The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

[IBDaMann]

We are not talking about instincts and mechanical acts.

You were specifically talking about committing an act. Did you mean to ask about something else?

So you agree that a one week old zygote is not conscious and can not think?

It's not a zygote after one week. At that point the blastocyst has attached to the uterus, it is an embryo.

I will agree to postulate that the embryo is not conscious, although I do not claim to know.

I will ask again, will you lease just state whatever your final point is rather than pretend to string me along one cryptic question at a time? This strategy of trying to build a GOTCHA only wastes everybody's time.

 

[AProudLefty]

You were specifically talking about committing an act. Did you mean to ask about something else?

We are talking about conscious acts. A computer is not conscious.

It's not a zygote after one week. At that point the blastocyst has attached to the uterus, it is an embryo.

I will agree to postulate that the embryo is not conscious, although I do not claim to know.

Good. Now we're making a progress.

I will ask again, will you lease just state whatever your final point is rather than pretend to string me along one cryptic question at a time? This strategy of trying to build a GOTCHA only wastes everybody's time.

It is not an attempt at gotcha. I am attempting to show your fallacy. You, yourself, admitted above that the embryo is not conscious.

 

[IBDaMann]

You didn't ask a question

Not only have I asked a question, I have asked it many times in this very thread. The asking of the question is the point of the thread. But you insist that you just aren't quick enough on the uptake to truly grasp that much, yes? Well, OK. Let's pretend that the point of this thread is something down closer to your cognitive level. Let's pretend that the point of this thread is to explain to you that oranges come from orange trees. Hopefully you can successfully digest that much and we can just leave it at that.

 

[IBDaMann]

We are talking about conscious acts.

Nope. Only now are you specifying this. Your initial question asked if I agree that committing an act requires consciousness. It does not. Are we in agreement?

A computer is not conscious.

Exactly. Nor is a Venus Fly Trap, and they both commit acts. Are we in agreement?

You want to discuss some point that you will not state, under the seemingly erroneous presumption that consciousness is somehow required. What I am going to ask of you is that you state your thesis (state the point you are trying to make) and convince me that consciousness is required.

You already acknowledge that consciousness is not required for one to be a living human, and you acknowledge that consciousness is not required for a living human to not express any desire to die. I'm going to need you to clearly state your point.

You, yourself, admitted above that the embryo is not conscious.

I realize that it's just a question of wording, but I do not know if an embryo is conscious or not, so I cannot admit such. What I can do, however, is postulate that it is true so that you can use that statement in your argument.

I hereby postulate that embryos are not conscious. Now please state the point we are supposedly discussing.

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. Only now are you specifying this. Your initial question asked if I agree that committing an act requires consciousness. It does not. Are we in agreement?

The definition does not agree with you.

com·mit
/kəˈmit/
1.
carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act).

Exactly. Nor is a Venus Fly Trap, and they both commit acts. Are we in agreement?

An avalanche kills people. Is it an conscious act?

You want to discuss some point that you will not state, under the seemingly erroneous presumption that consciousness is somehow required. What I am going to ask of you is that you state your thesis (state the point you are trying to make) and convince me that consciousness is required.

You, yourself, agreed that a zygote or an embryo is not conscious. Therefore it can not express any desire.

You already acknowledge that consciousness is not required for one to be a living human, and you acknowledge that consciousness is not required for a living human to not express any desire to die. I'm going to need you to clearly state your point.

Already stated. Consciousness and thinking are required to express desire.

I realize that it's just a question of wording, but I do not know if an embryo is conscious or not, so I cannot admit such. What I can do, however, is postulate that it is true so that you can use that statement in your argument.

Thank you for being honest. You do not know. It requires evidence. So far there is zero evidence.

I hereby postulate that embryos are not conscious. Now please state the point we are supposedly discussing.

See above. If a thing is not conscious, it is not able to express desire.

 

[IBDaMann]

The definition does not agree with you.

com·mit
/kəˈmit/
1. carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act).

There is no conflict. A microprocessor carries out instructions from the data bus.

An avalanche kills people. Is it an conscious act?

It is not. You aren't making any point. I asked you to state your point.

You, yourself, agreed that a zygote or an embryo is not conscious. Therefore it can not express any desire.

Ergo, there is no such thing as any embryo that has ever expressed any desire to die. I'm still waiting for you to state some point to discuss.

Consciousness and thinking are required to express desire.

... and are not needed to not express desire. Your point?

If a thing is not conscious, it is not able to express desire.

... and if it is not able to express desire, it is not able to express desire. No one can point to an embryo and claim that it somehow expressed a desire to die.

I was kind of expecting you to state a point and show how consciousness is needed.

 

[AProudLefty]

There is no conflict. A microprocessor carries out instructions from the data bus.


It is not. You aren't making any point. I asked you to state your point.


