hecatomb
Banned
Ya thats a great idea, just have people never talk about anything.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man assault woman for disagreeing
- Thread starter MayauMiao
- Start date
nemiroff
Gold Member
They were having a peaceful event where they silently held up signs. The guy started to vandalize their signs and the woman confronted him. He then roundhouse-kicked her while smirking. Your attempt to shift the blame is fucked up.
Last edited:
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
Man that kick had the strength of getting hit with a pool noodle. Still a shitty move.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Not saying attacks don't happen, I'm sure they do, just the video seems a bit staged.
hecatomb
Banned
Well he got fired and the cops are out looking for him, so I'm not sure how thats fake.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Fwiw I'm pro choice but I can understand the pro life view. If your view is that the baby is a human life (and that's not controversial) then you are going to feel that it's murder. I take my pro choice position for my own reasons but it would be wrong of me to discount other people's honestly held beliefs. Further, disagreeing with someone is never a good enough reason for violence.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
lock2k
Banned
I would punch his face repeatedly if I had the chance.
Having suffered through a painful miscarriage (I didn't endure the physical pain and can't imagine how my wife felt) but the emotional pain was real as fuck. We lost our second child and we felt this immense pain. And some clowns advocate abortion like it's nothing. Fuck these weirdos.
Pro-life for life. And not because of religion or anything like that, but because of logic, the logic of a human being having the right to be born.
Having suffered through a painful miscarriage (I didn't endure the physical pain and can't imagine how my wife felt) but the emotional pain was real as fuck. We lost our second child and we felt this immense pain. And some clowns advocate abortion like it's nothing. Fuck these weirdos.
Pro-life for life. And not because of religion or anything like that, but because of logic, the logic of a human being having the right to be born.
The Question Mark
Banned
Don't worry guys just imagine she's a nazi, then it's all okay.
Thurible
Member
Lifenews (not to be confused with lifesitenews) recently wrote an article claiming that the assaulter, Jordan Hunt, has done this sort of thing before.
"Jordan Hunt, a Toronto, Canada man who allegedly assaulted a young, female pro-lifer on Sunday, also may have assaulted another pro-life woman this summer.
Jonathon Van Maren at The Bridgehead said pro-lifers at the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform thought the man in a now-viral video of the assault looked familiar.
“When they reviewed footage of an assault on one of our young female interns earlier this summer during a pro-life demonstration in Toronto, we discovered why: Jordan Hunt was the attacker. It turns out that his assault earlier this week is not the first time he has attacked a pro-life female for expressing her views in public,” Van Maren wrote.
He said the pro-life group has notified police. Authorities have not confirmed the man’s identity in either attack though it appears to be the same person.
The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform also released a video of the incident. The first clip shows a man grabbing a pro-life woman’s sign as she stands on a street corner in the distance, almost knocking her into traffic. He is wearing a black backpack and no shirt.
Later, in a close-up shot, what appears to be the same man argues with pro-lifers and admits he “tried to knock your stupid billboard of a sign” out of the woman’s hands. He also says he tried to take their signs and pamphlets and “arguably that is wrong,” but he justifies his actions by claiming pro-lifers “are trying to f— with other peoples choices.”
Here is a video of what appears to be Jordan Hunt harrassing another group of pro-lifers and almost throwing a person into oncoming traffic.
On other incidents with other people, unrelated to Hunt-
"Bissonnette indicated that she was not the only person targeted Sunday during the Life Chains. In Mississagua, she said someone walked up to a pro-life advocate from behind and poured paint over his clothes while he was praying.
LifeNews has reported about dozens of threats, vandalism and other violence against pro-life advocates in the past year. These range from threats against prominent pro-life politicians like U.S. Reps. Chris Smith, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Steve Scalise to a Missouri sidewalk counselor who had a gun pointed at him. In September, a popular conservative blogger was under police protection after she received rape and death threats because of a pro-life tweet."
