Tuesday, April 27, 2010

it's a logical fallacy to believe murdering someone would cause harm to the murdered one

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: How do you feel about abortion?
Stranger: Perfectly acceptable
You: What about late-term abortion?
Stranger: Acceptable as well
You: Even at 9 months?
Stranger: That's on the limits, most likely I would not advice aborting at 9 months.
You: Is it not "acceptable as well"?
Stranger: Depends how developed the soon-to-be-child is
You: Already a child.
You: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child
You: Not much development happens in the later months; then it's mostly just growth.
Stranger: This is actually rather thought provoking. It's hard to relate, for I haven't had a child yet, and it's hard to feel for something you are not familiar with.
Stranger: But still, if I was to have a child, I would not encourage abortion at the later stages
You: Thought-provoking.
Stranger: In the early stages though, I don't see any reason why not.
You: It's the same person no matter how old he/she is.
Stranger: But can a fetus be considered as a fully developed person?
You: Nobody can really be considered "fully developed", at least not until puberty.
You: Development continues until death.
Stranger: Yes, well, maybe it was a poor choice of words. By fully developed I meant the fetus being able to think/feel etc. on it's own.
Stranger: Is there data on the case?
You: What do you mean by "think"?
You: Because higher cognitive thought and self-awareness, the kind of thought that distinguishes us from other animals, isn't present in newborns.
You: Around 18 months after birth, IIRC.
Stranger: Then what distinguishes a fetus from a child?
You: Nothing, really.
You: There's nothing magical about the birth canal.
You: Human development is a continuum.
Stranger: But in early stages, the fetus doesn't have practically any sort of developed brain functions/muscle control etc.
You: What do you mean by "muscle control"?
You: Do you mean above reflex actions/
You: Because to go past reflex actions you really need cognitive thought.
You: Which brings us back to the 18 months thing.
Stranger: Yes, you are of course correct. But that's the very reason why I would accept abortion at the earlier stages. Can a fetus really be considered a person when it can hardly be differentiated from other mammals?
You: The exact same could be said of a newborn.
You: Now, there are those who say that infanticide is okay up to a year after birth.
You: I hope you aren't one of them.
Stranger: No, can't say that I am. As I mentioned before, it's hard to feel for anything that you are not familiar with. That's why it's easier to accept abortion of an unborn child than of one that has been born. You get in contact with it, or him if you please, which leads to stronger emotions being formed.
Stranger: And let me correct myself
Stranger: Of course I didn't mean abortion of a born child, that would be absurd.
You: You can see an unborn child through ultrasound or fetoscopy.
Stranger: I meant infanticide as you said it.
Stranger: Yes, but that's all you get. Images on a screen.
You: Seems like you aren't thinking rationally.
You: It's the same baby.
Stranger: Of course it's better than nothing at all, but frankly, the fetus/child you are looking at through ultrasound doesn't really resemble anything humane (at the very early stages)
You: What about premies?
You: 6 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=35
You: They look just like humans are supoposed to at that age.
Stranger: As said before, it's hard to relate. Nevertheless, I'd accept it. Since the child doesn't have any sort of higher cognitive functions, can it really feel it's surroundings and remember anything? Does it bring harm to it if it's life is ended with no trace of pain?
You: I could easily end anyone's life with no trace of pain.
You: It's called a bullet between the eyes.
You: As for higher cognitive functions, newborns are pretty stupid compared to the animal kingdom.
Stranger: Yes, precisely. If you do the "bullet between the eyes", does it bring one any harm. It can't, for you can't remember/feel anything whatsoever after dying.
You: Yes, it can cause harm, because that person is dead.
You: Forever.
You: Anything they would've done they can no longer do.
Stranger: That causes harm to the persons relatives and friends. Not to the person itself, since the person never has a clue what has happened to him. He will never know he even existed, so it's exactly like he has never done it.
You: Are you saying it causes no harm to murder someone?
You: The decades lost to that person mean nothing/
You: ?
