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?

[Paprika]

On the contrary, because we don't eat scrambled eggs I took your point to be referring to non-fertilised eggs.

Scrambled eggs is a dish made from whites and yolks of eggs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambled_eggs
Now we don't eat scrambled eggs???
[/quote/]
A typo. 'because we don't tend to eat fertilised eggs...'

Readers, did he defend against this accusation with reasoned arguments, or with slander? IF it is just slander, then I posit that the debate is lost for him. We are here to debate right?

Well, one does wonder why my biological argument about human embryos continues going unanswered in your postst while the diversion has been eggs and chickens, but I suppose there is a very reasonable explanation why it has been avoided.

[Clownboat]

A typo. 'because we don't tend to eat fertilised eggs...'

Except for when we do. I hope you can see how your argument has lost its explanatory power.

"We don't do 'X', except for when we do 'X'." Since this is the case with your argument, you cannot base an argument off of 'X'.

Readers, did he defend against this accusation with reasoned arguments, or with slander? IF it is just slander, then I posit that the debate is lost for him. We are here to debate right?

Well, one does wonder why my biological argument about human embryos continues going unanswered in your postst while the diversion has been eggs and chickens, but I suppose there is a very reasonable explanation why it has been avoided.

Do you mean the one where you ask if it is a human organism, and if so, it is therefore a human?

If so, it has been addressed to death.
If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree. A child would not be fooled by such a claim.

I also attempted to refute it by showing you that we don't eat scrambled chickens and how I feel you are at war with the English language in order to even make your argument. My point is that words have meanings, and you are forced to change the meanings of words in order for you argument to even be made. IE: a human organism is a human

Someone else also rejected your initial premise and explained why they rejected it.

Why do you feel that this point has been avoided, as it has clearly not been avoided. Perhaps I'm unclear about what point you mean that you feel is being avoided?

[Paprika]

A typo. 'because we don't tend to eat fertilised eggs...'

Except for when we do. I hope you can see how your argument has lost its explanatory power.

"We don't do 'X', except for when we do 'X'." Since this is the case with your argument, you cannot base an argument off of 'X'.

Hardly. I am only explaining why I interpreted your phrase as I did. Now fertilised chicken eggs are gallus gallus domesticus, and if they are cooked in a certain way they remain gallus gallus domesticus cooked in that way.

Readers, did he defend against this accusation with reasoned arguments, or with slander? IF it is just slander, then I posit that the debate is lost for him. We are here to debate right?

Well, one does wonder why my biological argument about human embryos continues going unanswered in your postst while the diversion has been eggs and chickens, but I suppose there is a very reasonable explanation why it has been avoided.

Do you mean the one where you ask if it is a human organism, and if so, it is therefore a human?

If so, it has been addressed to death.
If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree. A child would not be fooled by such a claim.

I also attempted to refute it by showing you that we don't eat scrambled chickens and how I feel you are at war with the English language in order to even make your argument. My point is that words have meanings, and you are forced to change the meanings of words in order for you argument to even be made. IE: a human organism is a human[/quote]
It follows from the basic definition of species as I have demonstrated. Your argument is merely that of incredulity because of colloquial use of language, and remains as pathetic as ever.

[Clownboat]

Hardly. I am only explaining why I interpreted your phrase as I did. Now fertilised chicken eggs are gallus gallus domesticus, and if they are cooked in a certain way they remain gallus gallus domesticus cooked in that way.

What happens to your argument when they are not cooked just this certain way? This is what happens when you base an argument off of an "if". IF, so and so is done in just this certain way, then I have a point. Forget the times when it doesn't happen that way, because then I don't have a point.

The 'If' scenario only came up because you are still trying to recover from the fact that we don't eat scrambled chickens and because an acorn is not an Oak tree. Nor is a blastocyst a human...

Readers, did he defend against this accusation with reasoned arguments, or with slander? IF it is just slander, then I posit that the debate is lost for him. We are here to debate right?

Well, one does wonder why my biological argument about human embryos continues going unanswered in your postst while the diversion has been eggs and chickens, but I suppose there is a very reasonable explanation why it has been avoided.

Do you mean the one where you ask if it is a human organism, and if so, it is therefore a human?