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/10/04...-assaulted-another-pro-life-woman-previously/
"Jordan Hunt, a Toronto, Canada man who allegedly assaulted a young, female pro-lifer on Sunday, also may have assaulted another pro-life woman this summer.
Jonathon Van Maren at The Bridgehead said pro-lifers at the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform thought the man in a now-viral video of the assault looked familiar.
“When they reviewed footage of an assault on one of our young female interns earlier this summer during a pro-life demonstration in Toronto, we discovered why: Jordan Hunt was the attacker. It turns out that his assault earlier this week is not the first time he has attacked a pro-life female for expressing her views in public,” Van Maren wrote.
He said the pro-life group has notified police. Authorities have not confirmed the man’s identity in either attack though it appears to be the same person.
The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform also released a video of the incident. The first clip shows a man grabbing a pro-life woman’s sign as she stands on a street corner in the distance, almost knocking her into traffic. He is wearing a black backpack and no shirt.
Later, in a close-up shot, what appears to be the same man argues with pro-lifers and admits he “tried to knock your stupid billboard of a sign” out of the woman’s hands. He also says he tried to take their signs and pamphlets and “arguably that is wrong,” but he justifies his actions by claiming pro-lifers “are trying to f— with other peoples choices.”
Here is a video of what appears to be Jordan Hunt harrassing another group of pro-lifers and almost throwing a person into oncoming traffic.
On other incidents with other people, unrelated to Hunt-
"Bissonnette indicated that she was not the only person targeted Sunday during the Life Chains. In Mississagua, she said someone walked up to a pro-life advocate from behind and poured paint over his clothes while he was praying.
LifeNews has reported about dozens of threats, vandalism and other violence against pro-life advocates in the past year. These range from threats against prominent pro-life politicians like U.S. Reps. Chris Smith, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Steve Scalise to a Missouri sidewalk counselor who had a gun pointed at him. In September, a popular conservative blogger was under police protection after she received rape and death threats because of a pro-life tweet."
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/10/04...-assaulted-another-pro-life-woman-previously/
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
Ultimately, doesn't just about every political issue come down to "trying to f--- with other peoples choices?" That's really not a good reason for violence.
Also, the thing about the video that struck me the most was that he didn't apologize and express concern for someone he claims to have accidentally physically assaulted. Even giving the full benefit of doubt to his claim, "I was trying to kick her phone" or whatever he said should have been followed up immediately by some genuine regret and concern.
ILLtown
Member
Agreed 100%. The guy was only concerned about what was going to happen to him because of his actions, not about the woman he'd potentially injured. Even thinking that it would have been OK if he'd just kicked her phone out of her hands and smashed it shows what a tit he is.
haxan7
Banned
I think it was just an actual pentagram that happened to be facing upside down, not a purposely inverted pentagram or a sigil of baphomet, which are symbols associated with Satanism in general or the Church of Satan.
I would be surprised if he was an actual Satanist; Satanists are far too self serving to commit such a blatantly self-endangering act as assaulting another person in view of many witnesses while being recorded on video.
If he is a Satanist, he's not a very good one.
Separately, I feel compelled to point out that your characterization of Satanists in your post is woefully inaccurate. It is the duty of every Satanist to respect every person's beliefs, even if they contradict the views of the Satanist, so long as they don't directly and in an immediate sense interfere with his ability to live his life freely as he chooses.
Last edited:
I fucking hate this argument. It's essentially arguing aborting children is a moral good. As if the quality of a human being is determined by your parents net worth
By that logic, shouldn't we castrate poor women at the start. I mean, we don't want them bear children who will be drains on society.
HaveButOneLife
Banned
Abortion is murder.
lock2k
Banned
I can't help but think that there is a correlation between being ugly a fuck and being part of these movements.
Most left-sjw-feminists-whatever-the-fuck-whiny-people I see have serious problems about self-esteem, are really ugly or, if they were once good looking, turn themselves into their ugliest versions possible.
