She must be forced to have a reminder of the traumatizing moment in her belly for 9 months along with all the temporary health limitations, and lower capability in day to day life functioning. Followed by the decision to raise the rapists child or send it off into some orphanage where I am sure is a perfectly safe environment 100% of the time.
of course at the same time lets inject animals with new spawns and pop out some dinners like a factory conveyor belt of terror and give no mind to it right?
fricking laudyda each human life is as precious as a flower BS mentality will be more of a laughing stock when the race ends up destroying itself and much of the world.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the value of human lives is considered a bit high when we face obvious overpopulation yet we are worried about saving a little ball of stemcell.
I disagree that importance is dependent of situation. Any life is important. The point is that it might not be rational to consider these terms in those situation, is something else though.
Even if one things ones own life isn't important, Shares wrote something to me the other day, that still makes others life important.
Shares wrote:
Quote:
I thought about this earlier today, but in a more philosofical way. What if I don't exist? What if the world exists? Then nothing would matter, right? Wrong! Some people think it's real, so it's real to them. That means that this world does exist in that aspect, and suddenly everything matters, since the world is real. If not to you, then to them. Maybe not everything matters, but some stuff do. And since you can't know what stuff matters, everything matters in a way, by having a potential matterance! (All this was much clearer in my head!)
So even if you don't find life anything special, then maybe others do.
Quote:
of course at the same time lets inject animals with new spawns and pop out some dinners like a factory conveyor belt of terror and give no mind to it right?
I also dislike the idea that we often only focus on human life, never bothering to consider if animals exists, and if we do, still take the easy way. Sure we need food, and creating rights upon this before we can create something to replace food as we know it (so in stead of being kill -> food, it is food components -> food) is just as meaningless as doing with abortion in my opinion.
Quote:
fricking laudyda each human life is as precious as a flower BS mentality will be more of a laughing stock when the race ends up destroying itself and much of the world.
I think each and every life is infinite important, no matter how long the expected life time may ever be.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 05:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:19, 17 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh please, "depends on how you define life." If it has multiplying cells it is alive. That is science.
That's a definition.
We don't know what exactly defines life, and the understanding of life differs a lot from person to person. You have to be more clear on the matter.
Quote:
Sorry, but even an idiot would know that something that has multiplying cells is alive. It is sad that pro-abortionists deny scientific fact.
Quote:
Quote:
If it has human DNA it is human.
Multiplying cells + human DNA + product of human conception = a human life.
So a hair root held in existance is human?
That is idiotic. Of course the hair is a human hair, but the hair is not a human. A human hair is part of a human body. Humans have specialized cells that become different organs. A heart is not a human being. A heart is part of a human being. Please take a bioloy course.
Quote:
You can't talk about life starting, without life being defined in the first place. If the definition does not equal the definition I proposed, your link is irrelevant.
Sorry, your definition is not scientific. If an organism is the product of human conception, has muliplying cells and human DNA it is a human life.
The article was based on science. I'm sorry you reject science. There is reallly very little to discuss because you deny scientific facts.
Quote:
Quote:
Rights are something we've invented. The one in sufficient power grants these rights. I see nothing weird in this.
Quote:
So you think a person only has the right not to be raped becasue the governemnt says so.
Pretty much yes.
That is scary.
Quote:
However just because I think something should be some way, does not mean I think people should be forced to follow it. People should be free to what they want to the limit of not limiting the freedom of others.
Yet you have no problem with the right to live being taken ignored by a mother in order to kill her unborn child.
Quote:
Under the right circumstances it will.
No, a sperm cell will never become a human being. An egg and a sperm united produce a zygote. That zygote is the first stage of the human life cycle. The zygote is a human organism. A human life. That life will continue to go through the various stages of the human life cycle until it dies. It is the same organism that is born, that becomes a toddler, that becomes a teen, that gets married, that has children, that grows old, and that dies, hopefully after having lived a full life. It is moronic to say otherwise.
Quote:
Quote:
You can take billions of sperm cells and place them in a woman who can't produce an egg and she will never become pregnant as a result.
You can also take any number of baby to be, place them in a woman whose body rejects them, and they'll never turn into a human.
Sorry that is not a parallel analogy at all. If you are talking about transplanting a fetus, the fetus is already a human life.
Again, a sperm is not a human life and never will be. A sperm and and egg combine to form a human life.
As always, pro-abortionists have absolutely no logical arguements and tend to reject science. There is no question that fetus is alive (it has multiplying cells) and is human (humnan DNA and the product of human conception.)
