Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 370 by Blastcat]

Let's take the human brain, for example. A human brain.
It's an element of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

It's not an element of the set of homo sapiens sapiens, because a brain is not a human.

It is an individual of homo sapiens sapiens; a technical term would be 'organism'.

Biology doesn't AGREE with your conclusion.

Actually it does: it is a simple biological fact that a human embryo is a human organism, and is a human.

Wrong. in biology, the embryo is OF the species homo sapiens sapiens. When biologists take a bone and figure out what species it is they don't say that it's "A" chicken.. They say its the BONE of a chicken. If a clever biologist holds an egg and he has figured out it's specie, he doesn't say that it's a BIRD, he says that the egg is FROM a bird of a certain species.

He would say that THE EGG IS OF the species chicken, and he wouldn't say "THIS IS A CHICKEN". Our very clever biologist can tell the difference between a chicken and an egg. Or a chicken and a chicken bone..

That's because a bone isn't an organism, or an individual of the species, while the embryo is.

and now you aim your semantics sights on the word "organism".. how YOU define it.. it's a person.

Stop playing word games.
How many words have you tried to define your point with?.. I think it's been about a dozen. You've had to retreat every time, because you use the same faulty logic an all of those words, changing the words isn't going to fix your logic, sorry/

This new word, "organism" isn't going to help you either

Defining an embryo an as an "organism" to demonstrate that it's an "organism", or any OTHER word isn't going to prove your "biology" point. Actual, real biologists do NOT agree with you... that's why most jurisdictions have legalized abortions. It was due to the science, not the semantics.

[Paprika]

.

As you and the others well know, all I'm claiming is that that fertilised egg is a member of the chicken species, and therefore a chicken.

Is an unfertilized chicken egg a member of the chicken species?

No.

If one cooks and eats a fertile egg have they killed a chicken?

They have killed a member of Gallus gallus domesticus so yes.

If you correctly maintained that a fertile chicken egg contained genetic material necessary in the reproductive process of that species I would have no objection.

Do you admit that a fertilised chicken egg/embryo is a member of the Gallus gallus domesticus species?

Yet you equivocate to escape the force of the argument. Quite pathetic.

Readers will decide which arguments are "pathetic". This thread already has over 6000 views with 385 posts upon which to evaluate the merits of what is presented. I wonder how many accept a contention that "an egg is a chicken".

[/quote]
Ah yes, the usual address to the reader. It may be better to find some other comeback that doesn't look quite so much like retreating.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 370 by Blastcat]

Let's take the human brain, for example. A human brain.
It's an element of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

It's not an element of the set of homo sapiens sapiens, because a brain is not a human.

It is an individual of homo sapiens sapiens; a technical term would be 'organism'.

Biology doesn't AGREE with your conclusion.

Actually it does: it is a simple biological fact that a human embryo is a human organism, and is a human.

Wrong. in biology, the embryo is OF the species homo sapiens sapiens. When biologists take a bone and figure out what species it is they don't say that it's "A" chicken.. They say its the BONE of a chicken. If a clever biologist holds an egg and he has figured out it's specie, he doesn't say that it's a BIRD, he says that the egg is FROM a bird of a certain species.

He would say that THE EGG IS OF the species chicken, and he wouldn't say "THIS IS A CHICKEN". Our very clever biologist can tell the difference between a chicken and an egg. Or a chicken and a chicken bone..

That's because a bone isn't an organism, or an individual of the species, while the embryo is.

and now you aim your semantics sights on the word "organism".. how YOU define it.. it's a person.

Stop playing word games.
How many words have you tried to define your point with?.. I think it's been about a dozen. You've had to retreat every time, because you use the same faulty logic an all of those words, changing the words isn't going to fix your logic, sorry/

I've not retracted anything. New words were used because people like you were having trouble grasping what I meant: remember how you asked me to clarify 'individual'?

In your posts, however, there have been multiple attempts to force 'person' into my biological arguments when they appear nowhere there. Please deal with the actual argument instead of strawmen.

This new word, "organism" isn't going to help you either

Defining an embryo an as an "organism" to demonstrate that it's an "organism", or any OTHER word isn't going to prove your "biology" point.

That's such an ignorant statement about what is a simple biology fact. Organism is a technical term in biology which perfectly includes the embryo.

Actual, real biologists do NOT agree with you... that's why most jurisdictions have legalized abortions. It was due to the science, not the semantics

Nonsense. Roe v Wade, for instance, was legally grounded in the 'right to privacy' while the popular apologia has included 'right to choose', 'war against women' and all that nonsense.

Biologists and embryologists actually do agree that the embryo is a human organism.

[Zzyzx]

.

Ah yes, the usual address to the reader. It may be better to find some other comeback that doesn't look quite so much like retreating.

Those who are familiar with my debates (readers) are aware that I very seldom have reason to retreat. Instead, I press forward to encourage debate opponents to take increasingly foolish positions – exemplified by:

If one cooks and eats a fertile egg have they killed a chicken?

They have killed a member of Gallus gallus domesticus so yes.

Bold added to emphasize a claim that eating a fertile egg is killing a chicken.

This should be reported to the SPCA and other animal rights organizations -- just as destroying frozen embryos should be reported to law enforcement agencies as murder.

[Paprika]

Those who are familiar with my debates (readers) are aware that I very seldom have reason to retreat.

Then answer my question:

Do you admit that a fertilised chicken egg/embryo is a member of the Gallus gallus domesticus species?

This should be reported to the SPCA and other animal rights organizations

I hardly know of anyone who eat fertilised chicken eggs. The Pinoys do so with duck embryos so carry on if you're in that region.

[Zzyzx]

.