You never see a genuinely good looking guy that's a male feminist. It's always some ugly weirdo p.o.s.
Is it just me or is this the norm?
Most left-sjw-feminists-whatever-the-fuck-whiny-people I see have serious problems about self-esteem, are really ugly or, if they were once good looking, turn themselves into their ugliest versions possible.
You never see a genuinely good looking guy that's a male feminist. It's always some ugly weirdo p.o.s.
Is it just me or is this the norm?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Probably because good looking and/or confident men do not need to weasel their way into a female movement posing as an "ally".
Those dudes are slaying on Tinder with those very "feminist" women sometimes, that the weasels are hoping to "charm" [see: prey] in a backdoor'ed approach.
Last edited:
MrHeisenbird
Member
God will damn them to Hell if they do that, so no.
Good thing my conscience pulled through in this thread. There's no debating with people putting abortion and slavery on the same level.
lock2k
Banned
Exactly!!
GermanZepp
Member
Abortion or "Voluntary interruption of the pregnancy" was a hot topic here in Argentina months ago. I understand both sides. The thing is.. each side cosiders the other murders in the sense that. The pro abortion people says that "Women's die in ilegal abortion center", the Pro life says "There are killing unborn babys"..
GermanZepp
Member
God will damn them to Hell if they do that, so no.
Good thing my conscience pulled through in this thread. There's no debating with people putting abortion and slavery on the same level.
The real debate with abortion is "When the fetus is considered to be a human" a that is a hell of a discussion to have.
Coolio McAwesome
Member
There’s not much to say about this. SJWs are sub-human and Cuck Norris is a piece of shit.
lock2k
Banned
The pro-choice side also have the choice to use condoms and pills and shit... and yet they chose to risk and abort later.
Mochilador
Member
Holy fuck, that's unreal.
Thurible
Member
The issue of abortion is indeed very different from the issue of slavery, but it has some key points in common (particularly on the value of human life, but more on that later), I merely used the comparison to show how foolish his comment was. If the abolitionists of old took his advice, slavery would have never been outlawed.God will damn them to Hell if they do that, so no.
Good thing my conscience pulled through in this thread. There's no debating with people putting abortion and slavery on the same level.
People have a right to fight for their beliefs, and the issue of abortion ultimately comes to when a human being's life has value, or does it even have intrinsic value in the first place.
Scientifically speaking, human life begins at the moment of conception. Any argument against that is idiotic and contrary to the truth. The problem that can be argued is whether or not the unborn have the right to live, and I would argue that the child does. She/he doesn't have any choice in the matter and every human organism has the right to life and autonomy. To abort the child would take away that autonomy. The person in the womb might change the would significantly and we would never know. The world would be deprived of a unique human person either way.
Whether you like it or not, there are good reasons to be pro-life and when people perceive a societal injustice, they try to change it. Protesting abortion is not an evil thing and it gets people involved and think about the issue. If they were literally telling them to go to hell or hitting the pro-choice people and not having a dialogue, then they are being poor protestors that aren't helping anyone. I don't believe that most protestors are like that though.
Tell me why the pro-life protestors are idiotic, give me a good reason. They aren't hurting anyone and are trying to mend a societal ill that is growing throughout western culture. They are trying to show that all human life; deformed, sick, old, young, healthy, has value and should be respected. To be pro-life is to respect all human life, which is why we in general are not only against abortion, but euthanasia, and the death penalty.
Is the best answer to let our problems stay and do nothing to fix them? Why was my comparison wrong, both were legal instutions that had people believe certain groups are sub-human and are thus are subject to others and can be treated as some kind of an object? I also never said they were the same, I just compared the two to point out the problem with <+)O Robido O(+>'s logic, but they do both deal with the idea of the sub-human.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
I don’t know what’s worse, his failed attempt or her pig squealing.
Jon Neu
Banned
You are such a good person for not condoning violence against "those people" that have comitted the "moronic" act of thinking different of you.
