Do humans begin life as a parasite....

dottedmint · Apr 7, 2007

jallman said:
If you have no intention or no capability of reasoning with him/her, then do you give me leave to grind her/him under the heel of truth and be done with it?

:surrender No.....Please.....Not....That....:surrender Anything.....But....That....:surrender

:rofl :neener

talloulou · Apr 7, 2007

dottedmint said:
Happy to help.....

And I guess I should have made this a bit more clear in my first posting on the whole "parasite" debate.....

I don't know of any biologist calling humans parasites......
That was never the point I was trying to make.

And my statement isn't that humans as a whole species are parasites.

I am more looking specifically at the ZEF and the type of existence that it leads.

It is a living organism that lives in and gets its 'food' from another organism.

That is what a parasite does....

I know you and I disagree on this but I don't see using the term parasite as something that lowers the value of the ZEF.

Would you find it as offensive to say a ZEF lives a parasitic existence?

Yes because I find such declarations are usually made in an attempt to compare the unborn to tapeworms or pinworms. It likens the ZEF to something gross, disgusting, and something any rational person would rid themselves of immediately. Parasites aren't generally organisms that anyone favors having in their body so I dislike the comparison. I also find it disturbing to compare ones own reproductive offspring to something that you pick up often by being in unhygenic areas or eating infected foods. It's a very unhealthy view of sex in my opinion.

jallman · Apr 7, 2007

dottedmint said:
:surrender No.....Please.....Not....That....:surrender Anything.....But....That....:surrender

:rofl :neener

Well don't act as if my ire were turned against you or anything.

I just don't like dottedmint thinking she can openly challenge one such as me, and by proxy you and jerry and 1069 and grannie and dare not felicity on a point we have already laid to rest our of genuine desire to get somewhere with this debate

Dammit, sometimes I feel like we have been relegated to this frustrating and ire raising conversation because we are the only people genuine enough to achieve some kind of compromise.

If you can't tell, this has become really important to me. LOL

talloulou · Apr 7, 2007

jallman said:
Well don't act as if my ire were turned against you or anything.

I just don't like dottedmint thinking she can openly challenge one such as me, and by proxy you and jerry and 1069 and grannie and dare not felicity on a point we have already laid to rest our of genuine desire to get somewhere with this debate

Dammit, sometimes I feel like we have been relegated to this frustrating and ire raising conversation because we are the only people genuine enough to achieve some kind of compromise.

If you can't tell, this has become really important to me. LOL

Well you know I sometimes go to bed wondering if maybe I'm wrong(not about the whole parasite thing but the whole issue in general).:shock:

Of course by the time I actually fall I sleep I've reconvinced myself I'm right but still I sometimes wonder..... Maybe that's why I spend so much time arguing on this short bus. Maybe I need to keep reconvincing myself. So to me being genuine as well as candid is important as well and it is only through the honest heartfelt feelings of others that I begin to see the other side. Crap like "parasite" is easy to dismiss, but some other stuff...:3oops: Well lets just say I do hear and I mean really hear what prochoicers are saying on occasion.

jallman · Apr 7, 2007

talloulou said:
Well you know I sometimes go to bed wondering if maybe I'm wrong(not about the whole parasite thing but the whole issue in general).:shock:

Of course by the time I actually fall I sleep I've reconvinced myself I'm right but still I sometimes wonder..... Maybe that's why I spend so much time arguing on this short bus. Maybe I need to keep reconvincing myself. So to me being genuine as well as candid is important as well and it is only through the honest heartfelt feelings of others that I begin to see the other side. Crap like "parasite" is easy to dismiss, but some other stuff...:3oops: Well lets just say I do hear and I mean really hear what prochoicers are saying on occasion.

I know you do, baby. Thats one of the things that keeps me posting.

dottedmint · Apr 8, 2007

talloulou said:
Yes because I find such declarations are usually made in an attempt to compare the unborn to tapeworms or pinworms.

Perhaps that is usually the case but I am not trying to compare it to a "tapeworm or pinworm".

From the beginning I have always said that HUMAN LIFE begins with a fertilized egg.

I am merely trying to describe the way that a ZEF survives.

It likens the ZEF to something gross, disgusting, and something any rational person would rid themselves of immediately.

Not all parasites are gross or disgusting. Many are very interesting and complex organisms.

Parasites aren't generally organisms that anyone favors having in their body so I dislike the comparison.

Perhaps but not all parasites are bad....

I also find it disturbing to compare ones own reproductive offspring to something that you pick up often by being in unhygenic areas or eating infected foods. It's a very unhealthy view of sex in my opinion.

And that would be a (how should I put it) 'faulty' view of parasites and where parasites are found. Some parasites live in very 'clean' environments.

jallman · Apr 9, 2007

jallman said:
Well don't act as if my ire were turned against you or anything.