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 05:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If it has human DNA it is human.
Multiplying cells + human DNA + product of human conception = a human life.
So a hair root held in existance is human?
Of course the hair is a human hair, but the hair is not a human. A human hair is part of a human body. Humans have specialized cells that become different organs. A heart is not a human being. A heart is part of a human being.
You see, that's exactly how I understand your definition, which makes your reply not withstanding your definition. That's why your definition is vague.
Quote:
Sorry, your definition is not scientific.
Scientific means measureable.
Quote:
If an organism is the product of human conception, has muliplying cells and human DNA it is a human life.
The article was based on science. I'm sorry you reject science. There is reallly very little to discuss because you deny scientific facts.
And stay on the topic of what you're replying.
You've just replied on the matter whether human DNA + multiplying cells (your claim) is enough to define an inner observer (my concern) with that I reject science, because I claim the definition in the article you linked to, to justify your claim, is irrelevant to my concern, as it does not consider it in the first place.
Science is not some kind of super king authority with claims that must be taken true. Science is the work of measureing the world and through that describing the world. That is at least my understanding. Science must always be questioned, because that's what makes science strong, not that some people accept every word of it.
Of course for practical purposes you expect the people you hire to do that for you, but this is a debate that can go to any level of fundament required, which means you can't put any authority in on anything.
Quote:
If an organism is the product of human conception, has muliplying cells and human DNA it is a human life.
So let's take an example to again show that your definition is not solid, in my opinion.
Two humans concept a hair root through certain chemical procedures that invovles their bodies, in this case, their hands.
Now the hair has human DNA, and through those chemical processes, the hair root cells keep on reproducing, with the result of hair growing from the hair root.
There's clearly a living system there, but I won't call it human, rather a complex machinery.
Again, this whole part of the debate really is irrelevant. Should you somehow show me evidence of consciouss development in the womb, which is as I understand it, then that's great, I'd love to see such work, but even with it, as I wrote before, it does not change it is the mothers decision.
So why you need to defend your definition, I don't understand, but you haven't got ridden of my concern, which still is, that your definition is vague, due to the reasons I listed.
Quote:
That is scary.
I do also find many places on the world pretty scary to be honest.
Quote:
Yet you have no problem with the right to live being taken ignored by a mother in order to kill her unborn child.
Misunderstanding, in principle, I have a problem with all potential life that does not become life, all life that is that won't stay and all life that was, which isn't anymore.
The problem is that you keep on using the analogy:
Murder is murder.
In reality, this is how I see it:
Born child, murder can only happen through effecting said child.
Unborn child, what you claim to be murder, happens through a premature birth, at which the child can't survive on its own.
If the mother rejects the child, it is her choice to make.
If we can do anything for the child, so we must.
You see, in one case, we can do something, in the other we can't. It is because the child is born with a body that is not yet fit to survive that it goes under and we can't do anything about it.
Making it illegal is certainly not the way to go.
Quote:
Quote:
Under the right circumstances it will.
No, a sperm cell will never become a human being.
Under the right conidtions/circumstances it will. Those you actually just described. Sure you can define it as any group you want. I can also say that as long as you eat, you aren't you of tomorrow, because you of tomorrow consist of the energy used from what you ate. These kind of groupings are pointless. One should focus on what really matters, when one is truely alive, when someone is not an empty shell, a complex machinery, but actually have some kind of inner observer, an actual existence.
Quote:
Quote:
You can take billions of sperm cells and place them in a woman who can't produce an egg and she will never become pregnant as a result.
You can also take any number of baby to be, place them in a woman whose body rejects them, and they'll never turn into a human.
Quote:
Sorry that is not a parallel analogy at all. If you are talking about transplanting a fetus, the fetus is already a human life.
According to your own definition.
I can make the exact same claim with any groupings I make from which ones particles that averages into life is defined. Like I could just choose some dust from a distant star, claiming a part of it once will become life as well.
Quote:
There is no question that fetus is alive (it has multiplying cells) and is human (humnan DNA and the product of human conception.)
Translation:
If my own definition holds true, then my definition is true.
That's how I see what you just wrote. There's nothing new you bring to the debate. You're the ones with the statements here, I raise concerns, you can either back up your statements or not, but I won't keep on responding if you see this as some kind of battle you have to win, and not an attempt of friendly advice where we can learn from eachother and both get smarter.
So I'll show you the concerns again.
Quote:
Your DNA argument seems vague. Defining what makes a living being unique via DNA [and multiplying cells] seems unlikely to be correct.