Of course people who think that killing an embryo is bad should be called morons. Thank God we have people "genuinely" preoccupied for women and human rights like you.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
The behavior of many in the radical far left is so extreme, it is hard to believe it's real when you see it on video.
They may not want to watch the world burn per se, but the rest of the quote applies, and the end result of their actions is the world burning to cinders.
While there is no consciousness, the collection of cells can probably be terminated. But if there is consciousness, it cannot. My body my rules means nothing. Say what happens if the world exists in the body of a higher dimensional being, or the mind of a super intelligence? In such a hypothetical scenario could adult human beings be terminated willy nilly because their body their rules? Senseless.
The woman that says she can terminate a full grown baby because her body her rules, does not realize that she herself, and her entire world, may be part of the body of some posthuman god.
IF someone believes abortion is murder, in their eyes it is far worse than slavery.God will damn them to Hell if they do that, so no.
Good thing my conscience pulled through in this thread. There's no debating with people putting abortion and slavery on the same level.
The thing is what do you mean by human life? Vitalism... the elan vital was disproved. The cell is but a machine, a collection of molecular machines and associated molecules. Cells build the component for more cells, and through self-replication BUILD a baby. But cells in and of themselves have no rights. It is only a matter of time before virtually any cell in the body can be turned into a full human without requiring an ovum for cloning.
A good portion of the first world is having population issues, and importing migrants to attempt to solve the issue. Seems like if abortion is outlawed the birth rate may very well increase providing a solution that will not lead to radical cultural change. If politicians are unwilling to provide incentives to increase birth rate sufficiently, perhaps this issue will be able to move them to action.
As for illegal abortions, computing power is increasing, enough automated policing and that will be basically nonexistent.
Last edited:
Weiji
Banned
Just watched a second video of this guy physically going after people and then self justifying on video.
I was wrong he didn’t make a one off bad choice, he legit thinks physically going after people and property is ok because of a verbal disagreement.
Hope he ends up in jail a long time and never works again. Fuck him.
I was wrong he didn’t make a one off bad choice, he legit thinks physically going after people and property is ok because of a verbal disagreement.
Hope he ends up in jail a long time and never works again. Fuck him.
Iaterain
Member
What pregnant lady will do is none of anyones business.
I don't believe that those loud activists from both sides are acting on their own. They most likely are brain-washed, instructed and got paid per-hour.
This young man were probably too ashamed of what he was doing on the street so when he noticed a woman who were recording him on camera, he decided to destroy all records by force.
Human are very intelligent creatures. It is an art to deflect their attention and keep them busy from the real problems, like: inevitability of economic crises, losing privacy, environmental pollution, inefficient education system, poverty and wars.
It is sad but our system don't need intelligent and well educated people. Most of the people should be stupid and predictable so high society can keep living in the real life heaven.
I don't believe that those loud activists from both sides are acting on their own. They most likely are brain-washed, instructed and got paid per-hour.
This young man were probably too ashamed of what he was doing on the street so when he noticed a woman who were recording him on camera, he decided to destroy all records by force.
Human are very intelligent creatures. It is an art to deflect their attention and keep them busy from the real problems, like: inevitability of economic crises, losing privacy, environmental pollution, inefficient education system, poverty and wars.
It is sad but our system don't need intelligent and well educated people. Most of the people should be stupid and predictable so high society can keep living in the real life heaven.
Sakura Doritos
Member
Step up like a man, get beat down like a man.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Equal rights, equal fights?
I still stick by my statement, I would hold far greater restraint with a woman, than a man. I would have to literally fear for my life to incapacitate a woman in that instance.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
If she does drugs or alcohol who do you think will bear the burden of that? If she does any activity that induces miscarriage in late term(8-9 months)? is this not anyone's business?
Thurible
Member
When I said that human life scientifically starts at conception, I meant that the start of the human organism begins at conception. They have their own unique dna and what is growing in the mother is not a parasite nor tumor. I was making a scientific claim when I made that statement. I then said the argument lies within if the unborn have intrinsic value, NOT if they are human, because that is an absolute scientific truth.
