Fight Fire with Fire

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't say you were lying about being prolife. You are being dishonest about how you address specific factual matters. Why you do that I really don't care, but it's obvious you are doing it.

Why do you assume that I was Christian before I was prolife, Aeson? I've been both every day you've known me. You literally have no way of knowing which came first.

[giblets]

If it's ok to dismember children because their mother doesn't want them, what would possibly be wrong with this? If you can't recognize the humanity of certain human persons because it's inconvenient, why would we expect restraint here?

You don't respect the humanity of women in situations where that would be inconvenient so I'm not surprised you'd pull the plug on a human brain that's been uploaded to a computer

[Ben Kenobi]

memory has nothing to do with the mental state of a person?

That's my point. Memory is not the same as brain scans. You're assuming they are when they aren't. What you're thinking will work, won't work, even theoretically.

You're using current technology to make claims about future technology.

Indeed I am. See, this is the problem with science fiction. Just because something is complicated and difficult doesn't mean it will supercede cheaper and simpler ways of doing things. There's a reason why we still do things the way we've always done them, and it isn't because we aren't smarter to know better - just because the more complicated way is less economically feasible.

Even if we assume that the difficulties magically go away - that still leaves the possibility that the same thing will happen with genetic sequencing. Which is already far cheaper, easier, and feasible at present. Technology doesn't just advance our ability to do just one thing. Gattaca is the way, Aeson. We are swiftly heading towards it.

As I said, we already use mental state for authentication

Uh, we don't. Again, if I have your password, I can login as you and the system doesn't know better.

an inborn and easily trained method

You're talking to a deaf person. It is neither inborn nor easily trained. You really need to have some kids, Aeson. There's a reason we spend so much time on certain things - because the payoff is immense. But it doesn't mean that they are easy.

So you're already wrong, and technological progress is surely going to make you even more wrong in the future.

Fine. Put the site up and I'll make a bet with you that in 20 years I will be right.

DNA has fundamental problems. It is extremely easy to lose control of (eg. if I have your hair clippings, I have your DNA) and even ignoring that is not a valid delimiter between people (biological twins).

So it's a valid delimiter in 99.999 percent of the cases, and if you've lost physical control of your machine, you've lost your security anyways.

All keys are corruptible. A remembered password is forgettable.

Again, the keys are much less corruptible than their alternatives. And the same with DNA.

You don't seem to understand what memory is.

No, you don't see to understand what memory actually is. You need to do some reading. Brain scans monitor activity. It's like a flashing light on your hard drive. Memory is encoded. Detecting the flashing light doesn't permit you to read the memory.

No. You are applying circular logic to define me

It's not circular logic. I can distinguish between you and your hair. The same is not true of the unborn child. You can't throw the fetus away and still have the child - because that's the identity of the child. You're the one comparing the unborn child to a hair, where the cells are very different from each other.

Which is me?

You are you. Your hair is a part of you. Give me your hair and I know everytime which is you and which is your hair. I can use your hair to trace you, only because your hair is a part of you.

Well you're using something other than DNA to determine, because DNA is a horrible way to determine what is me and what is not.

I'm using what I know about hair cells. I know that hair cells have to come from somewhere else in order to grow and I know that hair doesn't grow on it's own.

Even if I'd never ran into people before and all I had was a hair, I could logically deduce from this that there must be something that left the hair behind.

Sentience on the other hand is the best possible way to determine what is me

No, it's not. Again, sentience doesn't work for the unborn. Your life began at conception. We know this scientifically through IVF.

Because I am not simply a bunch of atoms or even cells.

Oh. So you're arguing there's a soul?

I am the output of software running on that organic platform. The discarded hair is just part of that platform that has little to no impact on the operation of the software.

Uh, I've got bad news for you. Software is just electrons, Aeson. If you're software you really are just a mix of electrons.

It's good you can admit there is a time in human development when the fertilized egg is not sentient or feeling.

Sure, but that's how sexual reproduction works. Sperm and egg fuse to form a zygote which divides to form an embryo.

I know this is hard but this is science, Aeson. Not some medieval notion of being. This is when human life begins. Huxley knew this and understood it. He also understood the consequences. Go read Brave New World sometime.

No, it's far worse because it incorrectly determines that reg and HC are the same person, it determines that some people are multiple people, and it can't differentiate between a pile of hair or the person that it was cut off of.

Your standard would have determined them not to be persons. My standard would have correctly detected that there were two people and identical twins to each other, and would have spared their lives. Because anyone who's doing DNA testing can identify two embryos. You have to draw the DNA, Aeson.

If your standard would kill them and mine would save them, which standard is superior? Yours or mine?

Most everything you say is dishonest.

What exactly are you claiming to be the truth, Aeson?

my hair (which has DNA) and I (which have the same DNA) are not morally equivalent is because of the sentient capacity of me (my brain) and the lack thereof of my hair.

No, you just don't understand how genetics works, Aeson. Anyone who's going to be drawing DNA samples from an embryo for testing is going to be able to detect and account for identical twins. Nobody who does genetic testing is going to confuse your hair with you, because they understand how hair cells work. You have to in order to do the testing in the first place. It only works because we understand that the hair is a part of you.

