Being the good philosophical naturalist and aware of this concern, let's say that you decide to do both.  You spend years observing the creature before killing it for classification.  Yet two things you lack.  Two things you will always lack.  There may be more, but these two I can think of:

1.  After you exhaustively diced up this monkey into its fundamental components, you will never, ever, ever, ever be able to reconstruct that monkey and give back to it life.
2.  Alive or dead, you will never be able to enter into the monkey's experience of the world, either.  For the 'essence' of 'monkey' includes also the way monkeys in particular experience the world and how that particular monkey experiences the world, too.

It is like the uncertainty principle:  You can know the position or the velocity, but not both at the same time.  You must choose to know one and forever be ignorant of the other.  Personhood (and life, for that matter) are like this.  Personality is a mystery of the universe, and with it personhood.  Science that is strictly methodologically naturalistic will never be able to touch this question.  It will never be able to re-compose a truly dead person, even if it knew all of the parts and how they all worked.

So, your approach to personhood is essentially to come up to this conundrum and (understandably) throw your hands up and just point at examples.  It is not something that can be strictly defined, like for example a geometrical formula.  If the Reductionists (like Dennet) are right, in theory all of reality can be reduced to particulars and the mathematical formulas that describe their relations.  In practice, in our gut, in our bones, we know that this is not merely not possible, it just isn't so.  So, you know that persons, like yourself, are aware.  They, like you, feel pain.   You describe attributes and characteristics of that which you observe because that is, quite literally, the best you can do.

Personality is transcendental.  It cannot be reduced to matter.  It is not reducible to matter.  When it is all said and done, the ruddy truth is that you do not know what the experience of reality is for any other human in any other stage of development.  You know them all only by analogy and revelation.  You analogize from your own experience of reality and they reveal to you their own experience of reality.  At no time can you ever enter into their experience of reality.  And when we are dead, no scientist of any age will be able to resurrect us.

Thus we are thrown back to foundational questions.  I would point you again to Spero where King has one of his earlier visions of a star falling to the earth.  He indicates that this 'star' is 'personal.'  Others scoff:  stars are just gasses and fire.  Tasha corrects:  That is what a star is made of;  that is not what a star is.  Tasha says that how you decide that question charts your entire life.  It was for conversations like this one that that event was recorded.

Materialism simply does not have the tools to handle a question such as personality and personhood and this is what represents the critical difference in our viewpoints.  But there is one more difference:  your viewpoint will never be able to account for this thing that you know in your gut cannot be accounted for in materialistic terms- personality.  Mine can. 

EB,

Actually your point covers the whole spectrum of the debaters to prove "contribution". Thus it's utterly meaningless.

Is your aim in this debate to make me lose the will to live?  Think about what you are saying for just one minute and stop stealing precious life from both of us.

My point was that people on both sides of the debate are guilty of polarising public opinion with unnecessarily partisan rhetoric and creating an unhealthy culture, but that those who say things like "Abortionists are murderers who will be punished in the fires of Hell" in pulpits may bear some actual responsibility for this crime.  Your version of my point is apparently "Everyone is equally to blame for Tiller's murder".

Not according to you, as it takes the pro-choice in all it's forms to exist to have these more-extreme ideologies. This is what you've wrought, DB.

If your apparent disconnection from reality is in anyway my fault then i will be happy to write to your relatives and apologise.  Presumably you also think that the Holocaust Memorial shooting was the fault of the civil rights movement.

Because evolution is indeed more philosophy than anything else, and explanatory theories can't even exist without an ideological position to found them.

Really?  What was the ideological position behind the formulation of the theory of gravity, would you say?  You want evolution to be re-cast as a religion for purely tactical reasons, nothing to do with the truth of the matter.  Increasingly, the truth of the matter is something that you are drifting further and further away from.

"i did not, have not, and will not suggest that any more than a tiny tiny minority of "pro-lifers" have any responsibility whatsoever for this killing.  You're just throwing pots and pans now."

This is the door you opened with "no man is an island". Dragging your feet from walking through it, only serves to illustrate your arguement's hypocrisy.