Ergo, there is no such thing as any embryo that has ever expressed any desire to die. I'm still waiting for you to state some point to discuss.


... and are not needed to not express desire. Your point?


... and if it is not able to express desire, it is not able to express desire. No one can point to an embryo and claim that it somehow expressed a desire to die.

I was kind of expecting you to state a point and show how consciousness is needed.

I have already stated my point. Expressing a desire requires consciousness.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have already stated my point. Expressing a desire requires consciousness.

My mistake. I thought your point involved revealing a fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

My mistake. I thought your point involved revealing a fallacy.

I cannot help you if you are unable to see your error in your argument.

 

[IBDaMann]

I cannot help you if you are unable to see your error in your argument.

I cannot help you if you are unable to see that my question is a question and not an argument. Are you reverting back to claiming that my mere question is somehow a fallacy? Are you rescinding your answer already? Are you succumbing to party-line pressure?

This is disappointing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I cannot help you if you are unable to see your error in your argument.

Agreed.

FWIW, I have given up on trying to see rationality in irrational people. Sybil among them. The fact he repeatedly lies about his socks is what completely destroys his integrity as a poster. The fact his arguments are often irrational compounds the problem.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

This leads to a follow-on question that begs for an answer. Implicit in your response is the maxim that living humans do not get to determine for themselves the quality of their lives, but rather some third party does that for them. Implicit in your answer is that the determination by living human A of an insufficient life quality of living human B is sufficient justification for living human C to kill living human B.

Ergo:

Do you support/advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die if some third party has determined their quality of life to be "insufficient"?

The answer in your case appears to be "yes". This makes you a schytty person.

I answered the original question.

You could go on changing it forever.

I'm embarrassing myself giving this much of my attention to a troll like yourself.

You're deficient and unworthy of further attention.

 

[AProudLefty]

I cannot help you if you are unable to see that my question is a question and not an argument. Are you reverting back to claiming that my mere question is somehow a fallacy? Are you rescinding your answer already? Are you succumbing to party-line pressure?

This is disappointing.

Once again, the answer is no. I have no clue why you are unable to accept my answer.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Once again, the answer is no. I have no clue why you are unable to accept my answer.

Don't feel bad.
I answered yes and he didn't accept that either.

 

[IBDaMann]

I answered the original question.

In other words, you are too cowardly to answer my question so you sought some different question to claim that you answered. Great.

You're a cowardly troll who lined up to illustrate my point.

"Do you support/advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?"

Clarification:
1. Presume that the killing is done for a third party's convenience, e.g. to get out of paying a debt, to gain more inheritance, to terminate a pregnancy, etc ...
2. "Living Human" is unambiguously defined as those with human DNA and a heartbeat
3. The question does not contain the words "abortion", "person", "accused", "being(s)" or "conscious(ness)"; they do not come into play
4. With regard to pregnancy termination, the less than 1% of the cases in which the life of the mother is in jeopardy are not considered; they do not come into play.

I have you down as having a million lame excuses to flee from this question. Coward.

 

[IBDaMann]

Once again, the answer is no. I have no clue why you are unable to accept my answer.

You are lying when you claim that you are answering my question. Yes, you give me a yes/no answer (secifically "no") but you follow it up with an insistence that you are answering some "argument" that you are declaring a fallacy.

Your assertion that you are actually answering my question goes right out the window.

 

[AProudLefty]

You are lying when you claim that you are answering my question. Yes, you give me a yes/no answer (secifically "no") but you follow it up with an insistence that you are answering some "argument" that you are declaring a fallacy.

Your assertion that you are actually answering my question goes right out the window.

Sighs. The question by itself is not a fallacy. I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sighs. The question by itself is not a fallacy. I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend it.

I'm not sure why you are being so blatantly dishonest. I asked you many times to simply state your thesis (point) and you would not. And now you continue to refuse to be clear and yet you play coy by retending "I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend."

The problem is on your end, and it's your dishonesty. Let me know when you have the fortitude to just state what you need to say. Oh, and you don't get to just declare something a fallacy without explaining in detail why it is so.

 

[AProudLefty]

I'm not sure why you are being so blatantly dishonest. I asked you many times to simply state your thesis (point) and you would not. And now you continue to refuse to be clear and yet you play coy by retending "I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend."

The problem is on your end, and it's your dishonesty. Let me know when you have the fortitude to just state what you need to say. Oh, and you don't get to just declare something a fallacy without explaining in detail why it is so.

*Sighs*

Again, expressing desires requires consciousness and thinking. Clearly I do not support killing a person who has not committed a crime and expresses no desire to die.

 

[IBDaMann]

...and expresses no desire to die.

You changed the wording. Not "expresses no desire" ... but rather "has not expressed any desire."

You changed the semantics from "has not expressed" to "has expressed" which then causes you to dwell on irrelevant concepts such as consciousness and to become confused.

Consciousness is not needed to "not express".