[giblets]

In the past, Ben Kenobi has claimed that military conscription is unconstitutional involuntary servitude. He doesn't think people can be used as a means to an end... unless they're a woman who was raped, in which case the state can use them as a gestation chamber

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't respect the humanity of women in situations where that would be inconvenient so I'm not surprised you'd pull the plug on a human brain that's been uploaded to a computer

Uh, I believe we're dealing with two persons not one person in the case of pregnancy, which is why I believe that the child's right to life is not superseded by the mother's desires.

Again, if you're unwilling to extend personhood to actual human children, why would we assume you'd do so for others? It doesn't follow.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the past, Ben Kenobi has claimed that military conscription is unconstitutional involuntary servitude.

That it is.

He doesn't think people can be used as a means to an end... unless they're a woman who was raped, in which case the state can use them as a gestation chamber

Was the end the preservation of the life of the child, or the end being immediate sexual pleasure? Could I not just as easily claim that you support abortion because it removes the responsibility from the father - responsibility that the father would endure in child support?

[giblets]

That it is.



Was the end the preservation of the life of the child, or the end being immediate sexual pleasure? Could I not just as easily claim that you support abortion because it removes the responsibility from the father - responsibility that the father would endure in child support?

What does this have to do with rape victims? Are you calling them sluts?

Your end is giving a fetus a chance at life, your means is coercively forcing women to gestate and give birth to them even if that woman had no say in getting impregnated in the first place. Because you only think it's wrong to use a person as a utensil if that person happens to be a man.

[Aeson]

What are you putting up against the site Ben?

[giblets]

Don't identical twins come from the same zygote? So if a person's existence begins at conception, then some zygotes are more than one person at once before splitting

The zygote is twin A
The zygote is twin B
twin A is not twin B
The zygote is not twin B

[Ben Kenobi]

What does this have to do with rape victims? Are you calling them sluts?

I'm talking about the rapist. You stated, "people using others as a means to an end", and I'm addressing that.

Your end is giving a fetus a chance at life, your means is coercively forcing women to gestate and give birth to them

There are two options here.

One, abortion
Two, carrying the child to term.

Abortion doesn't unrape the woman. It doesn't cure her. It doesn't make anything better. It's not going to make the pain inflicted on her go away. All it does is kill her baby. The end.

Carrying the child to term is a sacrifice, yes - but for a purpose - to save the life of her child. Many women who have suffered from rape have found meaning in their lives by keeping their children - in turning an ugly and horrific thing into something beautiful.

Because you only think it's wrong to use a person as a utensil if that person happens to be a man.

I'm opposed to conscription because it's involuntary servitude, yes, but also because I believe it's ineffective. A volunteer military is stronger. Ergo - we have a misguided policy that doesn't actually improve national defense.

Whereas here, there simply isn't another option. In order to save the life of the child, you have to carry the child to term.

[Ben Kenobi]

What are you putting up against the site Ben?

What would you consider equivalent value? I'm shocked you're even considering this bet.

[giblets]

I'm talking about the rapist. You stated, "people using others as a means to an end", and I'm addressing that.



There are two options here.

One, abortion
Two, carrying the child to term.

Abortion doesn't unrape the woman. It doesn't cure her. It doesn't make anything better. It's not going to make the pain inflicted on her go away. All it does is kill her baby. The end.

Carrying the child to term is a sacrifice, yes - but for a purpose - to save the life of her child. Many women who have suffered from rape have found meaning in their lives by keeping their children - in turning an ugly and horrific thing into something beautiful.

I'm sorry, but you are not in any position to judge what is in her interest. Your attitude toward women is despicable.

I'm opposed to conscription because it's involuntary servitude, yes, but also because I believe it's ineffective. A volunteer military is stronger. Ergo - we have a misguided policy that doesn't actually improve national defense.

Whereas here, there simply isn't another option. In order to save the life of the child, you have to carry the child to term.

So you'd support conscription if you believed it would make the military stronger?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry, but you are not in any position to judge what is in her interest. Your attitude toward women is despicable.

Once again, Abortion doesn't cure rape, it just kills her baby. I'd argue it compounds things because abortion has serious negative psychological consequences.

But don't listen to me. Listen to an actual psychiatrist.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395931/

The results revealed that at least one-third of the respondents have experienced psychological side effects. Depression, worrying about not being able to conceive again and abnormal eating behaviors were reported as dominant psychological consequences of abortion among the respondents. Decreased self-esteem, nightmare, guilt, and regret with 43.7%, 39.5%, 37.5%, and 33.3% prevalence rates have been placed in the lower status, respectively

you'd support conscription if you believed it would make the military stronger?

But it doesn't. That's the point. There's no point to conscription if it doesn't help the military. It's like asking, "would I use toothpaste if it were shown to cause cavities?"

[giblets]

Tehran hospitals were the site of study.

You cited a study from IRAN????????????



Why don't you move? You'd be right at home there.

[Elok]

You're equating withholding aid with harm. Does the government exist to force you to help others?

In this context, the distinction is meaningless, akin to sparing a prisoner's life but not giving him food or water. Also, don't most means of abortion involve actively killing or ejecting?

In the interests of honesty, my church does distinguish between killing and allowing to die--but for the terminally ill. Letting a dying person die as opposed to actively hastening death with poison, etc. Bowing to the inevitable is not the same as willful neglect.