|
United States43570 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body..
So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person.
What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person.
If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same.
|
On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury.
Much less likely.
|
|
|
On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same.
In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point..
You said
"They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is."
INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature
So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
|
United States43570 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
Thalidomide babies are often by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person.
Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car.
In fact, are you even arguing against my point are just nitpicking over the word intrinsic? I already apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing this kind of idea. It's clear what I'm trying to say.
|
On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car.
INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature
Not by nature.
You're dumb, I'm out.
|
United States43570 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out.
You're nitpicking over something utterly pointless and even if you were right, and I'm unconvinced, there's absolutely no need for the pedantry and less for the rudeness.
It should be perfectly clear to a reader that I'm using person as a synonym for consciousness and body to mean the organic thing it resides within. Stop trolling me.
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote:
educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH
|
|
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
damn she is a real cut throat
|
On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely.
Well like there are the stories of weak womanzzz lifting up heavy objects (trees etc.) when their babies/children are in danger of said object falling upon them.
It's like (Normal Adrenaline pump) ^ (attractiveness of baby at hand out of a 10 scale) = womanaline.
|
For all our higher thought and culture the mind serves the same evolutionary purpose as a penis, getting sperm inside girls.
As Chesterton would say: The madman's mind moves in a perfect small circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle, but it is not so large.
|
United States43570 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:30 Navi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely. Well like there are the stories of weak womanzzz lifting up heavy objects (trees etc.) when their babies/children are in danger of said object falling upon them. It's like (Normal Adrenaline pump) ^ (attractiveness of baby at hand out of a 10 scale) = womanaline.
Bones are strong enough to hold up a car anyway. She doesn't need the muscle power to lift it and bones have the strength to endure the pressure of the weight. The question is the joints, the pressure on them should have torn the bones physically apart. Normally you'd get hit by pain before that happened but with a baby involved that's probably not relevant.
I wouldn't dismiss the car anecdote out of hand, although if it happened I'd expect it to pretty much destroy her.
|
I wish I could have 1 minute and a baseball bat with the fag that would rob AND stab a woman in the street. I would have no remorse whatsoever after killing the fag.
|
On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely.
No this isn't unlikely actually, I have heard MANY stories like these.
|
On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out.
Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting 
Edit: I feel a pain in the neck just LOOKING at that image. So amazing that this can happen.
|
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it.
|
I bet she is a hardcore drug user.
|
United States43570 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:37 inReacH wrote:
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it.
It said the jack broke. That doesn't necessarily mean it disappeared. A bit of metal fatiguing creaks and slowly bends before breaking. You don't need superhuman reflexes and nor is momentum automatically involved.
|
On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting
Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
|
On February 05 2010 10:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:37 inReacH wrote:
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it. It said the jack broke. That doesn't necessarily mean it disappeared. A bit of metal fatiguing creaks and slowly bends before breaking. You don't need superhuman reflexes and nor is momentum automatically involved.
Oh so she was watching the situation closely enough for that but not to stop her baby from crawling under the car.. and it just broke right as he goes under the car...
People make shit like this up because it's inspiring and that's fine.. I'm just saying it's not likely to have gone down the way it was described.
I certainly never said it was impossible
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
