I would seriously argue against this theory. I've seen my dog staring at my kid's dinner, considering whether or not that sausage is worth the boot up the hole he is going to get as soon as he nabs it.
You're talking about something completely different. I'll get back to this tomorrow night, my pizza is getting cold. There's a huge difference between structured thought (as in reasoning) and reacting to the world around you. Of course babies are inquisitive, they're born with a huge capacity to learn and are discovering the world around them. My point was that without language, there is no way for that baby to 'think' or express those 'thoughts' in any other way in it's mind.
So instinctively the dog would take the food if you hadn't taught it that it'll get a boot up the arse if it does? My point is about babies that have just been brought into the world
Go away you clueless ****. Is that your idea of contributing to a debate? No I didn't. What I said was true, but your interpretation of what he said is right? Please enlighten me then Rebel?
My idea of contributing died when you entered with your attacks to posters and not the post. I told you this at the time.
My first 2 posts on this thread, and the first one was made in response to someone being rude about me. The Dignitas comment was because you were questioning people's right to decide if they want to die or not.
Aye but you know he is thinking about it, his eyes are on the sausage, he then looks you in the eyes, he wants that sausage but he is conscious that he's not allowed that sausage. It may not be the same complex levels of thought we are able to maintain, but it's definitely thought. On the subject of babies - my oldest was born premature with lots of complications. Every part of me was devastated at the thought that this baby could die, this baby which I had never known and barely even held. It was an instinctive and human emotion to try everything in my power to make sure that this little stranger had a chance. As a mammal who is sitting here trying to define what is right and wrong, this seems like a very obvious starting point; evolutionary instincts that drive you into making sure your young have every possible chance of making it.
Basically Toby thinks that there should be a "solution" to a problem facing "fathers" who have no "living space" for unwanted persons who "take all their money" Schmuck
Children are born with an incredible ability to learn, through copying what they see/hear/... from the world around them. It is even argued that we are genetically programmed to learn/develop language (can't remember the name of the guy who came up with the theory, was years ago). How can you think if you have no way of structuring it?
Let's not get involved with the whole 'evolutionary instincts' thing, as a species we have risen above that (I'm not saying it's not true, but our intelligence allows us to make decisions that trump those instincts). I want to be a father, but I also want my children to be happy and enjoy their lives. The 2nd part is why I haven't had children yet.
You wish for me to explain procreation to you? What you said was entirely untrue unless you believe in immaculate conception. This could explain your inability to impregnate Mrs Toby. A period is not a termination of a pregnancy. Jip was explaining this to you. You took this took this as a licence to make the giant leap to suggest that Jip believes that the moment of conception is where life begins. I have no idea whether Jip believes this or not. Why not ask him? You made a giant leap from one thing to another. I can't be the first person to tell you that you have poor comprehension.
Right, I've got the new Futurama to watch and work tomorrow, I'll come back to this tomorrow. Jip, Mick and Glesga, it was nice to have a civilised chat about this (you got here late PNP) The rest of you can go **** yourselves
You didn't. You said To which Jip responded So there is no doubt at all as to how Jip picked that up. Yet you proceded to project an argument onto Jip that he never made. Agreed?
