Apathetic schizophrenics appear to have little or no emotions at all. Are they merely diseased animals? Surely not. They have human DNA, and therefore deserve human empathy. I do think that some people put too much responsibilty on the woman. Since the man took equal part in the action, he is just as morally responsible for the outcome. However, it does make sense - from a purely pragmatic perspective - for a woman to be more concerned about the outcome of sexual intercourse than a man, since she is the one who will bear the child. I, for one, have long disagreed with the sexual double standard. However, what's right is right, regardless of whether or not women are treated poorly on disparate issues.
Is your analogy flawed because when you combine more atoms of an element you just get more of the element. There is no difference in one atom of an element and a ton of the element except the number of atoms. Correct? When haploid cells (dont really know what that is) develope into a human you dont just get a lot more haploid cells do you?
Actually, yes you do just get a bunch more cells. The function of the cells may be different; however, they all derive from the haploid cell. I'd like to refer to magnesium. In a solid mass, magnesium is nearly impossible to light by primitive means; however, a very small portion of magnesium is very easy to light by primitive means, likely because of the reduced ability to store/transfer heat to other magnesium particles. In other words: just because a small portion of a thing does not act the exact same way as the large thing does not mean that one or the other is not the substance to which is being referred.
Yes, you get "a bunch more cells" but they are not the same kind of cells as the original, as in your atom example. I dont get how the magnesium example applies at all.
They're not the "same kind of cells." And this matters... why, exactly? Specifically. The magnesium example applies because a thing, when much of it is in the same place, can react differently than when it is alone while still maintaining the same identity. Similarly, just because a fetus does not walk, talk, or complain when it is murdered does not mean it has lost the identifier "human."
Totally agree, a fetus is most defiantly "human" (noun) as in part of the species homo sapien, but is it a human (adj)
Interesting, I admit. But I submit that they are both the same thing. It doesn't seem to me that there is a definitional disparity between the two. For example "666 is a human (adj) number" is just as quickly rewritten to say that "666 is a number that is recognized by humans (noun)". Both phrases say the same thing. I see no difference between them.
It only matters because it means that your original analogy is faulty. All atoms of any amount of an element are the same. A little bit of a thing doesn't always act the same as a lot of the same thing and a little bit of a human dosen't act the same as a lot of a human therefore a little bit of a human is a human. That dosen't make sense to me. I don't even necessarily disagree with your position. I just don't understand your reasoning.
Actually you have attributed the adjective in your first item to wrong word, the adjective is "a" not human, or more correctly the "a" is an article which is a type of adjective, human in your sentence is still a noun and is not required in the sentence for it to still be grammatically correct (666 is a number), in order for human to be the adjective the sentence would have to read "666 is human number" which is not grammatically correct for example. You are a(adj) human(noun) - makes the statement personal via the "a" article/adjective, it is specific to you You are human(noun) - Makes the statement non-personal, ie generalization human only becomes an adjective when used to describe something that is associated with us ie human kind, human skin, it differentiates between items that can be used for other things besides humans ie plant kind, animal skin .. numbers are unique to humans and do not require to be differentiated and thus do not require a qualifier (adjective)
I'm not saying it is a bulletproof analogy - it isn't. However, it does its purpose by proving that something does not lose its identity merely because it does not act precisely the same manner when increased or decreased in mass.
The article "a" is just that - an article. It does not erase the use of the following adjective as an adjective. So you are very, very wrong. For example: This is a cold day. "Cold" is still an adjective. Not only that, but how "personal" a word is when used does not change the definition of the word, particularly for a clearly defined term like "human." Your final statement presupposes that numbers are unique to humans, which the Bible disagrees with (my reference is from the Bible). If you disagree with the Bible, that's fine - but don't pretend that your disagreement is a grammatical or linguistic one. There is so much wrong with your post I'm surprised you haven't been drugged and brought to a sanitarium yet. No, that isn't hyperbole. I'm a libertarian, but I wonder if fascism wouldn't be a good thing if it stopped people from saying things that are so blatantly foolish and downright false as you just did.
