Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[henry quirk]

How the hell would you know?

The same way you would "know" about my "intrinsic nature".

I don't know anything about your intrinsic nature: I only know you have one.

[Immanuel Can]

Imagine you are a murderous psychopath, but you also are incredibly self-disciplined and have impeccable impulse control.

Do you commit murder or not?

...who Skep is determines what Skep does (or doesn't do), or Who you are determines what you do.

Right.

There's hardly any field of human endeavour that is free from "high-functioning psychopaths."
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... psychopath)

And in some fields, psychopathic traits are actually prized and conduce to advanced success: for example, in the case of military personnel, contact-sports athletes, highly-driven or ultra-competitive business situations, and so on.

So long as the actual behaviours of these psychopaths remains bounded, controlled either by their own wills or by appropriate social strictures, there is no cause for concern....they may even be highly-effective members of society. For example, if a football player bounds his aggression to remaining within the rules of the game, there is no problem. His lack of empathy does not become socially problematic, and he is not regarded as criminal or dangerous. Nobody worries. And we don't lock them up.

We judge people on what they DO, not on how they THINK or FEEL. We don't even really know the latter, in most cases, unless it translates into action.

[Skepdick]

Imagine you are a murderous psychopath, but you also are incredibly self-disciplined and have impeccable impulse control.

Do you commit murder or not?

...who Skep is determines what Skep does (or doesn't do), or Who you are determines what you do.

Right.

There's hardly any field of human endeavour that is free from "high-functioning psychopaths."
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... psychopath)

And in some fields, psychopathic traits are actually prized and conduce to advanced success: for example, in the case of military personnel, contact-sports athletes, highly-driven or ultra-competitive business situations, and so on.

So long as the actual behaviours of these psychopaths remains bounded, controlled either by their own wills or by appropriate social strictures, there is no cause for concern....they may even be highly-effective members of society. For example, if a football player bounds his aggression to remaining within the rules of the game, there is no problem. His lack of empathy does not become socially problematic, and he is not regarded as criminal or dangerous. Nobody worries. And we don't lock them up.

We judge people on what they DO, not on how they THINK or FEEL. We don't even really know the latter, in most cases, unless it translates into action.

The point I am making (which went over your head) - the only way YOU (Henry) can distinguish between a psychopath and non-psychopath is by observing behaviour.

There is no empirical test, no measurements you can take from a person (blood/DNA/brain/chemistry etc.) to determine whether they are psychopaths.

Trivially: if psychopathy is intrinsic, why do we diagnose by observing behaviour?

[Immanuel Can]

Trivially: if psychopathy is intrinsic, why do we diagnose by observing behaviour?

Easy to answer.

We diagnose that way because that's the empirical evidence for the underlying intrinsic condition.

To parallel: if someone says they are a super-athlete, they're saying something about their intrinsic capabilities. But how will we know whether or not it's true? By what they DO.

If they just say they have the intrinsic ability, but never do anything, then in what sense are they a super-athlete at all?

If somebody thinks like a psychopath, but never does anything that flags him/her as a psychopath, then we have no empirical evidence that he/she is a psychopath at all.

[Impenitent]

a constant conjunction is no guarantee of future events

who needs freewill?

-Imp

[Skepdick]

Easy to answer.

We diagnose that way because that's the empirical evidence for the underlying intrinsic condition.

Easy to give a wrong answer indeed.

The empirical test for psychopathy doesn't correlate with anything intrinsically testable/verifiable/falsifiable.
The empirical test for haemophilia correlates with a DNA sample.

Ergo intrinsic DNA is the best explanation for (cause of?) haemophilia.
What is the intrinsic explanation for (cause of?) psychopathy?

The difference is in the predictive power of your intrinsic (ontological) model.

Less than 1% of the people diagnosed with psychopathy actually commit murder.
Practically 100% of the people who have the mutated gene develop haemophilia.

By knowing that Henry has a point-mutation on his X-chromosome you can predict he has haemophilia.
By knowing that Henry is a psychopathy you can't make any predictions about him - it's a label without a corresponding ontology.

Mutual information

To parallel: if someone says they are a super-athlete, they're saying something about their intrinsic capabilities. But how will we know whether or not it's true? By what they DO.