Either everyone is responsible or no one is, according to you.  Let me know the address of your family home for that letter of apology for any part i may have played in your deterioration into batsh*t insanity, wont you.

Though it's hard to think I'm wrong when Cop's very first post serves as a piece of evidence and you rather blatantly admit there are polarizing sides. You've admitted demonization is going on.

i have admitted there is demonization going on - from both ends of the spectrum, whereas you are only apparently able to see it when it is directed against your side.

Cop's first post was entirely factual (to your obvious annoyance), although i would disagree with his implication that most of those who believe in the sanctity of life would celebrate Tiller's murder.

"Are you saying that you actually didn't mean to smear 50% of Americans when you talked about 'The Left' targetting "pro-life" organisations as terrorist for isolated acts of violence while urging caution and respect in dealing with Islam?"

Obviously. Because if I was going to do so I would have simply said 'Democrats'.

 

If you haven't figure out I hold liberals as a minority, especially when it comes to issues of the minority (big clue there) dictating to the majority in this country all it does is reaffirm that you haven't been paying attention this entire time.

A now-familiar accusation, backed-up by nothing of substance.  Since we've heard your views on democracy before, and can be confident that when a minority is imposing its views on a majority your only problem with it is that it isn't your minority doing the imposing, i think i'll just leave that complaint hanging.  The idea that i ought to know what's going on in your brain can also be passed over, since i am not an astronomer, and therefore not in the habit of observing things which are clearly in orbit around other planets.

Because people who are strict pacifists and opposed to all war ARE opponents of the Iraq War. In your unthinking dismissal by generalizing this as partisan rhetoric you simply never considered someone being labeled 'UnAmerican' to have merit.

Leaving aside the fantasy of homogenous national character traits which can reliably differentiate 300 million people from the entire rest of the world, and the idea that the alleged lack of those traits might ever be used in a purely factual way rather than as a cheap political trick, you are still not listening.  You supported labelling opponents of the Iraq War as "UnAmerican", and in justifying this have only talked about a small subset of them.  Either take back your statement, or justify it with regard to all opponents of the Iraq War.

You're in fact in posession of NO objective criteria. We've already seen your reasonings and criterias have all the rational of playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

 

Makes me wonder how you think evolution has nothing to do with "contributing" to the Holocaust. Humans being viewed as insignificant and worthless? No different than rats or bacteria or anything else we exterminate by the millions? It's your contention there's no connection whatsoever? Pleeeease.

It's certainly something to think about.  People never slaughtered or enslaved anyone before the Religion of Evolution came along, did they?

Still waiting for you to explain why you wasted our time (and further with these dodges) with analogies of murderers if you weren't suggesting we go after the murderers even as a matter of consistency.

Because i'm arguing against your position you silly boy.

"If someone guns down a pimp, am i not allowed to disapprove?"

No, that you're just as "brave" as I am.

   Just because i don't think it should be done doesn't mean i think it's murder.  And as i've said to cimics, there are (from my point of view) plenty worse things going on in the world, so i prefer to concentrate my energies on doing something about them.  You on the other hand a) believe that it is murder, and b) believe that there are at least a million similar murders every year in America alone.  Not quite the same thing.

As you admit to being in the spectrum (I'll refrain from going after whether "middle-ground" actually exists or not), you've just made yourself as culpable as pro-lifers that "sustain" the more extreme militant end.

Clearly 'middle-ground' is an unknown concept to you, since you unerringly seek out the most frighteningly ridiculous interpretation of what i'm saying and then wave it around like you've done something clever.

Don't forget about that letter, eh?

My point was that people on both sides of the debate are guilty of polarising public opinion with unnecessarily partisan rhetoric and creating an unhealthy culture, but that those who say things like "Abortionists are murderers who will be punished in the fires of Hell" in pulpits may bear some actual responsibility for this crime.  Your version of my point is apparently "Everyone is equally to blame for Tiller's murder".

And this disproves me...how? No man's an island. Those on the pulpits wouldn't be saying such things if not for abortionist's contributing to the culture. Again, this is what you wrought, DB.