I just don't like dottedmint thinking she can openly challenge one such as me, and by proxy you and jerry and 1069 and grannie and dare not felicity on a point we have already laid to rest our of genuine desire to get somewhere with this debate

Dammit, sometimes I feel like we have been relegated to this frustrating and ire raising conversation because we are the only people genuine enough to achieve some kind of compromise.

If you can't tell, this has become really important to me. LOL

Oops...I posted this thinking talloullou posted what I was responding to...disregard this post. It was made in error.

1069 · Apr 9, 2007

And that would be a (how should I put it) 'faulty' view of parasites and where parasites are found. Some parasites live in very 'clean' environments.

Well, that's true. I mean, maggots that feed on decomposing human flesh are actually very hygienic and beneficial (I know, it sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not).
In the civil war, they'd deliberately place maggots in wounds that soldiers had sustained in battle, and the maggots would eat away the rotting parts of the flesh, leaving only healthy tissue. This is a way they prevented gangrene and saved many lives and limbs.
Are maggots evil?
I'd say they're a godsend, in that situation. Parasites, no doubt about it.
But nevertheless, useful and helpful ones.

FutureIncoming · Apr 9, 2007

The literal answer to the Leading Question of this Messge Thread is "NO".
That's because humans begin life as zygotes, which are completely self-contained for a limited time.

The blastocyst stage, that follows the zygote stage, also exists independently of external resources.

The embryo and fetal stages, however, can {{and I'll get back to that word shortly}} be considered "parasitic in their behavior".

I prefer to use phrases such as "exhibits parasitic behavior" rather than to use that modus operandi as a reason to call an organism a parasite. Because this way there is no problem with any definitions at all, be they ordinary or medical or scientific.

Now about that word "can". Does a beggar on the street exhibit parasitic behavior? I would say "NO", because all the handouts to the beggar are voluntary. I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism. So, when a Society chooses to give alms to beggars, it means that one of the goals of the Society is to support beggars. (I don't know how true this is, but I've read that some people take up panhandling because they say it pays more than flipping burgers.) Anyway, it is also claimed that

John Bradford said:
There but for the grace of God go I.
Quotations: Quotation

Anyone might find self temporarily so far down on luck that begging might be the only way open, to survive. A different philosophy might call it Good Karma, to donate to a beggar. It seems to me that a significant assumption is being made, that the average beggar will do so only temporarily, until other means of income can be achieved. It may even be true, often enough, for the practice to continue to be accepted. Even though I'm sure many feel that some beggars don't want to do anything else, and never do anything else. But since we also know that anything can be abused, is this surprising?

Meanwhile, a thief's behavior is quite typically viewed as being an activity which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism/Society. The thief's behavior qualifies as parasitic, therefore.

Now let's look at generic mammalian reproductive biology from that viewpoint. Being merely animals, most mammals are basically biological stimulus/response machines. They are far more sophisticated in analyzing stimuli, and responding to them, than are the obviously robotic-in-behavior members of the insect kingdom -- but all in all, mammalian actions quite plainly appear to be genetically scripted. No significant Free Will. In consequence we can view them as little more than fancy biological systems with reproduction as the primary goal. Life in general is like that. BUT, if reproduction is the primary goal, then it logically follows that the average unborn mammal's behavior cannot be called parasitic; it's behavior is in accordance with the goal!

HOWEVER, now we get to talk about humans, which are mammals that also have Free Will. We humans can decide that reproduction is or is-not a goal. And so that's why I used the word "can" early in this Message. When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

The pro-lifers seem to think that Society always must have a goal of reproduction, and that goal-of-Society should always be more important than the goals of the individuals in that Society. Such an attitude, of course, would then lead them to think that the behavior of an unborn human can never be classed as parasitic. However, the attitude is flawed. First of all, there is no Objective reason why some particular Society should perpetuate itself forever. Furthermore, if the attitude is excessively zealous, and leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe that destroys the Society, it logically follows that the attitude must have been flawed. (How can a mandate for Society be valid, if instead of perpetuating the Society, self-destruction occurs?)

Meanwhile, we have what might be called a Social Experiment in operation. Abortion is legal. And population is still rising. It logically follows that allowing abortion at the individual-decision level does not interfere with a Society's standard mission to self-perpetuate. Any pro-lifer who claims otherwise is simply lying.

And as already mentioned, at the individual level, the behavior of a human fetus can be classed as parasitic. Which I'm perfectly willing to do, whenever that particular fetus is unwanted by its host.

dottedmint · Apr 9, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
The literal answer to the Leading Question of this Messge Thread is "NO".
That's because humans begin life as zygotes, which are completely self-contained for a limited time..

Good point.....My mistake...

I prefer to use phrases such as "exhibits parasitic behavior" rather than to use that modus operandi as a reason to call an organism a parasite. Because this way there is no problem with any definitions at all, be they ordinary or medical or scientific.

It was never my intention to suggest that humans as a whole should be classified as a parasite. I am simply looking at the definition of a parasite and comparing that to a ZEF.