So what is a psychopath claiming about their "intrinsic" capabilities then?

If somebody thinks like a psychopath, but never does anything that flags him/her as a psychopath, then we have no empirical evidence that he/she is a psychopath at all.

Which is precisely the point I am making. Psychopathy is not an a-priori predictor of behaviour - it's an a-posteriori assertion about behaviour.

The difference is that psychopathy is determined by adductive reasoning - the conclusion is not (cannot be) verified.

[Belinda]

The intrinsic nature of all human beings is well established as mammals with backbones ending in a forked shape.It's alsp well established the human is characterised by symbolic language which enabled sapiens to survive among predators a lot stronger and faster than he.

There are areas of human behaviour and personality that are still not assigned to either nature of nurture. Extreme protection of one's own babies seems to be constant.

St Paul said we are all sinners in need of saving from ourselves. All religions aim to get believers to act together according to the moral code the religion espouses, and St Paul's advocacy of Christianity was no different from others in that respect. Paul well knew nobody , barring JC, can live as perfect men. Paul's warning is actually most appropriate now when nobody can live without an ecological footprint so we should aim to be frugal like Jesus and the Disciples. St Paul said nothing about how we are incapable of learning to be better people. In fact Paul himself changed his personality on his way to Damascus. Paul was an intelligent man capable of deep learning from experience, and his reasoning and political ability are well known.

[Immanuel Can]

The empirical test for psychopathy doesn't correlate with anything intrinsically testable/verifiable/falsifiable.

Sure it does. It's behaviourally manifest, or it's merely latent and not of concern to anyone.

What is the intrinsic explanation for (cause of?) psychopathy?

"Intrinsic"? Who says the cause is "intrinsic"? It could be environmental, or developmental, or chemical...we don't know that in advance.

By knowing that Henry is a psychopathy you can't make any predictions about him

That's because, unlike merely physical conditions like hemophilia, psychopathy is psychological. Thus, its diagnosis as a pathology is behavioural, and behavioural choices are involved. You can't say in advance what, behaviourally, a free will agent will do -- at least, not with certainty. But that doesn't suggest the underlying psychological diagnosis is wrong.

To parallel: if someone says they are a super-athlete, they're saying something about their intrinsic capabilities. But how will we know whether or not it's true? By what they DO.

So what is a psychopath claiming about their "intrinsic" capabilities then?

He is (perhaps) not claiming anything. We're the ones claiming he's a psychopath -- it was your choice of words, not his own. So the parallel is this: if we say, "He's a psychopath," and somebody else says, "How do you know?" We say, "Because he's killed six people without a hint of remorse or empathy." And that's good prima facie evidence. But if he's done absolutely none of the behaviours of a psychopath, not even manifested the affect of one, we simply will not have a justification for thinking he's a psychopath at all.

"Psychopath," which you have posited as real by your question, is determined by behavioural manifestations. So if you think that its being a behaviourally-diagnosed thing makes it unreal, why did you posit it?

The difference is that psychopathy is determined by adductive reasoning - the conclusion is not (cannot be) verified.

You're a Verificationist? That's been debunked back in the '60s. Popper killed it, then guys like Polanyi showed the limits of Popper too. So neither absolute Verificationism nor Falsificationism works as a final criterion of truth.

You can't, in the strict sense, "verify" anything from the empirical world. What you can do is increase the probabilities that your thesis is correct, until the odds are significant or overwhelming. But to imagine that's "verifying" -- well, that's just not reality.

[Immanuel Can]

All religions aim to get believers to act together according to the moral code the religion espouses, and St Paul's advocacy of Christianity was no different from others in that respect.

That says nothing more than "religions want people to follow their various moral codes." Of course. So do all secular ideologies, political projects, national bodies, business and other ethical subcultures, and so on. What of that?

St Paul said nothing about how we are incapable of learning to be better people.

Actually, he said a ton about that. Here's just one bit:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Now, that's quite a lot, isn't it?

[Skepdick]

Sure it does. It's behaviourally manifest, or it's merely latent and not of concern to anyone.

Ergo, it has no a priori predictive utility!

"Intrinsic"? Who says the cause is "intrinsic"?

