Koldo
Outstanding Member
Hence what makes killing, relatively easy.
Yes?
No. Why would you think so?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hence what makes killing, relatively easy.
Yes?
Just pointing out that not knowing what you look like and how mirrors work is not the same thing as not having a sense of self-awareness. I would think the fact that the cat is trying to fight the "other" cat indicates a sense of self-awareness, as the cat believes its reflection to represent something that is "not me" and therefore not supposed to be here, and worthy of getting its behind kicked.have you never watched a bird challenge its own reflection in a window or mirror?
And this cat really thinks its fighting another cat... This proves that many animals, even intelligent animals like cats, are not selfaware...they dont have a sense of self like we do.
[youtube]SHnjNSqMNNY[/youtube]
‪Cat fights her reflection‬‏ - YouTube
The cat does not realise that its a "distinct entity apart from other things" So is self awareness really a good way to judge if something is alive?
A fallacy? I don't see any.
Could you present his argument in the following form so i can understand what you are talking about?
'If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.'
Perhaps you may want to repeat what you said I tried to back track but I am confused.
You don't need to formulate it, and its been 15 years since both logic classes. Its called denying the antecedent because the premise of the position draws a conclusion from non-support.
I have said that pro-lifers often argue that (a human child's) life begins at conception. And that the text between parentheses is often omitted.
Then you said this is flawed because gestation is not guaranteed.
And so i asked you: what does the gestation have to do with that?
I assume a zygote being a zygote goes through a process which is why I brought it up
It is a sentient being when it has the potential to be. We might pull the plug on a vegatable that is on complete life support but only in circumstances when the person has no chance of healing. The fetus still has that chance for life so pulling the plug wouldn't be ethical with your sentience arugment. You would have to establish when you consider the fetus a person which could be argued that it begins when the heart starts beating at around three weeks.Since I am fairly new I thought I would open up a discussion regarding the issue of abortion but also the issue of fetal sentience and the ethical implications in abortion. Anti-Abortion activist normally make the argument that life begins at conception--False
Actually, life begins prior to conception since both the sperm and egg cells are living things! So since life exist prior to conception perhaps it is best to target the main ethical issue here which is sentience. From what I do know to experience pain, one needs pain receptors and from my understanding the development of the neocortex which fetuses don't develop until the third trimester--at best seven weeks in the fetus develops a brain stem. I do not believe fetuses that grow into babies are even self-aware. So I guess the issue with me is a being that cannot experience pain or isn't self aware how does abortion become unethical prior to the third trimester?
The way you formulated that is the fallacy called denying the antecedent. Think about it: It doesn't say that P is the only way to get Q. You could still get Q some other way, even if you didn't have P. The only thing it says that if you have P you will have Q. For the same reason, another fallacy would be affirming the consequent:A fallacy? I don't see any.
Could you present his argument in the following form so i can understand what you are talking about?
'If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.'
The argument from potentiality has never really made an impression on me. Afterall, I have the potential of being a brain surgeon. That doesn't mean that I should be given all the rights and responsibilities of a brain surgeon now. If so, then are you willing to offer up your brain to my potential hands?It is a sentient being when it has the potential to be. We might pull the plug on a vegatable that is on complete life support but only in circumstances when the person has no chance of healing. The fetus still has that chance for life so pulling the plug wouldn't be ethical with your sentience arugment. You would have to establish when you consider the fetus a person which could be argued that it begins when the heart starts beating at around three weeks.
The way you formulated that is the fallacy called denying the antecedent. Think about it: It doesn't say that P is the only way to get Q. You could still get Q some other way, even if you didn't have P. The only thing it says that if you have P you will have Q. For the same reason, another fallacy would be affirming the consequent:
If P, then Q
Q
Therefore P
You were probably thinking of modus tollens, which is formulated like this:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore, not P
This would be a correct way to formulate an argument.
Erm...I do understand what is the 'denying the antecedent'.
Let me explain the situation : Otherright claims this fallacy is present in a given post by Hypersonic.
But i don't see this fallacy being used in that post.
Which is why i asked him to formulate the said fallacy committed by Hypersonic. I even posted that form so he would only have to say what is P and Q.
I do know that form is a fallacy, but that is the point.
That is a bit different though. I'm looking at the fetus as an organism that is amidst healing itself to regular functionality. Same as we wouldn't pull the plug on someone that isn't terminal we wouldn't pull the plug on the fetus. Whether to pull the plug is always debateable though as they may not ever get well just depends.The argument from potentiality has never really made an impression on me. Afterall, I have the potential of being a brain surgeon. That doesn't mean that I should be given all the rights and responsibilities of a brain surgeon now. If so, then are you willing to offer up your brain to my potential hands?
That is a bit different though. I'm looking at the fetus as an organism that is amidst healing itself to regular functionality. Same as we wouldn't pull the plug on someone that isn't terminal we wouldn't pull the plug on the fetus. Whether to pull the plug is always debateable though as they may not ever get well just depends.
Talking about NOT pulling the plug is slippery floor (or slipper slope one of them). In some situation pulling the plug is necessary because the quality of life is no more. Similar of a woman being rape who is also a homeless drug addict. To some, there isn't a quality of life.
I look at a tail as a leg.That is a bit different though. I'm looking at the fetus as an organism that is amidst healing itself to regular functionality. Same as we wouldn't pull the plug on someone that isn't terminal we wouldn't pull the plug on the fetus. Whether to pull the plug is always debateable though as they may not ever get well just depends.
Yeah, not like that at all.
Not like what? Ivan talking about quality of life