Nicker on 6/5/2023 at 15:23
NOTE: If you want to push back against my argumentation argument, do so here. - If you want to push back against my CHOICE argument, take it to the Roe v Wade thread here, where I will repost this post.Quote:
They think a fertilized egg is a baby. It is dividing cells. That's it. That is an irrefutable fact.
I am reluctant to reply to this point because I don't want to import a topic from an existing thread to this one BUTTTTTTTT.....
I agree with your point about facts over feelings but you need to be clear about your facts too, and what they really say.
I am pro-choice but I think this is a poor argument for choice. An adult human is also dividing cells. In fact all of our cells are replaced multiple times throughout our lives. Does that mean that someone could "choose" to "abort" me. Not if I have a choice...
There's a slippery-slopeish'ness about the just cells argument, both factually and emotionally. (An acorn isn't an oak tree but it could be......) Tangential arguments avoid the actual issues and are, IMHO, red-herrings. They are also prone to being overturned by new data.
Thought Experiment: What if we established, unequivocally, that dividing cells WERE humans? We are faced with the issue of choice all over again and now the best argument for it is in tatters.
Abortion is an emotional issue and pretending it's just facts is disingenuous. It is best to confront the actual issue head on, even if it is thorny, even if it amounts to making very difficult choices. That's why the argument for me is: not my body, not my choice and whoever has the power to make the choice gets the choice.
I don't have to like the choice another makes but that's better than others having to live with choices I make for them.
Head on.
Briareos H on 6/5/2023 at 15:42
Quote Posted by Azaran
- Attacking your source: "That's a right wing\left wing source. your argument is invalid". Ask them to objectively debunk the facts or explain how they know they're false without attacking the source.
While I agree that dismissing on political orientation is unscientific, if an information source is known to be biased enough to demonstrably provide manipulative content on a regular basis, I think it's fine to dismiss it entirely and not engage.
Even a broken clock, etc. and in general I don't think it's healthy wasting time on debating a story that has a high chance of being written with an agenda (unless the story is
about the agenda).
Nicker on 6/5/2023 at 15:49
In addition, the use of disreputable sources is often compounded with the Gish gallop, piling up truck-loads of bullshit which the shit-piler demands to be removed one handful at a time. Meanwhile they are backing up their next bullshit dump-truck, loaded from the same source, just in case you succeed.
Tocky on 6/5/2023 at 16:32
Quote Posted by Nicker
I am pro-choice but I think this is a poor argument for choice. An adult human is also dividing cells. In fact all of our cells are replaced multiple times throughout our lives. Does that mean that someone could "choose" to "abort" me. Not if I have a choice....
No. You can't use "THE THING" argument. Science is specific. Science is logical. Unlike the horror movie The Thing, each separate part of us is not human. We have never called a blood sample a human though it has dividing cells. That is what the facts say. If you wanted to say one part of us was the human then you would have to say that part was the repository of what makes us human and sets us apart and that would be the brain. I see you haven't challenged them on this.
You can trust that I have carried this out to the very end or you can challenge and hear all the reasons. Draxil did that until he got to the point he could no longer hold his argument together with anything but emotion. That is the power of fact. I almost thought he was going to go to the end with me but alas he would not. Indeed it is emotional but if we are to define then fact is what we must use and you are wrong. There is no "slippery slope" when you adhere to fact. Fact is what defines and that holds true for all argument.
Why do you think my location is "in the flesh"? This flesh and bone thing is not where what I am resides. You can take away many pieces of it but it does not change who I am till you start cutting in one area.
Qooper on 6/5/2023 at 18:34
Regarding abortion, I won't continue the argument here, but I'll write my thoughts on the argumentation side.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Ah but it is not different. Just because emotions are attached or convictions does not make them any less wrong. That holds for any argument. Stick to provable fact when you can.
I still think it is different. The person has that conviction, which is the reason they hold that position. Sticking to provable facts leaves out many important things. For example our conscience is real, but it is difficult to scientifically prove that you should listen to it. Yet many are convinced that this is wise. Much of our life is outside the scientific realm. I agree that you cannot use your conviction as an argument in quite the way you describe using facts, but it definitely shouldn't be dismissed either.
Quote:
Anybody else smell Bigfoot or is it just me?
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Nicker on 6/5/2023 at 19:10
Yeah, this discussion just got messier. Tocky and I are covering both sides over on the Roe v Wade thread but I will attempt to place my decontaminated Argumentation points here, if possible.
-----------
Quote:
No. You can't use "THE THING" argument.
Clones...
The problem with claiming that something is "science", therefore unassailable fact, therefore supports any particular argument, is at least THREE problems.