Those who are familiar with my debates (readers) are aware that I very seldom have reason to retreat.

Then answer my question:

Do you admit that a fertilised chicken egg/embryo is a member of the Gallus gallus domesticus species?

Delete "a member" and I agree, leave it in and I do not. An acorn is OF the genus Quercus however it is not an oak tree.

This should be reported to the SPCA and other animal rights organizations

I hardly know of anyone who eat fertilised chicken eggs. The Pinoys do so with duck embryos so carry on if you're in that region.

Consumers of eggs do not know whether eggs they eat are fertile or not, though it can be determined -- http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/ ... icken_eggs).

Many people eat "free range" chicken eggs and any flock that contains roosters produces fertile eggs. Modern "factory farming" of eggs disallows fertilization but that is a relatively recent development.

Perhaps the public has grown a bit squeamish about such things with increasing removal from the reality of nature and increasing ignorance of food production. However, some cultures eat well developed egg embryos known as balut.

For more information about whether eating a fertilized egg is eating a chick http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentof ... aby-chick/

[Paprika]

Do you admit that a fertilised chicken egg/embryo is a member of the Gallus gallus domesticus species?

Delete "a member" and I agree, leave it in and I do not. [/quote]
Well if you don't accept an obvious biological fact, I don't see how much progress can be made.

Consumers of eggs do not know whether eggs they eat are fertile or not, though it can be determined -- http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/ ... icken_eggs).

Many people eat "free range" chicken eggs and any flock that contains roosters produces fertile eggs. Modern "factory farming" of eggs disallows fertilization but that is a relatively recent development.

How interesting. What's the point about this again? It's not like the SPCA is protesting against eating chickens in general, so why should there be a report against eating fertilised chicken embryos?

However, some cultures eat well developed egg embryos known as balut.

As I said, Pinoys.

For more information about whether eating a fertilized egg is eating a chick http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentof ... aby-chick/

And who are these people that we should take so seriously?

[Zzyzx]

.

I hardly know of anyone who eat fertilised chicken eggs. The Pinoys do so with duck embryos so carry on if you're in that region.

Consumers of eggs do not know whether eggs they eat are fertile or not, though it can be determined -- http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/ ... icken_eggs).

Many people eat "free range" chicken eggs and any flock that contains roosters produces fertile eggs. Modern "factory farming" of eggs disallows fertilization but that is a relatively recent development.

How interesting. What's the point about this again? It's not like the SPCA is protesting against eating chickens in general, so why should there be a report against eating fertilised chicken embryos?

The point is that you claimed incorrectly that people you know do not eat fertilized eggs, displaying a lack of knowledge that 1) one does not know if eggs they eat are fertile or not, 2) fertile eggs are not uncommon in the marketplace.

The Apologist argument is attempting to justify the opinion that human embryos are human beings

Apologist position: An egg is a chicken (post #390)

Non-Theist position: An egg and a chicken are different objects / items and equating the two is butchering the language in an attempt to make a point (common Apologist tactic).

I trust that readers appreciate the contrasting positions.

[Paprika]

.

I hardly know of anyone who eat fertilised chicken eggs. The Pinoys do so with duck embryos so carry on if you're in that region.

Consumers of eggs do not know whether eggs they eat are fertile or not, though it can be determined -- http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/ ... icken_eggs).

Many people eat "free range" chicken eggs and any flock that contains roosters produces fertile eggs. Modern "factory farming" of eggs disallows fertilization but that is a relatively recent development.

How interesting. What's the point about this again? It's not like the SPCA is protesting against eating chickens in general, so why should there be a report against eating fertilised chicken embryos?

The point is that you claimed incorrectly that people you know do not eat fertilized eggs, displaying a lack of knowledge that 1) one does not know if eggs they eat are fertile or not, 2) fertile eggs are not uncommon in the marketplace.

How terrible. Go call the animal rights people on them. Oh wait, they only care about cute cuddly animals.

The Apologist argument is attempting to justify the opinion that human embryos are human beings

Apologist position: An egg is a chicken (post #390)

Non-Theist position: An egg and a chicken are different objects / items and equating the two is butchering the language in an attempt to make a point (common Apologist tactic).

I trust that readers appreciate the contrasting positions.

Ah, the typical pathetic misrepresentation. Do you really have nothing else besides flogging the same dead horse and denying biological facts?

[Blastcat]

But of course.

Yet due to the ambiguity of 'chicken' as denotation of species, and as a mature female of that species, it may be replace 'chicken' with Gallus gallus domesticus; the argument would be equivalent and I would accept it as well.

At least you are consistent. How about if I swap out egg for acorn and chicken for an oak, is an acorn an oak (as opposed to an oak tree, a mature member of that species?)

I hardly know enough about the development of that species to comment. But why are we going off topic? The point is clear, despite people trying to derail onto chicken and then equivocate: the human embryo is a human.

That a layman may not grasp that 'chicken' can also denote the species - so what?

As the person who made the comparison, I understood that chicken refers to the species the same way human refers to our species, the same way oak refers to the species

(Speaking to the rest eg Blastcat, KenRU, Zzyzx): It's not all that hard, guys.

Speaking for myself only, I find it VERY hard to imagine that an acorn is a tree, or that an egg is a chicken. VERY hard indeed. They might be of the same species, but they are NOT the same things as what they will become. Acorns do not have trunks or leaves, and eggs do not have beaks and feathers. NOT YET.. this is the invisible word that people who will argue that an egg is a chicken can't see.. they can't see or seemingly can't understand the concept of "NOT YET"... It's like saying that the road to Damascus IS Damascus already... but maybe we are not there YET..

Looks like some people debating in here don't know how to use the word "YET", yet.