Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:08:41 +0100
Phil Saunders wrote:
"PG" <pgk9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:480b5d4d$0$903$ba4acef3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: QbcNJmFlc1CIFwZs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <MPG.2270a8167703a2f98978d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Higgins
<tom.higgins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Peter Ashby takes the idea of fuzziness to the point of not wanting
to declare that anyone is a human being. He doesn't want to draw any
lines. /Some/ amount of fuzziness can be acceptable. But so far as
he has explained his position I would guess that if there was a
single human sperm 10 feet away from an unfertilized human egg, he
would declare that it was fuzzy whether it should count as a human
being or not. That would not be reasonable. I also do not think it
would be reasonable of him to deny that /he/ was a human being. So
lines /can/ be drawn. A retreat behind a position of "it's all
fuzzy" goes nowhere.
It's also so unscientific, isn't it?
What imho would be especially unscientific would be to draw lines without
sufficient evidence to theorise that there are lines in the first place.
pga
Anyone who says that "x is not human" or fully human or truly human or
whatever has already drawn a line somewhere.
This is just not true.
I say that a separated sperm-plus-egg don't constitute a human being,
even if it happens that they're going to end up together. But I deny
that there is any clear dividing *line* between not-a-human-being
and a-human-being. Of course I could be wrong, but I assure you
that to the best of my knowledge I really truly don't believe that
there is any such dividing line.
If they refuse to admit that the line exists then either they are self
decieved or are being deceitful.
I suppose that means that you claim I am either lying or deceiving
myself. Of course I can't possibly prove that you're wrong, so
suffice it to say that (1) I see absolutely no evidence that you're
right and (2) I don't think it unreasonable to suppose that I'm
better acquainted with my mind than you are.
All this talk of fuzziness is a smokescreen in order to avoid saying
something concrete that can be seen to be as arbitray as that which the
poster does not agree with imho.
I don't think an opinion that leads you to claim you know my mind
better than I do is "humble", so I suggest that you consider saying
"imao" rather than "imho".
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: PG
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Phil Saunders
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- References:
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Tom Higgins
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Tom Higgins
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Tom Higgins
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Michael J Davis
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: PG
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- From: Phil Saunders
- Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- Prev by Date: Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- Next by Date: Re: Religion is "the new social evil"
- Previous by thread: Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- Next by thread: Re: The wicked untruths of our church leaders
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|