If your apparent disconnection from reality is in anyway my fault then i will be happy to write to your relatives and apologise.  Presumably you also think that the Holocaust Memorial shooting was the fault of the civil rights movement.

Heh. I don't see where taking your ridiculous arguement to it's logical end, gives you the impression I subscribe to it.

Really?  What was the ideological position behind the formulation of the theory of gravity, would you say?

That the universe is a real system created by God to function like any man-made machine functions. Thus letting us know the universe isn't formed by chaotic rules, which necessitates a Creator.

You want evolution to be re-cast as a religion for purely tactical reasons, nothing to do with the truth of the matter.  Increasingly, the truth of the matter is something that you are drifting further and further away from.

And I can say YOU want evolution to remain seperated from the ideological implications that go with it, despite all evidence of history (and the rather explicit admittance that evolution allows atheism to be intellectually fulfilled), if we are going to play psychoanalysis.

Difference being I don't need to resort to ad hominem and am more than willing to step up to the facts of the matter. Are you?

Either everyone is responsible or no one is, according to you.

Not paying attention. Not even to yourself, as I'm not the one who thought a trite phrase could bring something helpful to my arguement.

i have admitted there is demonization going on - from both ends of the spectrum, whereas you are only apparently able to see it when it is directed against your side.

Not paying attention. It's never been about criticism in itself - it's been wholely false criticism.

Cop's first post was entirely factual (to your obvious annoyance), although i would disagree with his implication that most of those who believe in the sanctity of life would celebrate Tiller's murder.

Thus not wholely factual. Nor even based on much solid facts at the time it was posted.

A now-familiar accusation, backed-up by nothing of substance.  Since we've heard your views on democracy before, and can be confident that when a minority is imposing its views on a majority your only problem with it is that it isn't your minority doing the imposing, i think i'll just leave that complaint hanging.  The idea that i ought to know what's going on in your brain can also be passed over, since i am not an astronomer, and therefore not in the habit of observing things which are clearly in orbit around other planets.

 :roll:This is red-herring I'm not going to get into. I made the statement for the purposes of clarification and I did so.

You supported labelling opponents of the Iraq War as "UnAmerican", and in justifying this have only talked about a small subset of them.  Either take back your statement, or justify it with regard to all opponents of the Iraq War.

Again, that "small subset" ARE opponents of the Iraq War. I've been nothing but clear and consistent on this point. You on the other hand, hide behind generalizing it as partisan rhetoric.

Projecting your brain activity?

It's certainly something to think about.  People never slaughtered or enslaved anyone before the Religion of Evolution came along, did they?

And again, it's your total unwillingness (as you aren't stupid, that can be the only reason) to see the connection for the rational behind such acts, that only demonstrates your inconsistency.

Because i'm arguing against your position you silly boy.

Oh, so you had no rational behind the analogies? You've already conceded that inconsistent behavior has no bearing on the legitimacy of the pro-life arguement itself, so there wasn't even anything to change my mind about. It was just an emotional smoke-screen, wasn't it?

 Just because i don't think it should be done doesn't mean i think it's murder. And as i've said to cimics, there are (from my point of view) plenty worse things going on in the world, so i prefer to concentrate my energies on doing something about them.  You on the other hand a) believe that it is murder, and b) believe that there are at least a million similar murders every year in America alone.  Not quite the same thing.

Actually it is, as I believe there is something just as important to concentrate my energy on - making sure the rule of law remains intact so it doesn't lead to millions more lives being killed and oppressed.

"Dude, you've got problems."

It's true.  :)

"However, you seem to be equivocating this to also imply that the standard is not fixed, and that i therefore don't really know what a person is."

No, actually.  I think what I'm saying is that your 'I know it when I see it' standard is more or less the best way to put it.  The thing cannot be quantified, but we know it nonetheless.  The problem here is that you are unwilling to extend your knowledge all the way back.

"Yes, some of the characteristics i talk about may come and go during life, but i don't especially see the relevance of that."