I did not know what the term vitalism meant until you made me look it up, and apparently it means that living things are different from inanimate objects because of unseen forces like souls for example. That life cannot be reduced purely through scientific means. I would certainly agree that living things have souls and have a hierarchy of value of worth. I would say that a rock is lower than a dog, which is lower than a human.
I was a one celled being once, I had no thoughts and could do nothing but develop within my mother's womb, yet I believe I was still a person at that point. I was alive and genetically a human being, I also believe I had a soul. Everything that made me physically who I am today came from one celled me. Why does a one celled human organism not have rights?
Overpopulation is a very exaggerated problem and it is mostly a problem in developing nations. I would argue that there is no such thing as overpopulation, however there is a problem with resource management. There is more than enough food and resources to feed everyone, they just aren't distributed equally to everyone. People are not the problem, and eliminating them is just wrong.
I do not know what you mean about illegal abortion and computing power.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
See, that's where it gets scary. I saw the "Punch a Nazi" thing trending a lot.
Honestly, I'm in favor of punching a Nazi. I'm all for it. Nail that fucker to the ground.
The problem is who is determining and declaring who is a Nazi nowadays. I see a lot of people scream out that you're a Nazi for disagreeing with them.
Now see, this dude who kicked the lady. I actually agree with him somewhat. I think that abortion should be legal. But it should be extremely rare and while extremely challenging for the girl, we should have social nets in place to help her out to incentivize her to carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption. There are plenty of families who can't have kids that would to love to adopt and love that baby as their own.
That's what I would argue with that girl. But that guy? He didn't see that. He saw red. He resorted to violence almost immediately.
Michele
you.
I-I'm sorry...I won't do it again...
It's just that...I do think they are equal, but...
If I had to say, assaulting women in my opinion is a far serious crime. I do think they are equal.
It doesn't matter the gender. I'm sorry.
I just got ahead because of the title. Women in general are slightly weaker than men, but they can still be tough. I feel bad for her.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
What do you mean it was you and what do you mean by 'alive'? Living, metabolism, it is nothing more than machines following instructions and interacting with the environment.
Many cells in your body can be taken and placed into an enucleated ovum and they can produce an entire physical human, it is called cloning.
Cells in the womb, that fertilized cell, the zygote, can split and become twins. How is it one human, when it can become many? Cells in the womb different fertilized eggs can fuse, and become a chimera, even two zygotes of opposing gender can become the body of one. One can become two and two can become one.
You yourself an analysis may reveal your body to be a chimera, and you having cells that could've become your brother or sister.
There is research to turn stem cells and even other cells into ovum and sperm. It is only a matter of time till many perhaps most cells in your body can be coaxed into turning into a full human being with the right technical procedures, without need of ovum. They are all genetically human, and given the right coaxing should be able to develop into a full human.
Right now scientists have been able to synthesize the dna of a single cell, and have a cell which is the progeny of the computer. One day entire multicellular life including humans will be synthesizable. Is the 3d printer, computer and associated files worthy of rights? Realize the cell intrinsically is no different in kind from the 3d printer, it's machinery is more advanced, but humanity will be able to create machinery of equal complexity given time.
I mean right now the government collects a ton of data, but there isn't enough power to analyze it, given enough computing and ai, it will be possible to analyze the vast torrent of data. In some areas they're placing cameras everywhere, there's also the idea that cash may be done away with and trackable digital currency could be promoted.
Last edited:
Thurible
Member
I mean that I was a single celled organism once right after my conception. Then I grew and developed a whole plethora of cells that serve many different functions which became tissues and organs. Was I a thinking being that had a concept of self? No. I however don't think that ultimately matters in defining where value begins. The very being of a human being, even one that can not think or do really anything yet, is incredibly valuable and should not be killed.