Stranger: No, that I am not saying. I am saying that "murdering someone", as frankly as you put it (albeit you are right), doesn't cause any harm to the one murdered. Don't start to speculate now, I would never, never, murder anyone. But yes, decades lost to that person will mean nothing, since he will never know that he has lost those decades.
You: So, murdering someone with no family is perfectly okay?
Stranger: Thinking logically, yes, it would be perfectly okay. There is this matter called conscience though, which prevents most people, including me from doing those things.
Stranger: I guess it's about preserving ones own species.
You: Good luck getting that approved by anyone.
Stranger: I don't want it to get approved by anyone
You: Would you support a law murdering homeless people?
Stranger: Naturally not, don't be absurd.
You: Why not?
You: By your logic, it'd be fine.
Stranger: No, you completely missed my point it seems. I am a human so naturally I want to preserve my own species which stops me from killing other human beings, also called conscience. I would NEVER murded anyone, but it's a logical fallacy to believe murdering someone would cause harm to the murdered one.
You: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harm
You: I'd call a bullet to the head "physical injury".
Stranger: Now we are just nitpicking, but I'll go with it.
Stranger: How do you define physical injury?
You: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/injury
You: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical
Stranger: Now we're going in circles, the article about injuries mentions harm in many cases, which is where we started at. There is this one input with: "wrong or injustice done or suffered.", though.
Stranger: Or actually, could you by any means select the most appropriate one out of those inputs on that webpage?
Stranger: You can naturally think of one yourself as well.
You: What do you mean?
Stranger: Numerous inputs on the webpage define injury as some sort of harm done or suffered by a person. Harm is a rather abstract concept, could you please define it somehow more definitively?
You: Harm is damage.
Stranger: So physical injury would mean physical damage, correct?
You: Correct.
You: Someone with a massive bullet wound is damaged.
Stranger: Now, in order to define whether physical damage is done to a person, we'd have to ask from the person who has been dealt that damage whether he feels like he has been dealt damage to, since damage is a very subjective concept, correct? (My apologies if there were any grammatical errors there, English is not my native language).
Stranger: Please ask to simplify something if I made some mistakes
Stranger: we'd have to ask the personÄ
Stranger: *
You: No, that's not true.
You: If I smash a chair with a hammer, it's damaged.
You: I can't ask the chair.
Stranger: But you can ask the owner of the chair.
Stranger: If the owner of the chair doesn't think it's damaged, is it really damaged?
You: Yes, it is.
You: I could go into the wilderness and poison a tree.
You: The tree is owned by no one and feels nothing, yet is still harmed.
You: I could nuke Pluto.
You: I could take a chainsaw to a stray cat.
Stranger: If you nuked Pluto, I could still say: "I don't think Pluto is damaged, it's actually improved now!", it means I do not find that it's damaged, ergo damage is a subjective concept.
You: No, you would just be wrong.
Stranger: No, the majority of the people would think I'm wrong. I, however wouldn't. Meaning it's subjective once again.
Stranger: Nothing in this whole world can be completely objective
Stranger: It just isn't possible
Stranger: Just for the record, I want to thank you in advance, for this is one of the most intriguing conversations I've had in ages.
Stranger: And I do want to say I understand your point. No doubt about it.
You: Much better than "hi 17/m/uk wanna see my throbbing cock?"
Stranger: Precisely
You: One of the reasons I do this.
Stranger: Out of pure curiosity, how old are you?
Stranger: You do not have to answer if you don't feel like it, of course.
You: Okay neat.
You: I'm [redacted]
Stranger: Interesting
You: depends on when u start counting
Stranger: I would have taken you for someone older.
You: I get that a lot.
Stranger: Most likely so
Stranger: Well, it was a pleasure to talk to you. I need to leave now, perhaps we can have another argument at some later point (highly unlikely, albeit desirable).
You: You got email?
You: Or AIM?
Stranger: My email is [censored]
Stranger: Looking forward to hearing from you again, good bye.
You: okay
Your conversational partner has disconnected.
Was this conversation great? Share the log on Facebook or download it!

No comments:

Post a Comment