Biden Bots

[PJ Diaz]

I understand it, which is why I recognize how dangerous it is. I saw it from the inside.

My belief is irrelevant.

It's quite relevant if we are to discuss abortion rights. Why are you avoiding an answer? Typically answer avoidance is a suspect defense mechanism.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Thank God there's still some Democrats that haven't drank the Koolaid.

I steer clear of herd mentalities.

EDIT: I'm also not registered with any political party affiliation. I left the Dem part years ago.

 

[PadawanWarrior]

I don't disagree myself, however my point was to be able to understand your opponent's perspective, which seems difficult for you.

Out of curiosity, when do you believe that "personhood" begins?

This is the attitude more people need.

I'm pro choice, but to a point. Here in CO there is no limits really. WTF?

https://cwhccolorado.com/for-patients/abortion-faq-facts/index.html

 

[cannabineer]

It's quite relevant if we are to discuss abortion rights. Why are you avoiding an answer? Typically answer avoidance is a suspect defense mechanism.

Because this has degenerated into a debate about de facto religion. Arguing with a positivist is tiresome and futile.

 

[PadawanWarrior]

Because this has degenerated into a debate about de facto religion. Arguing with a positivist is tiresome and futile.

Let's get back to talking about how you're a Biden Bot then.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

 

[PJ Diaz]

Because this has degenerated into a debate about de facto religion. Arguing with a positivist is tiresome and futile.

Identifying the inception of "personhood" is not a religious concept. You've also never seemed to be adverse to tangential dialogues. This implies that you have some defensive reason to not divulge your opinion on the matter.

 

[schuylaar]

This is the attitude more people need.

I'm pro choice, but to a point. Here in CO there is no limits really. WTF?

https://cwhccolorado.com/for-patients/abortion-faq-facts/index.html

Luckily, we are the Sanctuary State centrally located for MAGAT states in the surrounding areas.

What limits do you not like..the ones where you pull out?

 

[cannabineer]

Identifying the inception of "personhood" is not a religious concept. You've also never seemed to be adverse to tangential dialogues. This implies that you have some defensive reason to not divulge your opinion on the matter.

Defend that first claim.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Defend that first claim.

Attack it specifically, so that I have something to defend. This should be a scientific concept, no?

 

[cannabineer]

Attack it specifically, so that I have something to defend. This should be a scientific concept, no?

What science covers personhood?

Psychology is a medical discipline heavily salted with philosophy. There is no objective, natural science of psychology; no instrument that allows psychological tenets e. g. behaviorism to be submitted to objective test. There is no reduction to basic physical quantities such as mass, energy, luminosity, frequency etc., things readable on necessarily nonsentient instruments: the basic and indispensable coin of science.

So tell me of the science of personhood without resorting to the subjective, which is the camel’s nose of belief (which is the irreducible core of the subjective, and thus does not yield to science any more readily than astrology) under the tentflap of objectivity. There is no aspect of the subjective that is extricable from faith, the implacable opponent of all science.

This burden is on you, not me. The attempt to shift it does have some rhetorical elegance; I will give you that.

 

[cannabineer]

I could have done this more briefly: you stated that personhood is not a religious concept. Derive that counterintuitive claim from first principles.

 

[PadawanWarrior]

Luckily, we are the Sanctuary State centrally located for MAGAT states in the surrounding areas.

What limits do you not like..the ones where you pull out?

Who said anything about pulling out, ?

 

[ActionianJacksonian]

Luckily, we are the Sanctuary State centrally located for MAGAT states in the surrounding areas.

What limits do you not like..the ones where you pull out?

This demonstrates the hard lefts true concept of personhood. It is to be given and taken at will by them, at any age. As you can see here, it is simply removed for half of adult voters.

It's fair to say that fine line of the birth canal can be moved forward with mentality such as this.

 

[PJ Diaz]

What science covers personhood?

Psychology is a medical discipline heavily salted with philosophy. There is no objective, natural science of psychology; no instrument that allows psychological tenets e. g. behaviorism to be submitted to objective test. There is no reduction to basic physical quantities such as mass, energy, luminosity, frequency etc., things readable on necessarily nonsentient instruments: the basic and indispensable coin of science.