It is definitely relevant.  It means that the whole is not merely a sum of its part.   In order for you to conclude in these instances that there is in fact still a person even though this or that characteristic is not present only means that you possess some 'higher' definition that unconsciously bridges the gap.  Where does this 'higher' definition come from?  And what prevents you from simply elucidating it right up front?

"What you and EB need to argue is not that these traits come and go, but that they are not relevant to personhood."

No, I think I am quite comfortable observing that personhood is such a robust construct that it transcends such comings and goings.  A person is more than the sum of his physical parts.

"Oh rubbish!  The Science of Genetics was mysterious, intricate, complex and defied explanation through scientific means until just over a century ago.  Did that 'refute' materialism too?"

Yes.  :)  Ever hear of Intelligent Design?

But you did not address the two examples that I gave you for areas where I expressed certainty that science could never touch.  First of all, I said that science will never be able to completely mash up a human into all of his many physical parts and then resurrect the person.  Is this something that you think that science will actually be able to do some day?

The other example is in terms of the experience of reality.  Do you think that science is going to allow someone to plug into the brain of another person in order to directly perceive how they experience reality?  Is not this 'experience' of reality an integral part of personhood?  You make a great deal of suppositions about the limitations of what the pre-26 week old is perceiving and feeling.  Can you give me any good reason to think that you can enter into the experience of that pre-26 week old and verify for me that it is not aware or that it does not feel pain?

"Personality and personhood are extremely complicated phenomena, but that doesn't mean that no conclusions can be drawn about them from scientific study."

I didn't say that you could draw no conclusions.  I quite explicitly said that you could learn a great deal about a monkey by cutting it up.  But this would not exhaust all there is to know about monkeys.

"but do we know enough to say that they are contingent on biology?  i would say, yes definitely."

So here is the crux of the matter in my view.  This little line here.  To me, this is the same as saying a person is merely the sum of his physical parts.  Just to be clear, are you signing off on that?  People are no more then the sum of their physical parts?  Your next statement seems to contradict...

"That's what makes us (and monkeys, since you used that analogy) more than the sum of our parts.  Dissecting a violin will not tell you what it sounds like."

But just a moment ago you said that it is all contingent on biology.  Now you concede we are more than the sum of our parts.  If it all reduces to matter- as you must actually believe- how can anything possibly be more than the sum of its parts?

Your mentioning of violins and music I think are another example of the same sort of thing.  You're right (to an extent) that taking the violin apart won't tell you what it sounds like.  Likewise could you know if the sound it made was beautiful. 

"i have no idea whether they'll get to the bottom of it or not, but i currently have no need to invoke magic as an explanation."

Who is invoking magic as an explanation?  That is the opposite of what I'm doing.

"True, although without the science of genetics we would be hard-pressed to distinguish between them."

At some stages of development, the science of genetics is indeed necessary.  But not at all stages.  In order for genetics to be much use we must appeal to other stages for guidance.  Ie, only by noting that a human embryo inexorably turns into a human adult barring accidents and such is the genetic research of any use.  In short, again, we are confronted with this over arching concept of 'human' even for our genetic exploration to be meaningful.

"Being "human" can be readily defined genetically"

Only because we have in hand some notion of what a 'human' is.  We look at all the other 'humans' that we 'know when we see' and then we note that they always come about in the same way, and by tracing that process backwards are we able to define human genetically.

"Of course you would, and i would suggest that you are pursuing an artificial resolution by equivocating them.  As you yourself observe, there is such a thing as a human corpse, which easily invalidates your argument."

Only if I must constrain myself to a materialistic framework. 

I think the burden is on you, the one who would advocate for the destruction of the human at the whims of the mother up to a certain point of time, to conclusively demonstrate that prior to that point the human is conclusively not a person.  Merely pointing out that it doesn't have certain characteristics of persons at later stages of development doesn't cut it since we are all quite agreed that even by your own measurements, persons can be persons even at those later stages while being deficient temporarily or what not for those characteristics.  This process admits that some 'higher' understanding of 'personhood' must exist, and that you are applying it in these cases to 'bridge the gap.'  So why can't you apply it earlier?