Henry is saying it.

It could be environmental, or developmental, or chemical...we don't know that in advance.

Precisely what I am telling you. Labelling somebody as a psychopath has NO a priori predictive utility.

That's because, unlike merely physical conditions like hemophilia, psychopathy is psychological.

You just said it's environmental or chemical! Now it's psychological. Make up your mind as to the locality of this "thing" you call "psychopathy".

You can't say in advance what, behaviourally, a free will agent will do -- at least, not with certainty.

Gibberish. I can guess in advance what a haemophiliac will do with 99%+ certainty.

What can I guess about a psychopath to such high degree of certainty?

But that doesn't suggest the underlying psychological diagnosis is wrong.

That's literally what it suggests to an empiricist. The label is assigned a posteriori. ergo - it has ZERO predictive utility.

He is (perhaps) not claiming anything. We're the ones claiming he's a psychopath -- it was your choice of words, not his own.

OK. What information have you acquired about me, what can you predict ABOUT my behaviour knowing THAT I am a psychopath and to what degree of certainty can you predict it?

So the parallel is this: if we say, "He's a psychopath," and somebody else says, "How do you know?" We say, "Because he's killed six people without a hint of remorse or empathy."

I haven't killed 6 people. Your acceptance of my "psychopathy" is based on a self report. Self-label. Self-identification.

Predict something about me.

And that's good prima facie evidence.

If somebody murdered 6 people it doesn't matter if you label them as "psychopaths" or "murderers". The label adds nothing to the conversation.

"Psychopath," which you have posited as real by your question, is determined by behavioural manifestations.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe a-priori self-reporting of psychopathy or you believe a-posteriori behaviour-based diagnosis.

Which one is it?

So if you think that its being a behaviourally-diagnosed thing makes it unreal, why did you posit it?

Because neither Henry's nor my psychopathy is behaviourally diagnosed. It's self-reported. Like ALL beliefs.

You're a Verificationist?

Rinse, repeat. Is that an assertion you make based on my behaviour or my self-reporting of my behaviour?

That's been debunked back in the '60s. Popper killed it, then guys like Polanyi showed the limits of Popper too.

Dumb philosopher. For as long as an idea is being USED it's rather meaningless to say it has been "debunked".

The verification criterion lives in the form of methodical reproducibility in science.

So neither absolute Verificationism nor Falsificationism works as a final criterion of truth.

Who cares? I reject Truth like I reject your God.

You can't, in the strict sense, "verify" anything from the empirical world.

In the strict, made-up philosophical sense nothing is possible. Good thing there are pragmatists to save us from philosophers.

But in the medical sense there's no problem to sample your DNA and verify your haemophilia. Even if I arrive at the conclusion that you are haemophilic from watching you bleed/fail to clot.

What you can do is increase the probabilities that your thesis is correct, until the odds are significant or overwhelming. But to imagine that's "verifying" -- well, that's just not reality.

Way to mis-understand.

If my a-priori thesis about you is that you are haemophiliac, there are at least two a-posteriori measurements possible to verify/falsify my thesis.

1. DNA sample
2. Cut you and see if the bleeding stops or it doesn't.

If my a-priori thesis about you is that you are a psychopath (because you killed 6 people in the past), there is only ONE measurement possible to confirm my thesis - you go and kill 6 more people. There are no falsifications possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure it does. It's behaviourally manifest, or it's merely latent and not of concern to anyone.

Ergo, it has no a priori predictive utility!

"Predictive utility" is only one of the several criteria of the 'epistemic virtue' set. So even if true, that would not count much against the reality of psychopathy.

However, as I said before, psychopathy was your posit, not Henry's. If you don't believe it's real, why did you posit it?

That's because, unlike merely physical conditions like hemophilia, psychopathy is psychological.

You just said it's environmental or chemical! Now it's psychological. Make up your mind as to the locality of this "thing" you call "psychopathy".

That's routine. It's not an "either/or." Many psychological conditions are due to environmental factors or chemical ones. Consider, for example, autism or bipolar disorder -- both are scientifically associated with things other than intrinsic states, and yet they are psychological as well.

You can't say in advance what, behaviourally, a free will agent will do -- at least, not with certainty.