So tell me of the science of personhood without resorting to the subjective, which is the camel’s nose of belief (which is the irreducible core of the subjective, and thus does not yield to science any more readily than astrology) under the tentflap of objectivity. There is no aspect of the subjective that is extricable from faith, the implacable opponent of all science.

This burden is on you, not me. The attempt to shift it does have some rhetorical elegance; I will give you that.

I could have done this more briefly: you stated that personhood is not a religious concept. Derive that counterintuitive claim from first principles.

You always could be more brief, but you seem to prefer a word soup, in unrequited efforts with failed attempts to bolster your arguments.

So it seems to me that you don't know when personhood begins, and you feel the need to lean on religion for this definition, while at the same time rejecting such religious definitions, and unable to come up with one yourself. How's that supposed to work? If that is in fact the case, then I must yield, as I am left with great confusion as to your positions.

If that is in fact not the case, then my defense is that subjective definitions lie within the individual, and that those individual definitions may be made by both religious individuals as well as atheists. If atheists are also to self-discern this subjective point, then by definition it is not a religious concept.

 

[cannabineer]

You always could be more brief, but you seem to prefer a word soup, in unrequited efforts with failed attempts to bolster your arguments.

So it seems to me that you don't know when personhood begins, and you feel the need to lean on religion for this definition, while at the same time rejecting such religious definitions, and unable to come up with one yourself. How's that supposed to work? If that is in fact the case, then I must yield, as I am left with great confusion as to your positions.

If that is in fact not the case, then my defense is that subjective definitions lie within the individual, and that those individual definitions may be made by both religious individuals as well as atheists. If atheists are also to self-discern this subjective point, then by definition it is not a religious concept.

speaking of word soup, where did you address your claim regarding science and personhood? For someone who accuses others of concealing bias, you are seeming to practice the vice with a certain élan.

The science. Show it.

 

[PJ Diaz]

speaking of word soup, where did you address your claim regarding science and personhood? For someone who accuses others of concealing bias, you are seeming to practice the vice with a certain élan.

The science. Show it.

I didn't claim it, I questioned it, which is why there is a question mark at the end of my sentence. I thought that you viewed this stuff through a scientific lens, hence my question. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently.

 

[cannabineer]

I didn't claim it, I questioned it, which is why there is a question mark at the end of my sentence. I thought that you viewed this stuff through a scientific lens, hence my question. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently.

This is a claim. It is the one I ask you to defend with links showing that science can treat of personhood. The appended insincere question-marked word is a rhetorical device that you are now exploiting. It is yet another demonstration that you are not seeking honest discussion.

Attack it specifically, so that I have something to defend. This should be a scientific concept, no?

Now please restrict yourself to posting links to the claimed science, an obligation you assumed voluntarily and unaided.

 

[PJ Diaz]

This is a claim. It is the one I ask you to defend with links showing that science can treat of personhood. The appended insincere question-marked word is a rhetorical device that you are now exploiting. It is yet another demonstration that you are not seeking honest discussion.



Now please restrict yourself to posting links to the claimed science, an obligation you assumed voluntarily and unaided.

I don't know the science behind it. I assumed that you did, but you have clearly told me that there is not science available to address this issue, so I will believe you. I guess I will have to submit to your assertion that it is indeed the place of religion to identify personhood, and that there is no place for science in the matter. How does it feel to be right about that?

 

[cannabineer]

I don't know the science behind it. I assumed that you did, but you have clearly told me that there is not science available to address this issue, so I will believe you. I guess I will have to submit to your assertion that it is indeed the place of religion to identify personhood, and that there is no place for science in the matter. How does it feel to be right about that?

There can be no legitimate science behind a concept that reduces to religion. I state that personhood is such a concept. How I feel about it or about anything is not part of objective inquiry.

 

[PJ Diaz]

There can be no legitimate science behind a concept that reduces to religion. I state that personhood is such a concept. How I feel about it or about anything is not part of objective inquiry.

Then we are forced to rely on our subjectivity, which in this case, you have given the onus of to religion. Religion has an answer, but you do not.