""Human" is a biological definition, but personhood goes beyond biology (while still being contingent upon it, in my view)."

Ok,  I guess I should have read more thoroughly to the end because this statement confuses me.   There is an element of agreement here- Yes, personhood goes beyond biology.  But isn't 'biology' just a stand in for 'physical stuff'?  How can there be anything beyond 'physical stuff' for the materialist?

In saying the above, I want to be clear that I am not agreeing that human is a biological definition.  I don't think you can define 'human' apart from 'personhood.' 

"Maybe some chimps are persons too."

I am perfectly happy admitting the following:  "All humans are persons but not all persons are humans."

Also for clarification, I have no problem admitting that the 'physical stuff' is a component of humanity and personhood as we experience it.

You cited Augustine.  I thought Aquinas had it about right and I think is pertinent to this discussion.  It's a long listen, but it may be worth it.  Apparently even the reductionist Dennet couldn't find fault with it.

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/321

Danny:

Just got back from a quick, last-gasp-of-freedom-before-parenthood vacation, which should explain the couple day's worth of silence. I checked my work e-mail and, to put it nicely, a few issues came up while I was gone that make me want to go back to work tomorrow and start decapitating people.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Rather than get into any kind of response right now, I think I'll just go to bed and handle everything tomorrow. Sorry for the lack of response these past few days.

The vacation was nice, though.

Sasquatch

Are you back home now, or what?

No.  Gotta go.  Cya.  :)

No, I'm still not home.  :)  A hotel with wireless will do.  :)

-------------

"But that is obviously not enough because you think you know it at 0.01 seconds after conception,"

Not necessarily.  It wasn't in this thread but it was somewhere in this forum that I am perfectly willing to change my tune if it could be conclusively demonstrated that 'personhood' was not present until later in the development of the 'human.'  The advantage- and reality- of the moment of conception is that it is utterly non-arbitrary.  There is none of this erecting of criteria that changes and shifts and finds exceptions whenever you blink.

At the moment of conception you have all you need.  You have an entirely new entity with new DNA, etc.  It absolutely will become what we all recognize to indisputably be a person, assuming all goes well and no one intervenes.

Thus I am disappointed when you dismiss the burden of demonstration with a hand wave and a smiley, especially given what Cimics extracted from you regarding the death penalty.  It would seem that if you can't conclusively demonstrate non-personhood to me or even to yourself then it is obvious where we should be placing the benefit of the doubt.

"You say that it is a serious problem for my view of consciousness"

Of consciousness?  You mean personhood, right?

"Again, i would invoke the car analogy - at what point does a car become a car, and why?"

I will return to this point later, perhaps when I get home.  I think it proves the opposite of what you think it proves, but for the moment I must let it go, although portions of my response will relate.

"There is no contradiction, to me, in the whole being more than the sum of its parts while still being contingent on those parts."

Perhaps you missed my clarification:  "Also for clarification, I have no problem admitting that the 'physical stuff' is a component of humanity and personhood as we experience it."

So I have no problem the whole being 'contingent on those parts.'  However, in order for the whole to be MORE then those parts, there needs to be a frame of reference outside the system of those parts for that MORE to be meaningful.

You deny that there exists anything except the physical system in which the parts exist in, therefore it is nonsensical (more precise then contradictory) to say that we are in fact more than the sum of our parts.

"You say that they never will, but i find it difficult to see how you can know that for sure."

I suppose you could take comfort in the notion that it might be conceivable that a million years from now humans might, just maybe, be able to pull it off, but surely there is something to be said about what we currently know, and accept it provisionally?

I can say it will never happen- for sure- provisionally.  I see no evidence that it will ever happen.  If you see evidence for it ever happening outside of science fiction stories (which I see you resorting to more often   ) I'm happy to hear it.

"Theoretically i dont see why not, since the experience is largely sensory data which could potentially be reproduced, but clearly we are nowhere near being able to do such a thing at the moment."

Clearly not.  :)  Good, that's settled.  You're right that theoretically- given reductionism- we certainly should be able to.  But my contention is that personhood refutes reductionism.