Gibberish. I can guess in advance what a haemophiliac will do with 99%+ certainty.

No you can't. You don't know anything about what a haemophiliac will do -- that is, with his psychology or behaviour. You only know that he will bleed if he injures himself.

it has ZERO predictive utility.

I see you're hung up on that. But again, "predictive utility" is only one of the epistemic virtues, not the whole package. And the point of having the package is that any particular theory is only able to satisfy the majority of the criteria, and few can satisfy all.

In any case, your objection is even poorer than that. For to say that a diagnosis of a psychological condition lacks "predictive" efficacy in regard to behaviour is to mix two different realms, and thus create amphiboly. Your argument, then, would make no more sense than to say that because cancer tells you nothing certain (or "predictive") about the behaviour of a cancer patient, cancer does not exist and is not scientific.

"Psychopath," which you have posited as real by your question, is determined by behavioural manifestations.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Not at all. I'm simply asking on what basis you posited the concept "psychopath." It's your concept, I would think you would have had something objective in mind, no?

So if you think that its being a behaviourally-diagnosed thing makes it unreal, why did you posit it?

Because neither Henry's nor my psychopathy is behaviourally diagnosed. It's self-reported. Like ALL beliefs.

And yet, you were the one who posited it. You were the one who first employed the word, as if it referred to something.

You're a Verificationist?

Rinse, repeat. Is that an assertion you make based on my behaviour or my self-reporting of my behaviour?

It's a report I make based on your use of words. Hey, it was you who chose them, not me.

The verification criterion lives in the form of methodical reproducibility in science.

Ah. You are a Verificationist. That means that you don't know the arguments decisively refuting it. You've contented yourself with calling people like Popper and Polanyi "dumb," and then running away from their critiques.

Gottit.

Who cares? I reject Truth like I reject your God.

You mean, "out of hand." Yes, I see.

But in the medical sense there's no problem to sample your DNA and verify your haemophilia.

It won't predict behaviour though. According to your own logic, that makes it unreal...it's not "predictive" of behaviour.

If my a-priori thesis about you is that you are haemophiliac, there are at least two a-posteriori measurements possible to verify/falsify my thesis.

1. DNA sample
2. Cut you and see if the bleeding stops or it doesn't.

If my a-priori thesis about you is that you are a psychopath (because you killed 6 people in the past), there is only ONE measurement possible to confirm my thesis - you go and kill 6 more people. There are no falsifications possible.

This is the point!

You're affirming hemophilia as real, on the basis that DNA is used to identify hemophilia. Fine. But that's because hemophilia is strictly physiological, not psychological phenomenon in the first place! Then you argue that a psychological phenomenon like psychopathy must not be real because the tests for psychological phenomena are weak on prediction of behaviour. It's like saying, "The Super Bowl is not real, because DNA won't tell us the winner in advance -- ordinary testing has no predictive value."

You've got apples and oranges there, Frank. A blood test is never going to predict behaviour. But so what? A litmus test isn't going to predict fatality rates , and a driving test isn't going to predict acidity. So what? None of those are tests for the relevant conclusions.

[Skepdick]

"Predictive utility" is only one of the several criteria of the 'epistemic virtue' set. So even if true, that would not count much against the reality of psychopathy.

It would count against the "reality" of psychopathy if your hypothesis is wrong...

But the very fact that you are using the language of "realness" hints at your dysfunction.

However, as I said before, psychopathy was your posit, not Henry's. If you don't believe it's real, why did you posit it?

Because you believe it's real (which is your language, not mine). And that makes for a perfect case-study.

Many psychological conditions are due to environmental factors or chemical ones.

The diagnosis of most psychological conditions depends on self-reporting, and yet you objected to the self-reporting of a "super-athlete".

There's no other way to say this: you are using a double standard.

Consider, for example, autism or bipolar disorder -- both are scientifically associated with things other than intrinsic states, and yet they are psychological as well.

But autism and bipolar are considered to be ONLY psychological, not environmental - which is to mean that variables only local to the patient are sufficient for the diagnosis. There are no environmental factors which mitigate or exacerbate the severity of either condition. Why are you blurring your own categories now?