My body and everyone's bodies are indeed essentially machines that are built to serve multiple functions and survive. I do not see why that is a contradiction.
You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) that single celled humans are not quite human because they can fuse to other single celled humans (zygotes?) and they can also seperate to create twins. I would say that when a chimera is formed the siblings in the womb die when they fuse to one of the zygotes. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that they don't create an entirely new organism. There is a dominant surviving zygote that just absorbs the others, not them creating an entirely new person.
I'm not quite sure about your argument on twins. Is your argument that it doesn't make sense that one person divides into two? They were conceived as one individual yet they divided, so is your question who came first? Is it a question of identity that you have?
I have not heard of this research you refer to on how other cells of the body can be made into sex cells or even possibly become another person. I am genuinely (not sarcastic or antagonistic) curious.
Machines have no rights. They aren't living things and they have no autonomy. They have no reason or will and will never develop these things. A human zygote should have a TON more rights then a machine as it is a human being during early development.
Do you believe in a hierarchy of things, that some things have more worth than others? If so, or not, why?
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
Even identical triplets and quadruplets can be born in rare cases. If the cell was outside the body it is conceivable scientists could coax it to divide into 6 or 12 or more humans.
Given the cell splits the original dna, giving half to each of the two daughter cells, none can claim to be special or more related to the original cell. So how can we say the original cell is a human if it can become two or more?
This is without mention that the cell is a machine building more dna out of the raw materials it is fed and are obtained by the mother through ingestion.
Humans are just another kind of animal, a mere few technical hurdles before such can be done safe and effectively in humans.
What was once impossible, scientific knowledge will make possible.
It is conceivable that even self-fertilization may one day be possible(of course with genetic engineering to remove genetic flaws) giving rise to virgin births, the miracles of old accomplished.
You seem to refer to present day machinery, and do not understand the increasing technological might of man and the kinds of machines that will one day be produced.
Humans are beginning to harness the very code of life, synthetic biology is now modifying single cell organisms even radically for various functions, but the future holds much more in store. The idea is that one day single cells and even multicellular lifeforms will be created by human design, to fulfill arbitrary functions. Artificial lifeforms, machinery designed by human hands guided by the human mind, but meeting all the requirements to be defined as life.
Last edited:
Thurible
Member
"Given the cell splits the original dna, giving half to each of the two daughter cells, none can claim to be special or more related to the original cell. So how can we say the original cell is a human if it can become two or more?"
- The human zygote divides into more human zygotes. Why is the zygote not human if it can produce a sibling? They both come from the conception of a human being, and then the cells that made up that human divided which led to a sibling. The original human does not seize to be because she/he divided and twins were produced.
Also, they are indeed identical genetically. How is that a reason for the inhumanity of the child? If I had a identical twin sibling in the womb they would a human just like me, having similar genetics has no bearing.
"This is without mention that the cell is a machine building more dna out of the raw materials it is fed and are obtained by the mother through ingestion."
I'm not arguing that it isn't. I don't quite understand how saying that the cell works like a machine is a reason why the unborn aren't human. Are you perhaps suggesting that people are no different from machines? Machines are just tools and they have no reason nor will.
"Humans are just another kind of animal, a mere few technical hurdles before such can be done safe and effectively in humans."
I would agree that biologically people are animals, but I wouldn't agree ultimately. Animals do not have the ability to reason, they only really use instinct. Men can look beyond themselves both in the sciences and metaphysically. They don't "think" about identity, God, cosmology, logic, or anything really beyond themselves. There is also ultimately no sense of altruism in the animal world. I would never say that a person is an animal but I would classify them as animals.
I would hope that human cloning never happens. As a Christian, I believe that the act of conception is one that should only happen through sex. We should be made for love, by love. Also consider what kind of doors human cloning would bring. It literally compartmentalizes people into commodities that can be MANUFACTURED, eugenics would follow soon after. I already hear word of advancements in gene editing, people could easily alter their child to make them into something they shouldn't be (curing disease is a different matter).