One - science is a process of examining facts so the "it's science" argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Two - Facts precede explanation and interpretation. Scientific examination doesn't create facts. The horse goes before the cart, not after.
Three - Facts (data) can change. New data can emerge. Old data can be challenged, corrected or replaced. Data can be reinterpreted in light of new data or new understandings.
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not is an opinion, not a fact.
Quote:
Why do you think my location is "in the flesh"? This flesh and bone thing is not where what I am resides. You can take away many pieces of it but it does not change who I am till you start cutting in one area.
You are at risk of confounding yourself, if not refuting yourself here.
Are you asserting that "I am" is an external existence, apart from our bodies? That sounds very like a religious view and yet the religious manage to hold this opinion while still being concerned about the status of the vessel, even though the "clay jars" are not the person. How does the same assertion about the location of "I am" generate opposing opinions about the dividing cells? There is an inconsistency here.
Even though I whole heartedly agree with you, I don't think you can assert that your position is formed of entirely facts in this case.
Tocky on 7/5/2023 at 00:06
Okay. You have misunderstood every single thing so I will follow in the order you misunderstood them.
One-science is a process of examining facts so it is in no way a logical fallacy and there is no "science authority". New facts change science and thus no authority by it but the search for truth which is itself the only authority of whether something is real or not.
Two- Facts precede explanation and interpretation. Science does not create them. Examination of those facts is what determines the explanation and interpretation. Nobody places the horse before the cart. Science starts with those facts and builds on them. It has from the beginning. When wrong according to discovered facts it changes the explanation and interpretation.
Three- facts and data can change. New data is accounted for and a new interpretation arrived at if necessary by science. Old data is welcomed to be challenged, corrected or replaced. Data can indeed be interpreted in light of new data because that is what science does to find understanding.
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not can be determined by a definition of what a person is. That is a fact and not opinion.
I am in no way at risk of confounding or refuting myself.
I am not saying that "I am" in an external existence. I am saying that I am apart from every part of my body except the brain. That is who I am. It is in no way religious and not an opinion. Destroy any part of the brain and I am no longer the same therefore what I am resides there. You do as well. That is not conjecture. You can nit pic what sections are most important but that is where who we are resides. It is the opposite of religion. "The status of the vessel" is of no concern except as a support for the brain. There is no inconsistency at all.
My position is formed entirely of facts and any of them may be challenged but you are going to have to do better than that.
Qooper on 7/5/2023 at 22:28
Quote Posted by Tocky
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not can be determined by a definition of what a person is. That is a fact and not opinion.
Definitions are ideas and as such don't exist in the physical world. Definitions vary between cultures, people and ideologies, as do classifications. The scientific method does not give us definitions.
Tocky on 8/5/2023 at 03:49
Defining the world around us is all that science does. Definition is the whittling down of what a thing can be to what it is. We define to determine reality. Is this thing a rock or a million other things? See what it is made of then. That is the definition science does. That is nothing as amorphous as an idea. One may have the idea that it can be a rock but science puts in the effort to find out. Scientific method absolutely gives us definitions. Cultures, people, and ideologies be damned. If they want to call a rock a tree then they are wrong. They can have all the ideas that a rock is a tree that they want. It makes no difference in whether it is or not.
After noticing your location I begin to understand your confusion in understanding the difference between definition and idea. Religion declares an idea based on no definition of reality. It declares and demands faith. Science does not. It proposes based on definitions previously determined to be true through observation. It then tests to determine if true. Cultures, peoples, and ideologies may have no science. They may have ideas untested because they demand faith. Only science defines based on tangible reality. Science tests and finds out if an idea holds true with no faith in anything but observation. Having faith in things unobserved is not a way to determine reality. I would rather personhood were determined by reality.
Nicker on 8/5/2023 at 04:37
I never said that science was a logical fallacy. I said that improperly appealing to its authority was a logical fallacy.
You still have not resolved the non sequitur of drawing a line between the fact that a zygote is dividing cells and conclusion that it is not a person. You simply asserted it.
Quote:
Simply put, whether a zygote is a person or not can be determined by a definition of what a person is. That is a fact and not opinion.
OK then, define what a person is and at what point a zygote becomes one, without resorting to opinion.
Quote:
I am not saying that "I am" in an external existence. I am saying that I am apart from every part of my body except the brain. That is who I am.
So are you saying that "I am" is an emergent property of your morphology with your sense of self being assembled and concentrated in your brain?
Babies don't become reflectively self aware ("I am") until 15 to 18 months. Are they persons before this point?
This is not a facetious question or reductio ad absurdum. It's the central problem with your argument. Unless you can objectively define at which point a zygote becomes a person, your assertion that a zygote is just dividing cells is only an opinion.
Show me the science.