"i don't need to be able to enter into the experience of something to be aware of its limitations."

You said that the pre-26 week doesn't feel pain and isn't aware.  You say this because you are confident that the brain is not developed enough to sustain these phenomena.  It seems to me that the only way you could test such a theory is to be able to enter into the pre-26er's experience of reality.  Otherwise, its just supposition, assumption, and raw assertion.  You think it all reduces to brain.  It is not so much to ask that you prove it before you allow the indiscriminate elimination of those prior to that point.

"Very Happy Supernaturalism then."

:)

Ok, let me explain.  Think of it like algebra.  x+2=5  Solve for x.

X, as you know, is 3.  You could say that '3' is the 'explanation.'  I would say that it is the logical deduction.  It is not an appeal to magic or the supernatural.  It is simple logic.  Like:

A.  Reductionism requires that everything can be explained in terms of the natural system without recourse to appealing to a transcending system.
B.  Thus, according to reductionism, everything is no more and no less than the sum of its parts.
C.  However, it is agreed that humans are more than the sum of their parts.

Therefore,
D.  Reductionism is proved false.
E.  Therefore, something transcendental exists.

This is not an invoking of magic, or supernaturalism, or ad hoc explanation.  It is simple logic, like algebra.

"True, but you have to start somewhere."

I have no quibbles with you starting there.  My quibble is with where you stop.

"i don't see why that makes a difference.  Unless you're talking about bodily resurrection."

I might be.  I don't want to get hung up on it.  Yes, if I must restrict myself to the reductionist worldview in discussing human/person distinctions then the dead human poses a problem.  But then it is my contention that the very nature of the human person strongly suggests that reductionism is false.  So, I don't have any problem approaching the matter theologically at the point where it ceases to make sense to you as a materialist.  Yes, I can see how that makes it ineffectual at that last step in the series in your mind but these 2 things seem important:  1., there were 50 steps (probably thousands) where the logic rang indisputably true up to the point of the 'singularity' that death is., 2., as long as my logic is consistent within the framework of my own system I don't see a problem.

Do you think that King is dead?

"What becomes of personhood in this thought experiment?"

I believe that this has been actually proposed- quantum teleportation.  While it is fun to think about, do you really want to be appealing to fanciful science fiction hypotheticals to patch over the entrenched agnosticism that exists for your view of the pre-26er?

"In your opinion, if such a thing were possible, would the teleported crew member in the second case still be himself?  Or would he be dead?"

On the reductionist view, this thought experiment isn't even interesting.  :)  Your only talking about making an exact copy of a human and going the next step of destroying the original.  :)  If reductionism is true, you can make copy upon copy.  The molecules used to reconstuct the human (ala the teleporter) are not the same ones that were decomposed.  This is like a computer hard drive which can be copied over and over and over again (imaged).  You can do it because it is not more then the sum of its parts.  :)

What would be required for the person to persist? 

An Author.  :)

EB,

Apologies for the delay.  Swine flu (or, at least, public perceptions about Swine Flu) has kept us very busy this last week.

And according to your arguement everyone shares a degree equally. Thus it's useless for proving too much.

If that's what you choose to make of my argument that's up to you.  Personally it's clear to me that someone who simply failed to ever try and find common ground with their opponent is hugely less culpable in a culturally aggravated murder than someone who virtually incited the d*mn thing.

It doesn't reflect on anyone, but those directly responsible.

Can i assume that you apply this principle universally?  Perhaps you'd care to sign off on the following statements:

- The Washington Memorial shooting does not reflect on anyone except Von Bruun.
- Columbine does not reflect on anyone except the shooters themselves (i add this one since i specifically remember you using the deaths of Christian students there as proof of a world-wide vendetta against Christians).

and, most importantly, because this one'll be tricky for you...

- Over-generalizations by certain commentators on the Left do not reflect on anyone except those who said them?

Y/N?

At bare minimum, you have to believe you're experiencing something that is indeed real and explainable, before the theory of gravity (or any theory) can get off the ground.

