@Eris
In that case we have a fundamental different understanding of what constitutes personhood. As such, this discussion cannot proceed any further. Also, you'll have some explaining to do when humanity discovers intelligent extraterrestrials, of our level or higher.

@alyx @Eris
>Deja vu

@alyx
>In that case we have a fundamental different understanding of what constitutes personhood.
In that case you are insane and all your arguments are incoherent. Thank you for proving my point.

@Eris
I didn't even make an argument. I only asked some question to gauge your level of intelligence and open mindedness to see if it's even worth making an argument.

@alyx My mind is not open to arguments based on a misunderstanding of what a human is.

@Eris
I asked about personhood, not humanity.

@alyx Same thing.

@Eris
Nope. You can call a strand of hair human, but you can't call it a person.

@alyx Sure I can. My hair is me.

@Eris
Now who's making bad arguments...

@alyx You.

@alyx There is no object that is identifiable as "human" that is not a part of some person.

@Eris
Congrats, you just agreed with me that "person" is not the same as "human". As you just discovered yourself, "human" is a subclass of "person".

@alyx No, I disagree with you.

@Eris
Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible. Which makes it impossible for person = human.

@alyx
>Saying "human object is part of person" excludes the other way around being possible.
No it doesn't. My hair is a human. It is a person. That person is me.

@Eris
You hair is a person? You've reached peak idiocy, just so you can refuse to admit that you're wrong about an inconsequential thing that doesn't even necessarily threaten your abortion argument.

@alyx

>You hair is a person?
Yes. My foot is also a person: me.
>You've reached peak idiocy
Are you implying these statements are idiotic? They are true.

@Eris
You literally started with "person is a DISCRETE human being" and ended up with "hair is person" JUST so you don't admit you could be wrong about something.

@alyx I'm not wrong and gaslighting won't convince me I am.

@Eris
You gaslight yourself in changing your own definition of "person".

@alyx How has my definition changed?
You are pre-emptively saying "your argument is ridiculous" without saying how and assuming i will just agree. Very silly way to behave.

@Eris
You've started our discussion by stating that distinct human beings is what constitutes a person.
Now you're stating that body parts of a human (as opposed to a full distinct human being) is what constitutes a person.
You're contradicting yourself.
Not to mention that the first thing people will think about when hearing "person" is a distinct individual functioning mind. It's why we don't really call a skeleton or a putrefying body a person anymore. And last I checked, your foot doesn't have a mind of it's own.

@alyx

>You've started our discussion by stating that distinct human beings is what constitutes a person.
Yes.
>Now you're stating that body parts of a human (as opposed to a full distinct human being) is what constitutes a person.
Yes.
>You're contradicting yourself.
How? What's the contradiction? Both are true. The latter is an elaboration of the former.

@alyx

Is a slice of cake cake?

@alyx @Eris
at what level of intelligence does one need to be classified a "person" ?