22 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI know what it means. "An inference that does not follow from the premises".
You may want to look up what 'non sequitur' means in logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Now please demonstrate that my question does not follow from your assertion.
Show that your idiotic inference arises from the premises.
22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerStop lying. You quote a historian and then claim that ALL historians agree with some dubious assertion of yours. You do this in other disciplines all the time and claim that the view of "experts" is dispositive (something I don't do; your idiotic claims about my believing everything the US Supreme Court says are an example of a deliberate falsehood, nothing else). So my point is accurate as to YOU.
So, according to the Act, species that do not have the necessary organ systems are not alive at all?
EDIT: And please do not accuse me of being the one accepting the views of experts only when they agree with my preconceptions. I can recall several lengthy discussions (on Galileo, for instance) where you've rejected numerous historians and scientis ing" species that only have part of the relevant systems (e.g. notochordates comes to mind).
Defining when a human being is dead is defining when a human being is dead. The law isn't defining death as an intellectual exercise like the mental masturbation you engage in.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderDefining when a human being is dead for specific legal purposes is defining when a human being is dead for specific legal purposes and no more. If you want to accuse anyone of mental masturbation, look in a mirror -- you're the one taking a law and turning it into a universal philosophical precept.
Stop lying. You quote a historian and then claim that ALL historians agree with some dubious assertion of yours. You do this in other disciplines all the time and claim that the view of "experts" is dispositive (something I don't do; your idiotic claims about my believing everything the US Supreme Court says are an example of a deliberate falsehood, noth ...[text shortened]... isn't defining death as an intellectual exercise like the mental masturbation you engage in.
(Re: experts) Stop now before you shoot yourself in the foot further. You question or cite experts as authority depending on when it suits your purpose. If an expert disagrees with your position your usual response is to try and attack the historian/scientist/whoever personally rather than address the argument in question. Can you back and point out where I've done that in this thread?
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll go one better. According to the you:
I know what it means. "An inference that does not follow from the premises".
Show that your idiotic inference arises from the premises.
"The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."
According to this definition, a dead cow or elephant would also be a "dead human being".
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerInteresting. According to Wikipedia, an organism must have organs and therefore must be multicellular. I've noted this mistake down in the discussion page. However it seems someone else did the same before I did, so I just agreed with him.
Except that the sperm does not reproduce. You may want to look up the definition of 'reproduction':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
The gamete is simply not an organism. You may want to look up 'organism' as well.
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're a true moron. Your nitpicking and refusal to read comments in context leads you to such retarded "refutations" of other people's statements on a consistent basis.
I'll go one better. According to the you:
"The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An [b]individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."
According to this definition, a dead cow or elephant would also be a "dead human being".[/b]
23 Feb 07
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're a complete moron. Are you claiming that a human being can be dead for "specific legal purposes" but yet somehow be alive? Do you really think that the AMA was saying that?
Defining when a human being is dead for specific legal purposes is defining when a human being is dead for specific legal purposes and no more. If you want to accuse anyone of mental masturbation, look in a mirror -- you're the one taking a law and turning it into a universal philosophical precept.
(Re: experts) Stop now before you shoot yourself i ...[text shortened]... ress the argument in question. Can you back and point out where I've done that in this thread?
EDIT: In fact, the medical community decided in the 60's to re-examine the traditional definition of death based on changes in medical technology which made it possible for persons in an irreversible coma with no brain functions to continue to exist; this review had little to do with any "specific legal purposes". http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/24/Redefining-Death.html
The law subsequently caught up with the changes made by the medical profession - so you have the cart pulling the horse.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, I did mean to respond to your "gametes as true Homo sapiens; human beings as intermediate reproductive vehicles" (I'm paraphrasing, of course) post, but missed out. I'll try to get back to it in some detail later.
Interesting. According to Wikipedia, an organism must have organs and therefore must be multicellular. I've noted this mistake down in the discussion page. However it seems someone else did the same before I did, so I just agreed with him.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderOn the contrary, I am reading it in the context of the use you put it to. Since you used the AMA-sponsored UDA definition to say what a living human being was (and therefore what a human being was), I'm pointing out that the definition classifies dead cows and elephants (or most/all chordates in general) as "dead human beings". Which, by the very logic you're espousing, would mean that living cows and elephants are living human beings.
You're a true moron. Your nitpicking and refusal to read comments in context leads you to such retarded "refutations" of other people's statements on a consistent basis.
Of course both of us know this result is absurd (not in terms of formal logical, but in terms of common sense). And the reason we know it's absurd is because the UDA definition presupposed that we all know what a human being is; the definition of a human being cannot be derived from UDA.
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course that's what the AMA was saying. Why do you think 'brain death' was introduced in the first place? The AMA didn't want doctors and hospitals keeping (or being forced to keep) people endlessly alive on artificial support when their bodies had practically no chance of ever recovering (not to mention the liability if a doctor ever "pulled the plug" ).
You're a complete moron. Are you claiming that a human being can be dead for "specific legal purposes" but yet somehow be alive? Do you really think that the AMA was saying that?
EDIT: In fact, the medical community decided in the 60's to re-examine the traditional definition of death based on changes in medical technology which made it possible for p with the changes made by the medical profession - so you have the cart pulling the horse.
The medical profession is a practical science -- it's main objective is the application of biological concepts and theories to human healthcare. It isn't trying to make theoretical biological determinations. Since the vast majority of medical patients are post-natal human beings (and yes, doctors do care for embryos and fetuses), naturally the main concern of the AMA would be what defines death for those human beings.