   Rejecting solipsism is not enough of an ideological position to make your point for you.  It certainly doesn't imply a Creator.

Heck, it's because of Christianity's ideological implications in science that the Western world advanced ahead of othr regions.

Many would disagree with you on that.  Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" would be a good starting point to read some slightly better-researched reasons why the native populations of Western Europe experienced faster technological advancement than the rest of the world.

My beaf was rather explicitly his gung-ho attitude to grab pitch-forks based on guess work (that it was proven correct doesn't matter), even if he did implicitly do what the Left accused about this single act being apart of some conspiracy.

i think you're over-reacting.  Cop certainly did not condone or encourage any direct action against "Pro-lifers" in general, as your hyperbolic "pitchforks" comment would suggest.  As i've said, i disagree with his implication that most people who identify as anti-abortion would approve of Tiller's murder, and that would have been a far more reasonable point to take issue with instead of railing on about his "unwarranted guesswork", which was of course proven by later events to be entirely reasonable.

For one thing "So they finally got Dr. George Tiller." is a rather obvious removal from the fact that the murder was commited by a single man, and thus an implicit refrence to thinking there is some kind of pro-life group conspiracy.

Are you suggesting that Scott Roeder was the only person who ever violently targetted Dr Tiller because of what he did?  If you admit that there was more than one, would you say that those people had anything in common with each other?

And as stated, as the killer wasn't even apprehended at the time it was just guess work rather than factually substantiated.

*sigh*  Yes, at the time it was just a guess, but it wasn't like he was taking a big risk given Tiller's history.  i hope you noted that no one tried to suggest that the Washington Memorial shooter was a "pro-lifer".  Why would that be, do you think?  Would you say that the odds of the killer being motivated by anti-abortion beliefs were exactly the same in both cases (prior to the details of the shooter being known)?

It's when those opponents to the Iraq War sight a specific reason I can show as indeed UnAmerican. You thought it couldn't apply to anyone, but you were wrong.

i haven't really addressed that aspect (whether or not it is legitimate and reality-based to label someone as "UnAmerican" on the grounds of pacifism), and nor have you demonstrated it.  All we have successfully demonstrated is that when you said that opponents of the Iraq war were UnAmerican, what you actually meant was that some of them were UnAmerican.  The danger of over-generalizations eh?

I use it just to demonstrate inconsistency with atheists who believe in evolution, yet shy away from where it obviously leads.

It doesn't "lead" anywhere you muppet, it's an explanatory theory.  It contains no more prescriptive or ethical statements than the Theory of Gravity does.  Where does the Theory of Gravity lead, that's what i want to know - Geocentrism?

"What would be your threshold for going against the rule of law (since 1mil/yr obviously isn't enough)?  Two million?  Four?  Or do we have to go all the way up to 10 million before you start seriously rebelling?"

When it breaks.

Please explain why you think it was broken in the case of Nazi Germany, but not in 21st Century United States of Abortions.

If that's what you choose to make of my argument that's up to you.  Personally it's clear to me that someone who simply failed to ever try and find common ground with their opponent is hugely less culpable in a culturally aggravated murder than someone who virtually incited the d*mn thing.

*snort* Because you're inconsistent. You've been claimming "no man's an island" and "everybody contributes to our shared culture" as a pitiful defense to lump pro-abortionists together with isolated individual abortionist murderers, but when it comes to "everybody" meaning everybody you want to hold to 'degrees of culpability' as an out. Well guess what? You want to say "everybody", by golly I'm going to hold you to it.

Can i assume that you apply this principle universally?  Perhaps you'd care to sign off on the following statements:

- The Washington Memorial shooting does not reflect on anyone except Von Bruun.

I fail to see what legitimate position was twisted in your examples.

- Columbine does not reflect on anyone except the shooters themselves (i add this one since i specifically remember you using the deaths of Christian students there as proof of a world-wide vendetta against Christians).

I recall that being more about martydom status than anything else.

and, most importantly, because this one'll be tricky for you...

- Over-generalizations by certain commentators on the Left do not reflect on anyone except those who said them?

Y/N?

