[High Max]

;-)

[General Battuta]

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.

Well, considering you'll never have one, it's probably just what you say: you're on a completely different track from a prospective mother's thoughts.

If the embryo is unwanted then it is disgusting. It is not an offspring, it is not desired, it was not asked for (and no, having protected sex is not asking for a baby), and it feels unnatural.

[iamzack]

The thing about it is that "parasite" is an objective term. It doesn't have inherent negativity, it's just a term to describe a particular relationship between living things which is found in nature. When you're the one with the parasite, though, then it's a very negative thing.

[castor]

So, the problem is that the term "parasite" has not been scientifically declared in social context? Then I think what we have here is an analogy, rather than a metaphor.

As for why, here's my reasoning.
A. Two groups of people, group  "A" and group "B" (both groups sized 1...n)
B. Group "A" uses the material or mental resources of those in group "B", without consent of group "B"
C. In the process, group "A" gains, group "B" wastes away

And because of point C, I think this analogy CAN be determined in social context without arbitrariness and without taking cultural factors in consideration.
All you need to do is record the start and end states of both groups, and the flow direction of "goods" between the groups.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

Why are you bringing your connotations into the discussion?  Parasite is an objective, scientific term, and is therefore neither "good" nor "bad."  It just is.  The only people who have a problem with the term parasite seem to be the ones bringing all their connotations to the term.

I love kids.  My wife and I fully intend upon having children.  Just because a fetus fits the biological definition of a parasite doesn't mean it isn't desirable to create one.

Seriously - take your preconceptions out of it.  Fetuses - of all mammalian species, at least - are parasitic in nature.  Get over it.

[iamzack]

So, the problem is that the term "parasite" has not been scientifically declared in social context? Then I think what we have here is an analogy, rather than a metaphor.

As for why, here's my reasoning.
A. Two groups of people, group  "A" and group "B" (both groups sized 1...n)
B. Group "A" uses the material or mental resources of those in group "B", without consent of group "B"
C. In the process, group "A" gains, group "B" wastes away

And because of point C, I think this analogy CAN be determined in social context without arbitrariness and without taking cultural factors in consideration.
All you need to do is record the start and end states of both groups, and the flow direction of "goods" between the groups.

What's your point? Social parasitism is a subjective, ill-defined term while actual parasitism is an objective term. The two aren't comparable just because of that fact.

[General Battuta]

This is like equating a demographic shift with murder. It's kind of silly.

[castor]

What's your point? Social parasitism is a subjective, ill-defined term while actual parasitism is an objective term. The two aren't comparable just because of that fact.

So its the difference between "parasites" and "parasite-likes"? So what you said before about parasites, you would apply only to parasites but not to parasite-likes (even though the outcome would be the same)?

[karajorma]

Castor. Point to an example of someone who is a social parasite.

I'll bet you any money that you'll get a whole bunch of objections to your classification.

Now point at a biological parasite. If you are correct, I bet you won't.

The difference is that you can pretty clearly define the parameters of biological parasitism. Try to do that in a social sense and you have more problems. How do you know that the person you claim is a parasite isn't actually providing an important service or function to someone who you claim isn't?

[castor]

Castor. Point to an example of someone who is a social parasite.

We're talking about actual people, so case studies are not easily available. But as a more general example, I would say the subject of this study deals with parasitic relationships.
http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/57/10/656

The difference is that you can pretty clearly define the parameters of biological parasitism. Try to do that in a social sense and you have more problems. How do you know that the person you claim is a parasite isn't actually providing an important service or function to someone who you claim isn't?

There are problems, and in many ways they are very different things, yes. What I "objected" here was the apparent conclusion that if we can't clearly define the parameters of social parasitism it becomes a non-issue (at least that was the impression I got)? That approach seems too easy to me..

[General Battuta]

This metaphor is incredibly dumb.

[iamzack]

The difference is that you can pretty clearly define the parameters of biological parasitism. Try to do that in a social sense and you have more problems. How do you know that the person you claim is a parasite isn't actually providing an important service or function to someone who you claim isn't?

There are problems, and in many ways they are very different things, yes. What I "objected" here was the apparent conclusion that if we can't clearly define the parameters of social parasitism it becomes a non-issue (at least that was the impression I got)? That approach seems too easy to me..

Not so much a non-issue as an irrelevant one. Social parasitism and actual parasitism can't be compared because social parasitism is completely subjective. That's all there is to it.

[castor]

This metaphor is incredibly dumb.

Thanks GB, I really appreciate your insights.

Not so much a non-issue as an irrelevant one. Social parasitism and actual parasitism can't be compared because social parasitism is completely subjective. That's all there is to it.

So, in your reply below, the key point really is the definition of the term parasitic; your evaluation of the case completely stands or falls with it.

I'm curious about something:
iamzack, in the case of a parasitic twin, has the autosite the right to have the other one killed? If yes, why?

Uhm, well, yeah. "Parasitic" is why.

Well, my mistake, I didn't read you as literally as I should have. But no worries, I'm done with all the pestering now :-]

[General Battuta]

I've already explained why it's dumb.

It's dumb on a logical level because you're using an analogy to compare a defined phenomenon and another analogy defined by that phenomenon. That's completely circular. Social parasitism is an analogy, not an empirical phenomenon. As iamzack said, it's subjective.

[castor]

This could go on forever without ever going anywhere, so I just say, Fine

[High Max]

;-)

[karajorma]

Actually people's point of views can and have been changed at least in part due to discussion on this board. I've seen some fundamentalists become more moderate and conservatives become more liberal in my time on here.

[General Battuta]

Personally I find the data that gets posted up is worth the effort of debate (and, gratifyingly, it looks like my points of view are generally well-supported.) 

[Bobboau]

Actually people's point of views can and have been changed at least in part due to discussion on this board. I've seen some fundamentalists become more moderate and conservatives become more liberal in my time on here.

I've gotten more conservative

[Flipside]

I have in some ways, just not over the more 'hot' topics that are usually discussed here, though, admittedly, I still think it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever voted conservative