"What was once impossible, scientific knowledge will make possible. It is conceivable that even self-fertilization may one day be possible(of course with genetic engineering to remove genetic flaws) giving rise to virgin births, the miracles of old accomplished."
I am for using genetic engineering to help cure diseases, however using it to self-fertilize just sounds bizarre and unethical. Isn't it more fun and rewarding to procreate the old fashioned way? It is much more intimate and collaborative. Also, wouldn't it be better for the child to have two parents?
"Humans are beginning to harness the very code of life, synthetic biology is now modifying single cell organisms even radically for various functions, but the future holds much more in store. The idea is that one day single cells and even multicellular lifeforms will be created by human design, to fulfill arbitrary functions. Artificial lifeforms, machinery designed by human hands guided by the human mind, but meeting all the requirements to be defined as life."
I don't really see that happening, at least in the near future. The machines we have today are stupid, to be frank. They only follow instructions and have no capability of producing anything on their own. There are some learning codes and algorithms that adapt to new situations and "learn", but that is still just them following the same instructions they were given. The "learning", if you can call it that, is minimal and makes no changes to the set code or behavior. I don't think there will ever be a machine that can properly reason or have will.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
The problem is you are talking about a cell no brain no hands no organs. As I said it is potentially conceivable that many cells in your body given the right coaxing have the same exact capability. Coax them a bit and put them in a womb and a baby is born. Are they human beings? If you scratch your hand have you killed millions of humans?
Also even a zygote, a single critical instruction is missing and it will not develop into a human. A severe nutrient deficiency, a mutation either from conception or after and it will not build a human but human tissue. Remember it is not just like a machine it is a machine, a missing instruction or an error following instruction and you end up with human tissue but no human.
Many zygotes are simply spontaneously aborted by nature even before many women know they've become pregnant. If we were to consider zygotes humans, we would have to consider spontaneous abortion a tragedy. Natural reproduction would have to be outlawed, and artificial reproduction perfected such that the amount of zygotes that were destroyed was at a minimum.
Given the reality, many people who engage in natural reproduction are causing the natural destruction of many zygotes.
What about those that decide to focus on career and postpone reproduction. Look at how the rates of zygote destruction increase.(also rates of abnormal or unhealthy babies increases if reproducing at a later age)
That's the thing calling a cell a human. A group of neural stem cells if bio 3d printed into a conscious brain should have more rights than any zygote, which may or may not be able to actually build a brain.
This is just a difference of degree not kind. The distant ancestors of man had the same degree of abilities as the other animals, not more.
So you don't believe AGI, or True AI is possible. Many would disagree, it is expected such will arrive within decades, we will see what happens.
BTW, have you seen blade runner? In the remote possibility software couldn't replicate the human mind, an artificial living being with synthetic neurons would most certainly be able to.
Is a cell radically engineered to synthesize a fuel or a drug, not a machine of some kind?
BTW I imagine you would find human animal chimera research highly troubling. It has been found that you can knockout the genetic ability of an animal to build a particular organ or organs as an embryo and by infusing human stem cells, the cells grow into human organs within the growing baby animal fetus.
IMHO, you could if possible knockout any organ or organs, so long as the main brain remained nonhuman animal, it matters not that you're growing human organs from human cells.
Eventually this research could produce fully functional organs for transplant, and save lives.
That is the thing with the zygote, if a human zygote had its instructions to build a brain artificially knocked out, it would never be human. IT could easily be knocked out in the gametes, ensuring it had such at conception, it wouldn't be human. Natural mutations sometimes do this. It BUILDs a brain, following instructions, no instructions no brain.
Being genetically human means nothing, most cells in the body are fully genetically human. Being able to develop into a baby if provided the right nutrients and environment is not that special, as many cells in the human body should potentially be able of the same with some coaxing. Cells should not have the same right as conscious beings.
