No. Just a basic dictionary definition.
The “axioms” in question being ones like “truth matters”.
True statements are derived from axioms. Axioms have no truth value.
We’re talking about empirical observations.
So, we’re no longer relying on “simple dictionary definitions”, but have moved on to “empirical observations”. I’ll check in later to see where we’ve moved to next.
We’re making an empirical observation that a clump of insentient tissue does not match the dictionary definition (or any common English language usage or concept of) the word, “person.” Nothing axiomatic about it.
What empirical observations supports that a fetus does not match “a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.”?
Missed the edit window.
Do you not see the irony in that post? After adamantly protesting against the (false) accusation that I have asked you to prove a fetus is not a person, you suddenly announce that you can… prove that a fetus is not a person. Of course the proof is some undefined “empirical observations”.
All of them.
One of my emperical observations was that a human being has unique DNA polymerase nu. And so does a fetus!
So it looks like all of the emperical data is going my way after all! Woo hoo!
As you conceded, all emperical observations support the same conclusions. Therefore, I must only identify one that supports my conclusions, since we already know that they all point the same way.
Wow, that’s mighty decent of you, Diogenes. And to think that some people accused you of arguing dishonestly! I hope the next time anyone says that, you simply point to this set of posts to show how you really work. Thanks again.
So does a fingernail. So does a dead body.
Hmmm.
So… maybe… maybe ALL the emperical observations don’t distinguish between a human being from an animal or a thing after all?
At this point, I’m pro-choice in the sense of “I believe I ought to be legally free to choose to bonk **Dio **and Trihs’ heads together repeatedly until they stop ‘helping’ my side.”
If it hadn’t already done so, this “debate” has officially turned into another episode of The Dio Show. I don’t like reruns, so excuse me if I change channels and watch something else.
I’ve got people in another thread insisting, with the same tactics, that human races have biological meaning. They claim it’s so obvious that it requires “no science” to know this.
My side has classylady. The grass ain’t always greener.
I didn’t know it was so controversial to state the bleeding obvious.
John and Bricker, as God is my witness, I don’t know why you guys waste your time. Haven’t you heard the one about why you never try to wrestle with a pig?
Just one: Stop saying “look it up in an dictionary” or similar things, and just post a damn definition.
I will accept any dictionary definition. I am not proposing one of my own. A bloodclot isn’t a “person” under any commonly undersyood definition or English language usage of the word “person.”
No you won’t - Bricker and John Mace both gave you dictionary definitions and you rejected them. So this can’t be true.
As I observed before, when you go into the Dio Show, you repeat yourself over and over but your spelling deteriorates. Why do you think that is?
Regards,
Shodan