User talk:Choytw/Annoying/Content

@6: Life begins at conception, but anything approaching human life takes a while. --71.229 20:08, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Babies don't have a right to live, they're fucking annoying.  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ  20:11, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Parasite: 1)an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2)a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. Since the fetus is of the same species, it falls into the 2nd definition along with infants. Since this neither helps nor hurts your argument, I'll go to the next part. You believe that the ability to gain intelligence is what denotes right to life (just a note, zygotes are human --human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. American Heritage Dictionary -- what you're arguing is they don't have a right to life). At what point do you consider the right to life being granted to a baby? € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞ [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Please, no comments like that Ricky. @ 71.229: so you agree it's living.  That's the first step that usually takes a while.  Next, whether it's human (this is different than arguing when it has a right to life)...why don't you think it is human?  Make your best argument that it's not a human  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   20:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * No jokes? I'm a sad Ricky :(  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ [[Image:Panic_srsbsns.gif|37px]] 20:19, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It's a one-celled organism that happens to have human chromosomes. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't self-aware, it isn't human. --71.229 20:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Define self-aware...  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ [[Image:Panic_srsbsns.gif|37px]] 20:22, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC)Sorry Ricky - just treat me like an old man when it comes to jokes about babies lol... anyway @anon who isn't so anon: you say 'happens' like it might have gone another way lol.  Is someone who was born brain dead but alive not human? You could say the potential is there if not the actuality, and I could say the same about the zygote. It has the potential to have self-consciousness. The zygote in this case, would even be more human than the brain dead dude since the brain dead guy will never be self-conscious.  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   20:25, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Recognizing yourself as a self-contained individual and recognizing that other things/people may be the same. --71.229 20:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT) the english language doesn't have enough nouns
 * And yes, I'm saying the brain-dead dude isn't human. He's homo sapiens sapiens, sure, but he's lacking the bits necessary to make him human.  And honestly, potential doesn't count for a lot until it happens. --71.229 20:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Just so you know, that is the 'right to life' discussion I was talking about earlier. A brain dead guy is human, but he many not have 'a right to life'.  At what point do you believe a baby does gain this right?  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   20:34, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That's the tricky bit. We haven't quantified exactly at what point thought becomes intelligence, anecdotes become data, behavior become personality, yet, and it probably won't happen until we start playing with AI. --71.229 20:38, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * But you do believe that a birthed baby has a right to life? (not being a dick, but you never know and it sets up another line of reasoning) € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   20:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, once the nervous system has developed the only thing that's stopping potential from becoming reality is time. --71.229 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * How is that different from a zygote? (regarding what separates potential from reality being time) € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   20:46, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This is why I hate arguing when I'm not thinking straight, I always fuck myself with imprecisison. :/
 * A baby is a human without any experiences. Babies are also capable of learning quickly from experience and then applying those experiences to learn even more, and are therefore intelligent (or have the ability to quickly achieve intelligence.  the tricky bit is in here somewhere).  A zygote is a parasite with human DNA that has to grow to achieve that (two degrees of potential involved - it has potential to achieve potential), and being as short of that tricky bit as they are, it's enough for me to consider them non-human. --71.229 20:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * No worries, I was pretty sure I knew where you'd go, but wanted to make sure. I'm going to eventually get to the argument I've been aiming for, but first, what about the zygote makes it a parasite?  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   21:09, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It's entirely dependent on its host for sustinence and gives nothing back. Technically, that makes it a parasite.
 * Also, it's probably going to be a while before I reply to this again, got work to do, so don't mind any long pauses. --71.229 21:47, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * No worries, I was about to say the same thing. Technically you're right, but not in the definition that you might be thinking of.