If so, it has been addressed to death.
If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree. A child would not be fooled by such a claim.

I also attempted to refute it by showing you that we don't eat scrambled chickens and how I feel you are at war with the English language in order to even make your argument. My point is that words have meanings, and you are forced to change the meanings of words in order for you argument to even be made. IE: a human organism is a human

It follows from the basic definition of species as I have demonstrated. Your argument is merely that of incredulity because of colloquial use of language, and remains as pathetic as ever.

Now here is your next problem. I didn't make an argument, I/we showed why yours was bad and why we rejected it. We did that and THEN you accused us of avoiding your argument.

[Paprika]

The 'If' scenario only came up because you are still trying to recover from the fact that we don't eat scrambled chickens and because an acorn is not an Oak tree. Nor is a blastocyst a human...

So you repeatedly assert with asinine examples and appeals to incredulity using colloquial language but yet you've demonstrated nothing of the sort.

If so, it has been addressed to death.
If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree. A child would not be fooled by such a claim.

I also attempted to refute it by showing you that we don't eat scrambled chickens and how I feel you are at war with the English language in order to even make your argument. My point is that words have meanings, and you are forced to change the meanings of words in order for you argument to even be made. IE: a human organism is a human

The same tired appeals to incredulity using colloquial language? Don't you have something better?

It follows from the basic definition of species as I have demonstrated. Your argument is merely that of incredulity because of colloquial use of language, and remains as pathetic as ever.

Now here is your next problem. I didn't make an argument, I/we showed why yours was bad and why we rejected it.

Your argument that it was bad/ridiculous.

We did that and THEN you accused us of avoiding your argument.

Quite, because instead of dealing with technical definitions of organisms and names of species you invoke the alternative meanings of mature stages, which is equivocation.

[Paprika]

Missed this.

Already demonstrated, but the point was just ducked

You say ducked, I say rejected. An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.)

An organism of the species is one of the species, as demonstrated by the definitions I've quoted: the species is defined as a specific collection of organisms. 'Human' is the colloquial or common name for an individual of the homo sapiens species (just as 'lion' is the common name of an individual of the panthera leo species) so a human organism is a homo sapiens which is (by definition) a human.

Then you tried to move on to debating the 'personhood'. Nice try.

That's where we are heading, isn't it?

That remains to be seen.

[Bust Nak]

An organism of the species is one of the species, as demonstrated by the definitions I've quoted: the species is defined as a specific collection of organisms. 'Human' is the colloquial or common name for an individual of the homo sapiens species (just as 'lion' is the common name of an individual of the panthera leo species) so a human organism is a homo sapiens which is (by definition) a human.

The definition does not take development into account, and hence incomplete. An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.) Therefore a organism of the homo sapiens does not necessarily implies it is a human.

[Paprika]

An organism of the species is one of the species, as demonstrated by the definitions I've quoted: the species is defined as a specific collection of organisms. 'Human' is the colloquial or common name for an individual of the homo sapiens species (just as 'lion' is the common name of an individual of the panthera leo species) so a human organism is a homo sapiens which is (by definition) a human.

The definition does not take development into account, and hence incomplete.

So you assert.

An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.) Therefore a organism of the homo sapiens does not necessarily implies it is a human.

Mere assertion.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]
Not just mere assertion, remember the reasoning I provided re: eggs and acorns?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 476 by Paprika]

An organism of a species does not necessarily implies it is a (insert noun appropriate for that species.) Therefore a organism of the homo sapiens does not necessarily implies it is a human.

Mere assertion.

Could you explain why you disagree here?

Is the eye of a human a human?

Perhaps, Paprika you could provide us your definition ( unique as it might be ) of an "organism", since the term is so pertinent to your argument that an egg ( organism ) is a chicken ( another organism).

I think it's safe to say that we are in disagreement that an egg is a different organism than an chicken, or that an embryo is a different kind of organism than a human. You seem to be saying that an egg is the same organism as a chicken, but they are only in different stages of development. The people who disagree with you seem to say that eggs are a different kind of an organism than a chicken, an acorn is a different kind of organism as the organism we call "tree", and that a human embryo is a different kind of organism than a human, and that a human eye is a different kind of organism than a human, too.

Does that help to clarify our opposed perspectives?

I feel a new thread coming on.