re: #683 Obdicut

I use a definition of person that’s highly biological. You don’t?

Nope. To me, “Person” is metaphysical. To a small extent it’s the question posed by Campbell: what is “human”? I am curious, however. What is the biological determinant of person - what condition turns it from a non-person collection of cells to a person?

See, to me the parasitism thing is a talking point, and you’re describing it as such.

Not really. A talking point is a statement meant to stand as its own argument. It isn’t a conversational opening. The parasitism thing is a conversational opener. I do not rely upon it to stand for the whole of my argument. Clumsily analogous is “opening with a joke”. (I wish I were talented enough to use a joke instead of this term. I’m not.)

Yes, that’s Windsagio’s argument. He uses the analogy of someone being hooked up to you that you have to do dialysis for. It is logically sound, but it’s emotionally difficult to comprehend, because we don’t think of pregnancies as someone being hooked up to us for dialysis.

and as you stated, it apparently persuades nobody.

So is that true for them, too? They could persuade you through emotion? If not, what’s the difference between you and them?

Fair question. The primary difference is that I use both heart and mind. (sorry for the cliche). The point I was trying to make is that if you don’t use both, the heart — the emotional argument — wins. In an ideal world both are used, and I try to do this as much as possible.

That said I, being human, am persuadable through emotion. I know this. It’s the reason art is so powerful. I’ve been taught to use my mind to double-check my heart, but if the emotional persuasion is strong enough that’s not necessarily going to work.

But I’ve not seen a strong enough emotional argument to counter the ones I’ve already experienced.