[karajorma]

There is a massive difference between a biological parasite and any sociological use of the term. That's your fundamental mistake.

And if you can't see that then it's a waste of time debating with you since you're not going to be able to follow all the fancy book-lurnin' that follows.

[Colonol Dekker]

What time is it in China


I'm still of the live and let (parents decide whether it) kive(s) view.

[Kosh]

About 9:30 at night.

[Uchuujinsan]

There is a massive difference between a biological parasite and any sociological use of the term. That's your fundamental mistake.

And if you can't see that then it's a waste of time debating with you since you're not going to be able to follow all the fancy book-lurnin' that follows.

I'm really curious now: Why should you judge the underlying principle of those two differently? How IS the underlying principle different?
I currently can't see an obvious explanation except basically tautological ones.

[General Battuta]

Which is why people should learn to read the whole post before replaying. You kinda missed the second part...

Uh...no I didn't. More children do not get to live, and on top of the same number of children dying, mothers die too.

There is a massive difference between a biological parasite and any sociological use of the term. That's your fundamental mistake.

And if you can't see that then it's a waste of time debating with you since you're not going to be able to follow all the fancy book-lurnin' that follows.

I'm really curious now: Why should you judge the underlying principle of those two differently? How IS the underlying principle different?
I currently can't see an obvious explanation except basically tautological ones.

You are obviously intentionally obfuscating. The difference is transparent.

A biological parasite saps resources directly from its host. Like a murderer or an organ harvester, it directly violates bodily autonomy.

A social parasite saps money from an abstract economic system - yet s/he never violates any of our society's established laws or rights regarding individual determination.

Think of it this way: which is more severe, a man who beats you up and takes your money, or a man who drains your blood with a syringe every night?

[karajorma]

Not only that but how do you define someone as a sociological parasite anyway? How do you prove he doesn't give back something to society?

[iamzack]

:[ No one ever answered my question about whether we should be prosecuting women for murder if they starve themselves until the fetus in their belly dies.

[TrashMan]

There is a massive difference between a biological parasite and any sociological use of the term. That's your fundamental mistake.

And if you can't see that then it's a waste of time debating with you since you're not going to be able to follow all the fancy book-lurnin' that follows.

Pft.
Your fundamental mistake is that you think I must conform to whatever logical deduction you followed. The Word of Kajorama doesn't interest me - the world does not follow it.

[iamzack]

You're disregarding how WORDS work. Parasite is a term for a biological relationship between two living things. When you use it in a social context, that is a metaphor. I know, I know, reality has a liberal bias.

[Scotty]

:[ No one ever answered my question about whether we should be prosecuting women for murder if they starve themselves until the fetus in their belly dies.

Quick question for Liberator, TESLA, Mongoose, Trashman, etc:

Since abortion is murder, are you in favor of prosecuting women for starving themselves (or punching themselves in the gut or shoving knitting needles in their cooch, etc) on purpose in order to kill the fetus?

Because, if yes, you are suggesting that if a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers to do with as she wishes, and is instead property of the government.

I would be in favor of getting those individuals commited to some sort of help program.

As it stands, doing those things, to me, would be somewhat like using illegal drugs.  Yes, you could do it, since it is your body, but you still go to jail for that sort of thing.

Not going to re-quote the same post:  legally, your body is not free to do with as you wish.  There are still constraints that can't be crossed without risk of prosecution.

In case you missed it all those many pages ago.

[Liberator]

:[ No one ever answered my question about whether we should be prosecuting women for murder if they starve themselves until the fetus in their belly dies.

If they did that as opposed to seeking medical aid, it indicates a rather serious mental disorder.

[iamzack]

Oh, there we go, I missed the very last sentence. XP

So how do we prevent women from starving themselves into miscarriage? Should the government have the right to forcefeed a woman just because she is pregnant?

Liberator: I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where abortion is illegal and aborting a fetus is murder.

[General Battuta]

:[ No one ever answered my question about whether we should be prosecuting women for murder if they starve themselves until the fetus in their belly dies.

If they did that as opposed to seeking medical aid, it indicates a rather serious mental disorder.

Medical aid...like an abortion?

[Snail]

WIN WIN WIN

[MP-Ryan]

I'm really curious now: Why should you judge the underlying principle of those two differently? How IS the underlying principle different?
I currently can't see an obvious explanation except basically tautological ones.

Anything social is arbitrarily defined based on time (era), culture, and the size and history of the group defining it.  Much as sociologists try to make sociology a science, it's a psuedo-science at best (and I say this as someone with a serious interest in the field) because there is always going to be an element of the subjective in any definition or term.

Biology, on the other hand, has definitions based on objectively observed fact.  There is a set of criteria which makes up the fundamental basis of the definition which have to be objectively met - it isn't subject to interpretation (as I already pointed out to TELSA in discussing the parasitic nature of a fetus) no matter how much you want to make it so.

So, with that regard, a social parasite requires a judgment call on the part of the person making the declaration.  A biological parasite does not.  The two are not comparable.  Though, it must be said, the harm which can result from either is not pre-determined.  There are many people that can be called social parasites (depending on one's perspective) that could be considered to do a greater amount of harm than any single biological parasite.

[Liberator]

I believe you ignored the part of my statement after the comma, the statement taken as a whole implies the medical forms of mental health treatment, such as counseling and psychiatry.

[iamzack]

You aren't addressing the question though. Should a woman who starves herself to kill the fetus that she doesn't want inside her be arrested, prosecuted for murder, and sentenced accordingly? And if yes, should the government have the right to take possession of her body, forcefeed her and take other similar measures, just because she is pregnant?

[General Battuta]

I believe you ignored the part of my statement after the comma, the statement taken as a whole implies the medical forms of mental health treatment, such as counseling and psychiatry.

And again we come back to 'women who want abortions are crazy'.

Which is absolutely false.

[High Max]

;-)

[TrashMan]

You're disregarding how WORDS work. Parasite is a term for a biological relationship between two living things. When you use it in a social context, that is a metaphor. I know, I know, reality has a liberal bias.

If you want to talk about biology then a offspring is not a parasite. NEVER has that word been used in any scientific paper that I know off.
The offspring is in it's own category.
Also "social parasite" is a valid term.  The word "social" is part of the term.

And no, I'm not arguing how words work. In case you missed it, I'm arguing the whole train of thought to get to this point in this discussion was going on completely different tracks for each "side" of this discussion. Like I said - logic is a wonderful thing. One can rationalize practicly everything. So just as you can rationalize your views (and regard everyone elses view as moronic and illogical), so can everyone else rationalize his.

What I find ironic is that I'm not outraged at the abortion issue itself, but rather the sheer disgust with which someone views their offspring. Regarding it as a parasite, something tewrrible to get rid off - that sickens me.