So let me get this straight. You believe that water freezes at a certain point on the “temperature continuum” because *people* set the threshold for freezing. You also think a jet aircraft accelerates along the “speed continuum” and crosses the sound barrier because *people* have determined the speed of sound. I know a lot of USAF pilots who would be interested in manipulating that threshold; may I give them your e-mail address?
I think you give our species (or perhaps yourself) too much credit. If you think nature and physics don’t impose thresholds of their own, then you will never understand my position on when rights should attach. I just knew I was wasting my breath by restating my position for you.
I asked you last time for your counter-proposal, and in response you gave me just what I predicted: another sermon on continua. You have assumed the intellectual fetal position and denied -- incredibly -- there is any such thing as a natural threshold. And you continue to avoid the issue at hand. Like a Trekkie run amok, you seem more interested in pontificating about the space-time continuum than with acknowledging that a natural point exists at which an unborn entity may successfully be identified as a human life. You criticize the notion of conception as the invention of a dolt, but you have repeatedly failed to offer a more logical or more ethically defensible alternative. Not terribly courageous; rather weenie-like.
In conclusion, here’s your original question: When do rights attach? Here’s my answer again: When the life form can be identified as a human life (not, as you imply, at a particular “age”). Your answer is yet to be announced. I have to say I’ve been amused by your reluctance to offer one.
No, I believe that as the temperature drops *gradually* to a plateau, there is a *continuous* series of molecular events that over a period of time *gradually* result in the solidification of water. Then, the temperature *gradually* descends below the plateau. That is, at one end of the continuum you have water, at the other end ice, but there is also everything in between. There is no temperature *point* at which you have ice.
You on the other hand believe the magical temperature is reached and POOF!--no water, all ice. But there is no poof.
You also think a jet aircraft accelerates along the “speed continuum” and crosses the sound barrier because *people* have determined the speed of sound.
No, a jet accelerates along the speed continuum (quotes are unnecessary) and eventually a gradual series of events occurs resulting in the propagation of a wake. At one end of the contuum there are widely spaced sound waves, and the other end there a single wake, and then there is everything in between. There is no speed point separating oscillating sound waves from the wake.
You on the other hand believe the plane accelerates along until POOF! sonic booms. But there is no poof.
And as a matter of fact, to set a perfectly precise temperature or speed point is a matter of human declaration, since the actual physical phenomena do not involve a point, but a contiuum of events. The points are chosen (or measured with error) to occur somewhere within the interesting portion of the continuum.
I think you give our species (or perhaps yourself) too much credit. If you think nature and physics don’t impose thresholds of their own, then you will never understand my position on when rights should attach. I just knew I was wasting my breath by restating my position for you.
We observe many interesting changes in nature, some of which occur on relatively short time scales. However, zoom on that time scale and you'll eventually see that what may have looked like a poof to the uneducated eye, is really a rapid transition along a continuum.
Nature and physics do impose discrete time points, but not on the cellular scale. The apparent continuum doesn't start to break up until you reach quantum scales (or at least quantum phenomena of whatever scale), but that scale is not relevent to most biological discussions.
So you can choose to draw your lines somewhere in the middle of a bell curve or along a rapid upslope, and then declare you've made some grand metaphysical discovery. Unfortunately all you've done is to choose a heuristic and refuse to appreciate the true underlying nature, which is the actual bell curve or upslope and the continuum of its transitions.
And refusing to accept those truths, you've given up on any desire to understand. You might then ask yourself what your real desire is.
I asked you last time for your counter-proposal
I missed it if you did. But your proposal is just as wrong whether or not anyone has a counter-proposal. You base rights on a known falsehood--the discontinuity of biological events. I don't have the answers, I'm just seeking them, kicking the trash aside along the way.
and in response you gave me just what I predicted: another sermon on continua.
Only because you continue to insist the world is flat (metaphorically speaking).
You have assumed the intellectual fetal position and denied -- incredibly -- there is any such thing as a natural threshold.
Hey, if by "threshold" you mean some "continuous series of events", then I accept it. If instead, you mean some infinitessimal time point with significant differences between arbitrary close points on either side, then you are just flat wrong (within the current context).
Like a Trekkie run amok, you seem more interested in pontificating about the space-time continuum than with acknowledging that a natural point exists at which an unborn entity may successfully be identified as a human life.
I said NO SUCH THING. You continue to reveal your ignorance of what a continuum is. I believe there is such a thing as a beard. I also believe there is such a thing as a whisker. However, as you add whiskers, there is no meaningful "threshold" at which you suddenly declare a beard. Continua DO exist, and that is their property. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I didn't create the universe.
You criticize the notion of conception as the invention of a dolt
NOOO. I criticize the notion of a meaningful time point during the process of conception as the invention of a dolt.
but you have repeatedly failed to offer a more logical or more ethically defensible alternative. Not terribly courageous; rather weenie-like.
Would you continue to believe you had two heads until someone gave you a better explanation why you were so smart? Just count your heads. There is just one. I don't know why you're so smart, but you still have just one head.-- Look at the universe. There are no poofs. I don't know when to recognize rights. But I'm not going to get any closer to understanding rights by accepting blatant falsehoods.
If your theory of rights is incompatible with the facts of the universe, you might want to reconsider your theory. Or else, don't claim that being right or wrong matters to you.
In conclusion, here’s your original question: When do rights attach?
Did I really ask such a question? "When-attach" implies a meaningful discrete time point (no rights, then POOF!, rights), which doesn't exist. Are you sure I didn't ask something like "When can we say a thing has rights?" Actually, I think what I probably asked was, "What characteristics allow us to determine if a thing has rights?"
Here’s my answer again: When the life form can be identified as a human life (not, as you imply, at a particular “age”).
So you are quite certain...hypothetically speaking...that no extraterrestrial lifeform we may encounter, no matter how intelligent, can ever have rights? Do you define "rights" as "human"? Or, are there some characteristics of humans that allow you to decide that they have rights. For that matter, what are rights?
Your answer is yet to be announced. I have to say I’ve been amused by your reluctance to offer one.
Why should I offer something I don't have? I'm glad you are amused at my ignorance, but frankly, the real comedy is to be laughed at by a flat-earther.