@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus No hey, I appreciate that and the fact that you went the mile with this back and forth. And apologies for my assuming your intent yesterday - you've more than demonstrated I was wrong on that. I've got more thinking to do, but yes this isn't an easy topic :)
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Fair question. I suppose it would be more of an appeal to the relevant person's humanity that they have indeed given it due weight and seriousness - but ultimately you're right here I think, that would be difficult to separate.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus In other words, is termination really being treated as a last resort or just an excuse. I think most reasonable people understand it's not an easy thing especially under some circumstances.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Body autonomy defense usually applies to coercion or threat of life. I think any situation besides that should at least warrant due consideration, compromise, responsibility. I think that's all that most pro-life people advocate for?
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Dependency is a different topic to Human-ness. And going full circle back to the OP, that's disposition and not ontology. The substance still hasn't changed. But let's go there... So are you saying the human is less meaningful because it is bodily dependent?
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Not meaningless. Just irrelevant in this context. Everything goes through phases. What's being tested is why one of those phases declares that it suddenly has more meaning, when it is the same substance throughout.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Well you just listed things that happen during phases, I merely added one more showing they're arbitrary to the point. None of them challenge the substance.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus And to be fair your X handle "thefartingdevil" kinda added to that suspicion lol. I remember looking at that and thinking "yeah they must be trolling".
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus I actually genuinely suspected you were doing that. Not sure if that qualifies as ad hom, usually ad hom is malicious and meant to divert. But fair enough, I could have just asked.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus So in other words... "This guy is dumb"... "No, I think he might be just legit trolling us and not dumb, but I see it and willing to keep it going".
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus No. The purpose of the clip was to highlight a suspicion that you were merely seeking an argument, not a debate. The other guy thought you were being dumb, I was actually giving you credit and thought it would be fun.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Keep pressing the ad hom button. It doesn't show much maturity, if we're weighing who the adult is. I never tried insulting you once. Disappointing though.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Without any language?
But we've distinctly sorted developmental change from change in kind. I don't see any issue in qualifying it?
Or in other words, "phase sortal" vs "substance sortal".
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Huh? Where did OP say there is no change whatsoever. He even referred to change in attachment. And was specifically speaking on ontology. You were the first to bring up development change afaik.
@thefartingdevil@WimzyWillow@MartinusLogicus Beating? The argument hasn't even started. You keep avoiding the part where a human stays a human. It's kind of step 1 in this weird "change" argument you got going ;)