The Glade 4.0

Not at all.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Look, the answer is "neither." And since that isn't a listed option, it's a false dilemma. If other options exist and the questioner limits the questionee it's a false-dilemma. That makes it a flawed and illogical question, but since you all were so keen on my answer, I've provided it, now that that thread is 8 pages diverted.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It doesn't need to be a listed option because the scope of the question in the first place is not "who would you actually vote for?" It is therefore not a false dilemma, nor illogical. It may be flawed in that it really tells us very little of use, but there is nothing logically wrong with it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If we examined every cannidate over the last 5 years , and catagorized who you voted for vs their opponent I'll bet you money you voted more often for the more 'conservative' of them. This just comes across as people with a certain mindset who insist they're too-cool/independent/mavrick/outsider/etc to actually accept that they really do favor at least the ideals of a certain party. Some of us may be liberals, but at least we're honest about it.

Yes, in fact always.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Does the fetus obtain nourishment from its host with no benefit to said host?

Yes. Therefore, parasite.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Arafys, you are kidding right?

_________________

Does the fetus obtain nourishment from its host with no benefit to said host?

Yes. Therefore, parasite.[/quote]

That specific organism often provides benefits to the host. I am currently providing "cutting down old trees and cleaning the attic" benefits to my parent.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That specific organism often provides benefits to the host. I am currently providing "cutting down old trees and cleaning the attic" benefits to my parent.[/quote]

/facepalm

I wasn't aware you were still a fetus.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

/facepalm

I wasn't aware you were still a fetus.[/quote]

Creatures are not defined as parasitic based on activity during their development within their parent. If you want to call yourself a parasite go ahead - I won't stop you but I am damn sure going to cut your delusion off when you refer to groups that include me or that I have been a member of.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So all life forms only have one stage of life, and their behavior or physical needs are always the same? Do you still leech nutrients from your mother's womb?

Never made that argument. Simply stated what is not considered grounds for being a parasite. We could go through this all again but your position mandates that all sexual and most asexual reproducing species are parasites. Since this is not the case it seems the flaw must be located within your position.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

They have a parasitical relationship to their host.

Ergo, parasite.

However, at least you're intellectually consistent. Wrong, but consistently so.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You keep using parasite/host terminology when its been explained that it doesn't apply. I understand you might really really want it to apply in this case because it makes preserving your emotional statement much easier - it just doesn't work that way in the real world that exists outside your mind. Words have meaning. This meaning has specificity. This is used to distinguish these words from other words in order to construct a process of communicating thought. Purposefully distorting their meaning in use conveys a less specific message (which of course is the intent here because you need to marry a negative connotation from one term to another which does not have one) is the opposite of communication.

I've pointed out they don't have a parasitical relationship to their host - I've illustrated my case. As I've said before parasite is a label attached to the species - not one point if a lifecycle. If you were a fetus and were a parasite you are a parasite now and so was everything that reproduces sexually. I've shown how this isn't the definition and how if it were it would render such a word devoid of the meaning you wish to impart on the word fetus.

Your attempts to continue to plead your case to blur the meaning of the word by repetition only speak to your possessing no intent of discussion and to the status of your closed mind.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

Your definition is far too narrow. There are several definitions of "parasite" that do not specify that the organism be a different species.

And the relationship is *purely* parasitical. The fetus takes nutrition from the host, and provides nothing in return. Your attempts to handwave this by saying you do useful things for your parents are futile. During gestation, the fetus is a parasite on the mother.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Twice or thrice again, parasite is a definition placed on the species - not one segment of its lifecycle. And no http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite your broad definition is incorrect - as I've stated by your own logic you destroy the meaning of the word with your usage.

But if you really want to hoist this failed flag - many women take emotional pleasure in being with child, they are afforded special commendation in society and are generally get a better class of treatment thanks to the presence of their child.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Seriously? You want to define the word in the most narrow, exacting form (like you do with pretty much all of your arguments) that only suits you and the way you want the word to be used.

Language doesn't work that way bucko. Different people have different interpretations of how words are used. And, as supported by several lexicons, the definition of parasite that I am choosing is apt, and correct.

You can't separate it from your fanatical devotion to a radical ideology. To you, a Fetus *must not* be defined as a parasite, because it cannot therefore have rights, and in turn can then be aborted.

So there.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Unfortunately for you Mus, Elmo is correct in this case. Biologically, a fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus provides a benefit to the parent. It carries on genes to the next generation. It is one of the most crucial benefits to the parent. A parasite must also be a different species from its host. Since a fetus is not, it does not conform to the definition of a parasite.

See Wikipedia: Parasitism

By the way, I stopped responding because I lost track of the conversation. Sorry to derail.

Hmm, lets see what Wiki says
Other organisms

Innnnteresting

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Did you REALLY Just edit a wikipedia article to try to win an argument????

Do you REALLY need to ask?

_________________

Interesting Mus, since it was just edited. Do you really want me to quote out of my biology textbooks, which I don't have access to at the moment? Or shall I also use the National Cancer Institute? The only reason I used Wikipedia was because it was easy to find on the fly while I'm at work.

Nooooo... Who would do that? Honestly

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You people take me *far* too seriously sometimes.

Should really know better

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That's kind of a weak attempt to backtrack when you quite clearly were making a persistent and serious go at it.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones