Oddbean

Not sure how to argue with someone that doesn't see a difference between you and a fish. This is the best they got. nostr:nevent1qqsxq0z0ecyckfqfr67fue87px7yg8t5f2x6349a9fsz30tfq3enncspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygq835ynsm3m9mg2ehn563zp279h0j93qyywcjrr6na96yhvtyn93vpsgqqqqqqshvgwd8

That's literally racism toward animals. Allow me to illustrate the fallacy: A pen and a pencil are both writing instruments. This is like you saying a pencil is intrinsically and fundamentally different from a pen, and them saying no it's not, it's a fucking writing instrument. Leave alone the fact of pencil lead vs ink, the different mechanics, the more permanent and permeating nature of ink, etc. He's saying a pen is literally identical to a pencil in every relevant way imaginable.

Yeah, I saw the context after I replied. The post didn't have the full context right in front of my face and I'm lazy. Yet still, I don't think that that is relevant to the discussion either. The fish's metaphysical existence is not being examined at all here, is it? Perhaps I am still missing the context. Anyway, your choice of definitions and frameworks is irrelevant, as with most people on the abortion debate. My position as regards the proper laws on abortion is agnostic on when a human life begins and when we need to protect it from harm. A person's right to theor own body and capability to make their own judgements is all but inviolable. The mother is in the best position to make decisions regarding her body and her child. Ergo, pro choice. Simple. Everything else is noise, including your arguments. You are never going to convince someone who holds fetus life sacred to change theor mind on that one thing. I happen to hokd it sacred too. I am pro choice for the simple reason that arbitrary laws do more harm in this area than they help 99.99% of the time.

You are so much more eloquent than I am. Yes my own position aligns with yours on the irrelevance of that particular point of initiation of life. If I'm honest I guess I never intended to, or believed I could, change the opinion of the one I argued with. I was immature argumenting calling him an animal just as he brought in fish to make my point more absurd

Thank you! We all act immature plenty of times, not least of all me. I can be terrible. I occasionally have moments of insight though and am sometimes able to articulate it to point things out to my fellow rational animals, in the form of ideas, criticisms, answers, questions, etc. I appreciate when they do so for me, so I try to spread a little constructive criticism myself. You're golden. Keep on keeping on. I've said WAYYY more rude stuff than your minor little thing. I'm no better than you lol! Or perhaps more accurately, I'm better than you and worse than you at the same time. We just all notice things at different times and from different perspectives, and that's what communication is for.

He's right. I do believe Humans are superior to any other animal. I'm also of the opinions that you'd be an idiot to believe otherwise. nostr:nevent1qqsgnj6j3kg2lvymkjvvgeqx2e5wh8vpq8q9229cda8rd7y7552cctcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3q8hdy2qy2qwga0ye7rtnucwuyf07erjfdmm7s74wwdt7sy4mk7tdsxpqqqqqqzgvavea

Humans are not animals because we have imagination, logic, science, written language etc. Arguing about what a “human” is, debating the proper course of action, having power over the natural world- these are what makes us Human. It is what the Bible is referring to when it teaches us that we are created in the image of God, to be Stewards of the Earth.

I prefer to say we are rational animals capable of logic, long term goal orientation, and advanced creativity. Still animals technically, but very much in our own league of animals. This nomenclature is much more consistent.

Actually it does. Legitimate property is the stuff that we have the information necessary to control without hurting others. Animals are not able to manage much but their own bodies and nests and stuff. Humans can manage far more. We have the ability to reason at a much more advanced level. We need these things to survive, and we have the ability to use them and to do so without hurting others for it. We have dominion over other life forms generally speaking, because we are, well, just able to. We're designed that way. We are tapped into logic, the logos of this universe, and are therefore endowed with the ability to be stewards of it.

Sure even that is fair enough. We're all flesh but we aren't mere beasts. Man is destined for greater, that's cool. But then what part is the part that isn't ok to snuff out? Cause if flesh-life starts at conception, and continues to death, that's the case for all of the creatures. I can kill and eat a beast. Should not torture the beast or cause undue suffering... Is aborting a calf as heinous as aborting a human?