No you can't. You don't know anything about what a haemophiliac will do

They WILL bleed indefinitely if cut. I am saying this with 99% certainty.

If they cut themselves, they WILL die unless they receive medical attention to mitigate the fact that their blood doesn't clot.

That much I know about haemophiliacs. If that's not "anything" then I don't know what is.

-- that is, with his psychology or behaviour. You only know that he will bleed if he injures himself.

Shifting the goal posts.

Haemophilia relates to bleeding, so I can tell you with great degree of certainty what will happen.
If psychopathy relates to behaviour then go ahead and tell me with such high degree of certainty how a psychopath is going to behave.

If your objection is that "bleeding is not a behaviour" - then you are only disagreeing about categorisation, not substance.

I see you're hung up on that. But again, "predictive utility" is only one of the epistemic virtues, not the whole package

You don't even know what "the whole" package is when it comes to psychology. Because psychology is not a science.

80%+ reproduction failure...

. And the point of having the package is that any particular theory is only able to satisfy the majority of the criteria, and few can satisfy all.

The criterion for science is prediction. 80% of psychology can't satisfy that.

In any case, your objection is even poorer than that. For to say that a diagnosis of a psychological condition lacks "predictive" efficacy in regard to behaviour is to mix two different realms, and thus create amphiboly. Your argument, then, would make no more sense than to say that because cancer tells you nothing certain (or "predictive") about the behaviour of a cancer patient, cancer does not exist and is not scientific.

Correct! Cancer is not an (ontological) thing! There are many different and very dis-similar medical conditions which are all labeled as "cancer". In English we say: "Cancer" is a collective noun.

"Cancer doesn't exist" is only an absurd claim in colloquial conversations and only on a shallow level of understanding. It's a perfectly reasonable objection amongst medical practitioners.

It's a faulty generalisation.

Not at all. I'm simply asking on what basis you posited the concept "psychopath." It's your concept, I would think you would have had something objective in mind, no?

It's not my concept. It's a psychological concept. I need not believe the words I use. Do I?

Q.E.D I think psychology is bullshit, even though I am using the word.

And yet, you were the one who posited it. You were the one who first employed the word, as if it referred to something.

So? I could've chosen any other commonly-accepted psychological term. All of psychology is flawed in exactly the same, philosophical way.

Self-reporting of beliefs/behaviours.

It's a report I make based on your use of words. Hey, it was you who chose them, not me.

So if I chose different words you would've arrived at a different diagnosis? Even though I am using different words to describe the exact same behaviour? That's the fucking problem!

That's also how I got my Aspergers' diagnosis. I gamed the psychologist.

So now I get to choose my words again. I can choose to pretend to have Aspergers, or I can choose to pretend I don't have Aspergers.

Does that mean I do or don't have Aspergers?

Ah. You are a Verificationist.

I am no more a verificationists than I am a psychopath. "You are X" is the ontological error of all Western Philosophy.

You like nouns - I like verbs.

I am not a Verificationist, but I verify things.

That means that you don't know the arguments decisively refuting it. You've contented yourself with calling people like Popper and Polanyi "dumb," and then running away from their critiques.

Gottit.

Q.E.D you continue to trust self-reporting! If Popper was "so objectionable" to verificationism how come we have Popperian verificationism?

You mean, "out of hand." Yes, I see.

You see what I mean? Fucking mind-reader!

It won't predict behaviour though.

According to your own logic, that makes it unreal...it's not "predictive" of behaviour.

Haemophilia predicts SOMETHING. Psychopathy doesn't predict anything.
Things that predict have forward-looking utility. Again... I am not using the language of "realness".

I am also NOT using logic - I am using natural language (so you are welcome to use the "your argument is illogical" as a pejorative. Such criticism will be ignored, however.)

The "realness" of psychopathy (or anything - in general) is not is not even a question that concerns me, but if you insist on over-indexing on the "Realness" of things, I might just saddle an Anti-realist horse....

Oh wait. Philosophy forum. I keep forgetting that you are actually trying to mis-understand me.

Philosophy. Such a stupid game - the only winning move is to not play.

This is the point!

Then why are you mis-understanding me?

I keep repeating myself.