Not as tricky as you think, since this whole issue (which you've failed to realize) is about whether it is indeed over-generalization or accurate-generalization.

 Rejecting solipsism is not enough of an ideological position to make your point for you.  It certainly doesn't imply a Creator.

It does, however, imply an ideological position prior to the theory of gravity. Or all of science for that matter. You asked. I answered. And your rather noticable avoidance of many of my previous points on this matter, makes me believe my point has been suffeciently proven.

And actually I was refering to the orderliness of "natural laws" that scientific theories depend on that does indeed indicate a Creator. If you hold that the universe was just randomly put together like atheism demands, I see no reason to believe in any orderliness as such randomness means things can change radically from  day to day. Under atheism scientific study is inherently incoherent.

Many would disagree with you on that.  Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" would be a good starting point to read some slightly better-researched reasons why the native populations of Western Europe experienced faster technological advancement than the rest of the world.

Not surprising given the "science and religion don't mix" engine atheists use to further atheism. I may give it a read, but I doubt it will convince me as "technological advancement" is not the same as advancement in science, though that's an obvious end result.

i think you're over-reacting.

I think you're down-playing.

Cop certainly did not condone or encourage any direct action against "Pro-lifers" in general, as your hyperbolic "pitchforks" comment would suggest.

Heh. That was more in reference of his earlier post of calling for an 'investigation' on supposed torture, while simultaneously declaring the Bush administration guilty before trial. Here we see a judgement of the guilty party's motive before arrest. One can clearly see a pattern in Cop's attitude.

As i've said, i disagree with his implication that most people who identify as anti-abortion would approve of Tiller's murder, and that would have been a far more reasonable point to take issue with instead of railing on about his "unwarranted guesswork", which was of course proven by later events to be entirely reasonable.

*sigh*That is what I've taken issue with.

And if you are going to quote me do so accurately as I clearly don't see "unwarranted" in my post.

Are you suggesting that Scott Roeder was the only person who ever violently targetted Dr Tiller because of what he did?  If you admit that there was more than one, would you say that those people had anything in common with each other?

So it's your suggestion Cop was only refering to people who have taken violence to Tiller when he said "Those who believe in the sanctity of life"? Really?

*sigh*  Yes, at the time it was just a guess, but it wasn't like he was taking a big risk given Tiller's history.  i hope you noted that no one tried to suggest that the Washington Memorial shooter was a "pro-lifer".  Why would that be, do you think?  Would you say that the odds of the killer being motivated by anti-abortion beliefs were exactly the same in both cases (prior to the details of the shooter being known)?

Perhaps you've gotten confused by YOUR words of "unwarranted" being MINE.

i haven't really addressed that aspect (whether or not it is legitimate and reality-based to label someone as "UnAmerican" on the grounds of pacifism), and nor have you demonstrated it.  All we have successfully demonstrated is that when you said that opponents of the Iraq war were UnAmerican, what you actually meant was that some of them were UnAmerican.  The danger of over-generalizations eh?

*rolls eyes* I've demonstrated, rather consistently, calling a spade a spade.

It doesn't "lead" anywhere you muppet, it's an explanatory theory.

So is Creationism. As you failed to answer the last time, I'll ask again - You think creationism doesn't "lead" anywhere?

It contains no more prescriptive or ethical statements than the Theory of Gravity does.  Where does the Theory of Gravity lead, that's what i want to know - Geocentrism?

A-solipsism by your own admittance.   If not the general orderliness of the universe, which demands a Creator to ensure that order. Welcome to the realization you're beliefs don't exist in an ideological vacuum DB.

Please explain why you think it was broken in the case of Nazi Germany, but not in 21st Century United States of Abortions.

Nazis Germany went from a parliament to a totalitarian dictatorship with no checks and balances, only one legal political party, and whose policies could be made with the citizens having no say. Even a cursory inspection of the Nazis rise to power shows Hitler taking a rather proactive route to eliminate any and all checks and balances to his power. While I don't hold that Obama is squeaky clean, I haven't seen him uproot the American government yet.

Differences clear enough?