A cloned person have the same DNA as the original, however they don't share the same consciousness, thereby they're not the same person.
Yes it is an unfortunate way birth works, I'd much rather have that the baby could survive independent of the mother, but that's first true after birth with the current technology. We've to respect that the mother is master of her body and she uniquely decides the future of whether that baby will get to live or not. No one else, as it is her body and she is the one to decide who she supports.
In a future where technology allows for us to keep the baby alive outside the mothers boby independent of stage of birth is the place where we actually can do something good.
Because sure, you can define life as whatever you please, but that doesn't make it important. I can define life as anything where electrical impulses goes through, and computers are alive, however that does not make them important.
Also, how exactly are you supposed to uheld that abortion law? If someone really wants to do it, I don't see any law preventing them getting that abortion, even at the risk of injurying themselvse. The state shall not be something that tells people how to behave, rather protect people through freedom only limited by not limiting the freedom of others.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:39, 17 Mar 2010.
|
@Elodin
Quote:
I said, "many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia." Can you read? I said "many." Many does not impy[sic] all.
I can read. Can you?
You need to learn how to be more precise with your language. A little linguistics wouldn’t hurt, either. You said: "Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. They think the old should be killed because they are no longer "productive members of society."
Your first sentence states that many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. Implied: there are some pro-abortionists who are not in favor of euthanasia. Or: there is a fraction of the set of all pro-abortionists who are also in favor of euthanasia. Many is a “partitioning conjunctive” (hereafter, just “conjunctive) word that identifies an intersection area between two sets, A and B. I.e., “Many mammals have two legs” identifies two sets: mammals and creatures with two legs; and it refers specifically to the intersection of the two sets (I will call this A AND B – a member of both A and B – the true mathematical formalism will be hard to replicate here); and it implies moreover that there is at least one region excluded by the intersection - there are some mammals that do not have two legs (this will be called A NOT B). Note that this does not say anything about the set of creatures with two legs – we can not determine from this statement whether there is also an excluded set of creatures with two legs from the set of mammals. For this determination, you would need another conjunctive phrase: “Many creatures with two legs are also mammals” would imply, obviously, that there are some creatures with two legs that are NOT mammals. Anyway, we can presume – and I doubt you’ll disagree – that there is also a fraction of all people in favor of euthanasia who are NOT pro-abortionists. I.e., euthanasists are not a subset of pro-abortionists. Here is a Venn diagram to help you out.
Now, your second sentence states that "they" think "the old" should be killed because "they" are no longer productive members of society. You have two instances of "they" in your sentence. "They" is a pronoun, and as such requires an antecedent. If the antecedent is unclear, this can lead to confusion on the part of the reader. Not the reader’s fault, of course. That is the writer’s fault. The antecedent of the second instance of "they" is obviously "the old" – old people are the ones getting killed.
Less clear is the antecedent of the first instance of "they". Clearly it must someone in the previous sentence. More specifically, it is some intersected or excluded group from your first sentence. I.e., it is either A NOT B or A AND B or “A NOT B and A AND B”. The only group it could possibly be referring to is “the many pro-abortionists who are in favor of euthanasia" - the fraction of all pro-abortionists who happen to also be in favor of euthanasia. Which is this? It is the set A AND B.
Your writing issues go beyond a simple one of a vague antecedent, however. As I pointed out, and as you admitted, the set of "people who are in favor of euthanasia" can actually be divided into two subsets of people: those who believe in "voluntary" euthanasia and those who believe in "involuntary" euthanasia (and those who believe in both). Here's a modified Venn diagram.
First, let's ditch the "they" in your language and put in actual nouns and see what it says.
"Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. The fraction of pro-abortionists who are in favor of euthanasia think the old should be killed because the old are no longer "productive members of society."
I have put in the only antecedent (in blue) that “they” could possibly have from your sentence construction. Wow, look how much clearer it is already! Here it is pretty clear that the entirety of the fraction of pro-abortionists who are also in favor of euthanasia all think the old should be killed because they (the old) are no longer "productive members of society". The pronoun connects the two sentences and clearly identifies the set A AND B with “people who think the old should be killed because…” I think it’s pretty clear now what the Set B represents, since I’m trained in logic, but judging from your follow-up post, I think you need a little help.
The occurrence of the word "many" in your sentence partitions the group of people calling themselves pro-abortionist (red circle in diagram 1) into sub-groups of those who are not in favor of euthanasia (set of A excluded from set B, A NOT B) and those who are in favor of euthanasia (intersection of sets A and B, A AND B). I.e., your usage of the word “many” distinguishes only between the sets in the first Venn diagram above.