(resetting)I was reading back through the above, and think you might have answered this with your post: "That's the tricky bit. We haven't quantified exactly at what point thought becomes intelligence, anecdotes become data, behavior become personality, yet, and it probably won't happen until we start playing with AI." Do you not believe that a mind which is self-aware, would fit into this category of having a right to life? € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞ [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   22:09, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I think that's pretty much what he said. Also, 'self aware' is either difficult to define and measure, or impossible, which is the problem. (By some definitions and Biological theories, we can't be self aware, so...)  &not; «Ðêjh»   (talk)  22:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, basically. Keep in mind that I'm writing this from a human rather than a universal perspective, so it's not so much a right to life as it is a right to not be (unrightfully) deprived of their life by another human. --71.229 22:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This will probably be my last tonight. By self-aware, I mean a mind which perceives.  An infant, everyone would probably agree, is self-aware by this definition.  Do you think that it is this which constitutes right to life? (anon (feel free to drop a name for me to use...feel odd using anon), I'm pretty sure that's what I mean by a right to life - someone kills an infant, the infant's right to life was violated.  It is this right which, if I'm correct, you don't believe applies to a fetus)  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   22:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm using a different definition of self-aware, meaning someone who recognizes that they are a self-contained individual and that others are the same. It's not a particularly good guideline, but it works since it's a necessary development in becoming human and there needs to be a defined boundary for what constitutes 'human' for a discussion like this.  Short of being human, a fetus is just a bundle of half-formed organs and potential, which isn't a thing to waste readily, but if the mother feels it's necessary I don't have a problem with her getting rid of it (since it's short of actually being a human).  And my username is 71.229, just call me 71 or anon or whatever you want. :) --71.229 22:53, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * A blind baby does not recognize, at first, that he/she is separate from anyone else - hence why I believe that a perceiving mind is a better definition since I don't think you'd condone killing a blind baby. After we both have the same definition for 'self-awareness' I'll move on.  Until then, it seems impossible to since we would both be talking about different situations.  And roger that 71 ;-)   € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   23:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Eh, self-awareness is a crappy measure anyway. Let's just go with that-thing-that-makes-people-people.  Which is going to be difficult to quantify. :< --71.229 00:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * why is self-awareness a bad measure?...but you want to go with something which doesn't have a name? ;-) € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   15:15, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Self-awareness is a bad measure because it's part of being human and develops right around the same time as passing the tricky bit, so it's not so much a bad measure as it is just incomplete. --71.229 15:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It's incomplete...so you don't believe a self-aware human has a right to life? € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   15:40, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * What? I'm talking about the yardstick we're using to measure humanity, not anything about right to life. :/ --71.229 15:44, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Aren't they one and the same? If you have humanity (I still think that's a bad word to use since it means: the quality or condition of being human, and human means: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens), then you have a right to life.  If you don't have humanity, then you wouldn't - at least in the aspect we're talking about.  Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   16:00, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * No, that's right. I'm just saying that self-awareness is a bad measure of humanity since it's only part of it. --71.229 16:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Would you agree that if you have a perceiving mind, self-aware, that you would have this 'other-thingness' you're referring to? € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   16:27, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, bit it's like saying that if you have one wall, you have a house. You certainly don't have a house if you don't have that wall, but a wall by itself doesn't make a house. --71.229 00:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Just as a slight sideshow, many of the more intelligent animals(e.g. Dolphins) are self-aware(measured by the fact that they are able to recognize themselves in the mirror). If that were the only measure of "human rights" there would be a lot of criminials out there running free. To possibly give this discussion a new angle, thinks about this: When humans commit crimes, they, to a certain degree, depending on the crime, lose those human rights. So what exactly do you loose when you do that, that you have when you're a child
 * @both of you - True, dolphins are self-aware but I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that's all that is required to have a right to life, but if it is present (and by self-aware I've been referring to a perceiving mind), all other requirements will be there as well.  To use your house example 71, if you see a structure (person) and can tell it has walls (perceiving mind) then you can know that it is a building (right to life human).  As for your example of the convicts, I think it's simply consequences society places on itself for heinous crimes.  I don't believe you've lost anything, but have willingly, of your own free will, forfeited them.  It's almost like an unwritten contract.  When you start learning right and wrong, society pulls you aside and says: you can do anything you want, I can't stop you, but if you get caught, this, this, and this will happen to you.  It's your choice.  € ╠╣ Ω¥†\╩/ ∞  [ ÞΩ┌┐Ð ]   14:49, 22 August 2008 (EDT)