Psychopathy is an a-posteriori assertion about past events (behaviour) with zero a-priori predictive utility.
Haemophilia is an a-posteriori assertion about past events (bleeding) with non-zero a-piori predictive utility.

The common understanding in the scientific metaphysic is that if it predicts - it has some ontological credibility.

You're affirming hemophilia as real, , on the basis that DNA is used to identify hemophilia.

Where the hell have I even used the word "real"? I am affirming the meaning of the word/phenomenon "haemophilia".
I am telling you how haemophilia relates to other things - both a-priori and a-posteriori things.

I am DOING this so that you can understand what I mean when I use the word "haemophilia", and I am telling you everything you need to know to VERIFY the DNA/bleeding predictions made about a haemophiliac.

You telling me that Henry is a psychopath allows me none of those things. And yet the process/method by which you asserted Henry's psychopathy matters very much to me.

If Henry self-reported it to you, or if it's your "Professional Psychological Opinion" - I'll shrug my shoulders and move on with my life.
If arrived at the conclusion because Henry actually murdered 6 people on 6 different occasions - I am going to make sure I grow eyes on the back of my head if I am to ever encounter Henry.

Fine. But that's because hemophilia is strictly physiological, not psychological phenomenon in the first place!

"Psychological phenomenon" is an oxymoron. Another person's psychology is a noumenon to you.

Then you argue that a psychological phenomenon like psychopathy must not be real because the tests for psychological phenomena are weak on prediction of behaviour.

I am saying that the diagnosis of "psychopathy" (when done on the basis of self-reporting and behavioural observations) does not allow for future predictions. The "realness" of the psychopathy is not even in-point.

I am also saying that the diagnosis of "psychopathy" (when done a-posteriori a mass murder) also doesn't allow for future predictions.

It's just a label that doesn't correspond to an objective measurement.

It's like saying, "The Super Bowl is not real, because DNA won't tell us the winner in advance -- ordinary testing has no predictive value."

It's nothing like that. What an idiotic analogy. Only an idiot-philosopher could come up with that.

You've got apples and oranges there, Frank. A blood test is never going to predict behaviour. But so what? A litmus test isn't going to predict fatality rates , and a driving test isn't going to predict acidity. So what? None of those are tests for the relevant conclusions.

Precisely the point I made right at the beginning! What is the test for the conclusion of "psychopathy"?

Test is another fucking word for VERIFICATION.

[henry quirk]

...makes, I'm sure, for great debate and conversation, but kinda strays from, what is for me, the essential question:

Meat or person?

Or, if that's too blunt:

Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?

I first raised the question here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26604

I followed up here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27590

The conversation continued in other threads I'm too lazy to track down and resumed here, in this thread.

Now, I'm a big advocate for lettin' threads meander, for lettin' threads become whatever the participants make 'em, so if blood diseases, nutjobbery, and diagnosis is where you guys wanna go: so be it. I just wanna point out: the essential question is shiverin' in the corner feelin' neglected.

'nuff said

[Skepdick]

Meat or person?

Maybe both - depends on the context, and most of all: depends on purpose/intent.

If I am trying to dehumanise you, then you are obviously a meatbag.

Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?

I first raised the question here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26604

I followed up here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27590

The conversation continued in other threads I'm too lazy to track down and resumed here, in this thread.

The conversation stalled when I pointed out that "intrinsic personhood" is bestowed.

If you deem me to be an "intrinsic person" then that says nothing of me.
That says of your attitude towards me.

[henry quirk]

Meat or person?

Maybe both - depends on the context, and most of all: depends on purpose/intent.

If I am trying to dehumanise you, then you are obviously a meatbag.

Is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?

I first raised the question here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26604

I followed up here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27590

The conversation continued in other threads I'm too lazy to track down and resumed here, in this thread.

The conversation stalled when I pointed out that "intrinsic personhood" is bestowed.

If you deem me to be an "intrinsic person" then that says nothing of me.
That says of your attitude towards me.

No, you seein' me as meat, attemptin' to treat me as meat, doesn't make me meat (cuz I'm a person).

Not really. All you did was what a whole whack of other folks did in those other threads which, I say generously, was nuthin' more or less than distraction.

Exactly. What you are and my assessment of you are two different things.