However, as we’ve made clear, the first Venn diagram is not sufficient to describe our system; we actually have three sets to worry about: Pro-abortionists, Voluntary-Euthanasists and Involuntary-Euthanasists. (Voluntary-Euthanasists believe that a person should be allowed to voluntarily submit himself to euthanasia; Involuntary-Euthanasists believe that everyone, after reaching a certain age, should just be exterminated for the good of society.) Simple set theory tells us that when you have three overlapping sets, there are seven sub-sets (1 three-set intersection, 3 two-set intersections and 3 one-set exclusions); if you want to define a single one of these sub-sets clearly, you need two conjunctive phrases. That is, A AND B NOT C or A AND B AND C or A NOT B NOT C, etc. A phrase with a single conjunctive phrase (A NOT B) or (A AND B) in such a system must refer to more than a single subset. A AND B thus refers to the regions made up of sub-regions A AND B AND C and A AND B NOT C. The word "many" is, in essence, a conjunctive phrase, as it distinguishes between subsets and, specifically, refers to set intersections. Your language has only one "many". You do not have enough conjunctives to describe a single region of a there-set system – you need two. Yours is effectively an “A AND B” statement which leaves your language with two possible implications:
(1) There are three sets but you do not refer to a single region.
(2) There are only two sets to begin with. Either you do not know about the third set or you do not recognize its importance
The implication of all this is that your language unequivocally states that ALL people who are pro-abortionists AND who believe in euthanasia are involuntary euthanasists. I.e., B in your A AND B statement MUST be the set of involuntary euthanasists. According to your statement, it is not possible to be a pro-abortionist AND believe in voluntary euthanasia UNLESS you also believe in involuntary euthanasia. In the second Venn diagram, you MUST belong to either region 1 (two way intersection of red and blue regions) or region 2(three way intersection of red, blue and green regions). This is consistent with option (1) above because we know there are three sets. Your statement completely ignores the possibility of anyone belonging to region 3 - the class of people who are pro-abortionist and believe that a person should be able to voluntarily euthanize themselves, but do not agree with your “kill all old people” dystopic Logans Run scenario - because you do not have enough conjunctives in your language to identify that “euthanasists” are actually more than a single group of people. Thus, according to your statement, ALL euthanasists are of the involuntary type, and, thus any pro-abortionist who is also a euthanasist must therefore be of the involuntary type.
Either way, your language is insufficient to leave a clear impression of what you're trying to say because it doesn’t properly define your sets of people.
Since your sentences stated something that you say you didn't actually mean, then, you should learn to write without overusing pronouns lacking clear antecedents, and you should learn to properly identify how many sets you are dealing with and how many conjunctive words you need. Maybe if you took a writing class or studied people who knew how to write properly, you could convey your ideas a little better.
For instance, I'll help you out.
Here's what you should have said so that it would have been clearer:
Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. Some of the pro-abortionists who are in favor of euthanasia think the old should be killed because they (the old) are no longer "productive members of society".
(You can substitute "many" or "most" or "a few" or whatever in place of the underlined clause to reflect the size of the fraction of people who you believe feel this way. I think it is actually quite low.)
Here you’ll see my second conjunctive (“some of”) clearly implies that not all “euthanasists” believe the same thing, or that there is more than one set of “euthanasists”. Contrast this to YOUR language (“they”), where there is no such partitioning conjunctive. Your single conjunctive only identifies that not all pro-abortionists believe the same thing; you need a second conjunctive to make the same distinction between euthanasists of varying persuasions. I challenge you to show how your sentence construction is more lucid than my modified version here.
Anyway, it's certainly fun to tear your horrible language skills apart, but, well, that's enough wasted time on that.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 06:23 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 18:32, 17 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
So you think a person only has the right not to be raped becasue the governemnt says so. But if the government passes a law saying rape is ok, then you'd have no problem with that because human rights don't exist apart from the government.
And why is murder wrong?
There's also a BIG difference in life, and being alive:
A tree is alive, yet most people consider it to not have a life. Bacteria are alive, but not considered having a life?
Dogs are considered alive and their life is valued. Humans lives are considered to have a higher value.
Why?
Wow Corribus! That was a new level of awsome and, to me, unnecessary! 
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 07:46 PM |
|
|
@Shares
Quote:
Wow Corribus! That was a new level of awsome and, to me, unnecessary!