and "a" can also be an adjective, as it is in the original comment you made. - http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm Scroll to the bottom of the linked page It may not change the definition, it does change the context of how that word is being used. I assume you are referring to Revelation 13:18 - "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (KJ) which is a name - Numbers were represented by letters in Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew. The practice of converting Greek letters into Greek numerals is known as isopsephy. In Hebrew, the practice is known as gematria, where every letter corresponds to a number. The sum of these numbers gives a numeric value to a word or name. So in essence both your sentences are incorrect, it is the same as someone saying "Joe is a human number" and "Joe is a number that is recognized by humans" There is nothing "wrong" with my post at all, and the ad hominem comments are not required or appreciated, if you disagree then show how you disagree. You have yet to show how it is "blatantly foolish and downright false", where as (now in receipt of the full facts) I have shown your two examples as being incorrect.
1) It did not, however, remove the adjective that followed it, as per your erroneous claim. 2) Again, this does nothing to prove my statement incoorrect. It seems you are adopting the police tactic of throwing charges at a suspect to see which ones stick. 3) Yes, it does change the context; however, the definition of the word and the ultimate meaning of the phrase remain the same. 4) I was using that as a grammatical example of why are you clearly wrong. The fact that the numbers can be used to represent a word is irrelevant; the grammatical correctness of the sentence "It is a human number" cannot be legitimately questioned, although you attempted (and failed) to do so. Please refer to your elementary school teacher for guidance on your presumably native language. 5) As indicated in my previous post, in addition to this one, there is much that is factually incorrect about your post. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that writing an absurd amount of falsehood makes all those falsehoods true. It does not. What it does is convince a discerning reader that your tactics are sophistic, dishonest, and crude, and that your argument holds so little weight of its own that you have to cover it with a veritable plethora of deceptive and blatantly false statements. 6) Refer to above, as well as to my previous post. And, by the way, I said "there is so much wrong with your post I'm surprised you haven't been drugged and brought to a sanitarium yet." Now, of course this can't be literal since traditional "sanitariums" don't exist anymore. However, I implied that as a direct result of that single, isolated post mentioned in my statement, someone might mistake you for a raving lunatic. This is NOT an ad hominem argument - rather, it is comparing your phraseology to that of a raving lunatic in order to illustrate the innacuracy of your post. Therefore, I insulted only that post. And, since your post has so little in the way of substance as to make it difficult to expound upon, I will submit that there is no such thing as a center-left moderate social libertarian. Your political compass machine is broken and inaccurate, as many left- or right-wing concepts are inherently fascist and many right- or left-wing concepts are inherently libertarian. The ideologies do not belong on a perpendicular axis to the "Right" and "Left" wings.
It does prove that (I guess) but I'm still not understanding how that applies to the difference between a couple of hypoid(?) cells and a child. That difference is not even remotely defined by a difference in mass is it?
It is merely making a comparison of combined haploid cells at a certain point in growth (that is, a fetus) that is the smallest complete part (with all the chemical information) of a human. Similarly, the atom is the smallest complete part (with all the chemical information) of an element. Since the latter is still considered, for example, AU, it follows that the fetus should still be considered human. Again, it is not a bulletproof analogy - there is no such thing. However, it serves its purpose quite well compared to many other colloquial analogies used.
It may "follow" to you, but obviously it doesn't "serve its purpose quite well" if that purpose is convincing me of anything. Actually it doesn't matter to me if you are correct in this litle debate or not. So, I will end it here. I am saddened by suffering of humans or other animals. I simply don't care what happens to a random fetus.
"It doesn't matter if you are correct or not." That's actually the definition of bigotry. bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (Merriam-Webster).
Charles, I should not have responded to your post in the first place. I only did so because I thought I could show you up by proving that your argument was faulty - not because I cared about what you were saying. So, please forgive me for that, it was wrong and I hope that I will be better in that regard in the future. As I said before, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. It's just that the point isn't important to me. Peace?
I have to admit, I'm impressed you have the guts to admit it - precious few on this forum do, sometimes including myself. Peace.
I haven't forgotten this post, I am researching in order to answer in the best way. NB: When you indicate that a comment is directed at a person ie "Your","you", then you make that comment personal to the person you are talking to, as I was the only one who wrote the comment the inferred "raving lunatic" is directed at me alone. The comment on my signature is irrelevant to the debate.
Nice try, an attack based on what you said is based on what you said. Definitionally. Thanks for the update, though.