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
The rules of the world, survival of the fittest, what do you think happens if country X engineers superhuman supercreative superintelligent humans by the millions, and other countries don't?
Also not all of the tech is cloning. There was talk of two men conceiving or two women conceiving, and having a child of their own.
The problem would be if someone takes cells without your consent and gets pregnant with your child. Not sure how child support laws will handle that.
Thurible
Member
Individual cells of course aren't human. No one is arguing that skin cells are human beings. Sex cells aren't human beings. It is only at conception that human life comes into being. Cloning is possible, but its not a natural process. I can't put any of my cells in a womb and naturally expect that a baby will come out. Also, isn't cloning taking the genetic information out of the ovum and replacing it with another? In that instance, it would be akin to conception.
I've already established that the zygote is biologically a human being, the only argument to make is whether or not the unborn have rights. A zygote does not "become" human. Are you talking about something going wrong where the baby dies in the womb yet the tissue still develops?
What you are talking about are miscarriages. Miscarriages are tragedies. I don't think many women would have a miscarriage and think "Oh well, it was just a bunch of human tissue". There are many people who mourn over the death over their unborn children in miscarriages.
What the heck are you talking about with outlawing natural reproduction? Pro life people are against people killing babies, but if a woman has a miscarriage she isn't a murderer. She can't control what happens to the child in that instance. NO ONE is arguing for arresting women who miscarry.
What you are talking about sounds very sci-fi to me muddled with current technical garble like 3d printing. Are you referring to making an artificial consciousness by using human cells? Even if that ever becomes possible, how does that make the zygote less human? The human zygote is an early stage of human development and most certainly would likely build a brain. The zygote that can't sadly dies, as mentioned above.
People are very different from animals. Try to have a conversation with your dog and explain concepts like math, science, history, philosophy, and theology to it and tell me how it works out. I would be very surprised if you actually considered an animal to be on the same level as a human being.
I personally have never seen Blade Runner but I know the general premise and plot points. I don't see AI ever happening realistically but I could potentially be wrong, I admit that. Even in the off chance that this happens, I would still say that a machine is worth far less than a human life.
Also, you keep comparing biology to machines and I keep saying that, yes, they are similar. Machines and human beings are both made to accomplish tasks, but they are very different things and that is rather self evident. A machine is an unthinking tool, whereas people are not.
I do find that ethically troubling, and I don't know the ramifications of this. Though I doubt we will ever get pig-men thankfully. However, we have to ask ourselves what is the cost of putting human characteristics in an animal.
Adult stem cell research has done some good.
I keep telling you that biologically, the zygote is human and not "on its way to be human". If you knock the brain out of anything it will die, that's common sense. If somehow a child was developing without a brain they have essentially died. She/he is no longer living, but it is the body of a human being.
Most cells of the body are not their own autonomous being. My skin cells are not going to grow a brain or a heart. Human zygotes are human beings.
1) Survival of the fittest is not something that necessarily applies to men. We are at the top of the food chain and, in first world nations, we live harmoniously. There is order and the weak are not to be killed for being weak (some societies do this thing called genocide though). We are altruistic and take care of both the weak and the strong.
2) I wouldn't do anything if some evil nation decides engineering supermen is the best thing to do. I would probably protest and fight against it, but building our own supermen is just fighting fire with fire. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3) I never said all tech is cloning.
4) Two women and two men can't naturally conceive together, and there are many ethical hiccups to that. I haven't heard of anything that would suggest that this is possible or becoming possible.
What you described sounds dystopian to me.
Last edited:
odd_hatch
Member
I don't know if you're being deliberately sarcastic like me, but in case you aren't... I'm just joking around.
I was just making fun of the feminist ideology that says women and men are the same and should be treated equal.
Instead, these people only want the privileges of men without any of the disadvantages, which would ultimately lead women to be treated way better than men in every regard. (we're already there)
I'm sick and tired of hearing feminists saying women are mistreated (here in the west) while the exact opposite is true.
Similar threads
- Locked