For the awesome I thank you. For the unnecessary, I agree. However, sometimes I am compelled to take people to task for their almost habitual dishonor. I am consistently appalled by Elodin's lack of integrity. The fact that many of you continue to lend ear to his vacuous bombast is, in some ways, equally appalling.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:08, 17 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
@Shares
Quote:
Wow Corribus! That was a new level of awsome and, to me, unnecessary!
For the awesome I thank you. For the unnecessary, I agree. However, sometimes I am compelled to take people to task for their almost habitual dishonor. I am consistently appalled by Elodin's lack of integrity. The fact that many of you continue to lend ear to his vacuous bombast is, in some ways, equally appalling.
Actually, it is you who is dishonest. I proved you to be a liar.
Many does not mean most. Many is only more than several. Use fancy colored charts to try to to cover your lies. Your snake-oil salesmanship is fairly good, I'll give you that. But dishonesty is dishonesty.
I never implied that "every pro-choicer who is also pro-euthanasia must also be in favor of slaughtering everyone above age XX" so I would thank you not to lie about me.
I said, "many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia." Can you read? I said "many." Many does not impy all. Many does not imply most.
I also said,"They don't respect the right of innocent babies to live, why should they respect the right of the elderly and handicapped to live? Many don't." Can you read? I said many. Not most.
Lying about what I said is dishonorable. Please stop your lies.
Quote:
Anyway, it's certainly fun to tear your horrible language skills apart, but, well, that's enough wasted time on that.
I've never claimed to be an expert on the English language.
But it is certainly fun to tear your "logic" and lies apart. And pretty easy to do so as well.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am consistently appalled by Elodin's lack of integrity. The fact that many of you continue to lend ear to his vacuous bombast is, in some ways, equally appalling.
I have to say that I can't even start to express how wholeheartedly, fully and completely I agree with these two sentences.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 08:19 PM |
|
|
Well, there you have it, your honor.
The prosecution has offered the court a long, well-reasoned argument concerning the precision of language. The defendant Mr. Elodin has replied with what amounts to a sneered "Nuh-uh, liar!" The defendant has furthermore stated that he believes this trite defense is equivalent to "tear[ing] your "logic" and lies apart," and furthermore that this defense was quite easy in fact to accomplish. The prosecution would like to remind your honor that making farting noises with one's mouth is also quite easy to accomplish but this does not necessarily constitute a cogent argument.
The prosecution rests.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 08:55 PM |
|
|
I repeat my previous statement.
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 09:08 PM |
|
|
I second your statement, shares!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, there you have it, your honor.
The prosecution has offered the court a long, well-reasoned argument concerning the precision of language. The defendant Mr. Elodin has replied with what amounts to a sneered "Nuh-uh, liar!" The defendant has furthermore stated that he believes this trite defense is equivalent to "tear[ing] your "logic" and lies apart," and furthermore that this defense was quite easy in fact to accomplish. The prosecution would like to remind your honor that making farting noises with one's mouth is also quite easy to accomplish but this does not necessarily constitute a cogent argument.
The prosecution rests.
I proved you to be the liar. Many does not mean most. Sorry, you put on a good show and tried to dazzle everyone with pretty pictures and a long post, but many still does not mean most. You lied about what I said.
As for making farting noises with your mouth, I'm sure you are quite good at it.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 09:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I proved you to be the liar.
to yourself...
you're not fooling anyone else, mate!
similarly, I'm more likely to believe corribus, given that he's backed up his point with evidence, diagrams and information, than you and you're accusations, commands and pathetic attempts at engaging in an intelligent and rational discussion.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 12:55 PM |
|
|
Only a moron would think that many means most. If I say many people wear blue shirts only a moron would think that most people wear blue shirts.
It doesn't matter how many anti-Christians hold hands and chant "many means most" it is still untrue. I was lied about. But I am often lied about on the board by anti-Chrstians.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 01:09 PM |
|
|
The thread has crossed the line from ridiculous to hilarious. 
I suppose this will yet be topped...
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Only a moron would think that many means most. If I say many people wear blue shirts only a moron would think that most people wear blue shirts.
It doesn't matter how many anti-Christians hold hands and chant "many means most" it is still untrue. I was lied about. But I am often lied about on the board by anti-Chrstians.
This is not the Volcanic Waistland, we are suppose to use logic around here......
:
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 02:10 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:14, 18 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
This is not the Volcanic Waistland, we are suppose to use logic around here......
:
Yes, and many does not mean most. To say that many means most is illogical. Many does not necessitate more than 50% Most necessitates more than 50%.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