Now about that word "can". Does a beggar on the street exhibit parasitic behavior? I would say "NO", because all the handouts to the beggar are voluntary. I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism.

And that would be a faulty definition of a parasite because not all parasites have a negative effect on the host.

Meanwhile, a thief's behavior is quite typically viewed as being an activity which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism/Society. The thief's behavior qualifies as parasitic, therefore.

The thief and the begger both would qualify as a parasite....

BUT, if reproduction is the primary goal, then it logically follows that the average unborn mammal's behavior cannot be called parasitic; it's behavior is in accordance with the goal!

Well....

Except that the fish that I pointed to has a "primary goal" of reproduction and yet biologists do call it parasitic.

That goes against what you say.....

When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

Um???

Hypotheticals.....

Woman gets gets pregnant....She wants the child....part way through she changes her mind and doesn't want the child....after talking with her husband she desides that yes she does want the child....Then later she has a miscarriage......

Is the ZEF that she carried a parasite or not????

Woman gets pregnant and carries the child to term NEVER EVEN KNOWING SHE WAS PREGNANT. (sad but that does happen)

Is the ZEF that she carried to term a parasite or not???

And as already mentioned, at the individual level, the behavior of a human fetus can be classed as parasitic. Which I'm perfectly willing to do, whenever that particular fetus is unwanted by its host.

And that reasoning is very flawed because as I said earlier being wanted or not does NOT change if something is a parasite or not.

FutureIncoming · Apr 10, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
I prefer to use phrases such as "exhibits parasitic behavior" rather than to use that modus operandi as a reason to call an organism a parasite. Because this way there is no problem with any definitions at all, be they ordinary or medical or scientific.

dottedmint said:
It was never my intention to suggest that humans as a whole should be classified as a parasite. I am simply looking at the definition of a parasite and comparing that to a ZEF.

You seem to be misinterpreting what I wrote. SO:
1. Start with a set of behaviors.
2. Decide whether or not they are parasitic behaviors.
3. Decide whether or not the organisms exhibiting those behaviors are parasites.
I choose to STOP at Step 2. We do not need to care whether or not an organism can be called a parasite; we only need to decide if its behavior is parasitic or not. Because we can take action based on that. There simply is no need to go to Step 3, before taking action.

FutureIncoming said:
I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism.

dottedmint said:
And that would be a faulty definition of a parasite because not all parasites have a negative effect on the host.

Heh, that group can extend/merge with another group, the "symbiotes". So, it is possible I could have phrased that better, in #59. How about:
"activity by a dependent organism which is contrary to the goals of the host organism"

dottedmint said:
The thief and the begger both would qualify as a parasite...

DISAGREED. You can donate to a beggar and feel good about doing so. That's an immediate benefit for you. There is no such benefit associated with a thief.

dottedmint said:
the fish that I pointed to has a "primary goal" of reproduction and yet biologists do call it parasitic.

Yes, they are using survival-modus behavior to reach that definition. I do not deny their point, but I do think that it is a short-sighted viewpoint. I'm considering the long term. It might be said that a gravid female is "investing" in her offspring; well, before those offspring start to exist, that female fish is investing in a sperm supply! Which is a view that is perfectly valid, and gets us away from calling the male's behavior parasitic, doesn't it?

FutureIncoming said:
When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

dottedmint said:
Um???

The second "hypothetical" that you raised (not quoted here) is ignoring that word "can" which I stressed in red in #59. That "can" refers to a possibility, and data is required before the possible can become actual. The data is required because Human Choice is involved. What sorts of choices are really choices, if relevant data is not included, eh?

And both of your hypotheticals try to go to Step 3, as described above. Unecessary. The simple way to look at it is, if a pregnant woman decides she is being parasitized, then let her seek an abortion. If she changes her mind before the abortion is done, fine. If she changes her mind afterward, almost equally fine. Because (usually) getting pregnant again is pretty easy.

Statistics request: How many women who have difficulty getting pregnant choose abortion? Very very few, I bet. Which validates what I wrote above; the average woman who obtains an abortion is probably able to get pregant again easily. If the abortion operation is botched badly, that's also a rather rare thing, so the "probably" in the previous sentence remains valid.

dottedmint said:
I said earlier being wanted or not does NOT change if something is a parasite or not.

NOR AM I DECLARING ANYTHING TO BE A PARASITE, based on whether or not it is wanted. I stop at Step 2, as described above. Because it is sufficient. In general, the survival-modus of a human fetus is either unwanted/parasitic or wanted/gift-receiving. As decided by the host. Simple.

dottedmint · Apr 10, 2007

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #59
I prefer to use phrases such as "exhibits parasitic behavior" rather than to use that modus operandi as a reason to call an organism a parasite. Because this way there is no problem with any definitions at all, be they ordinary or medical or scientific.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by dottedmint, in Msg #60
It was never my intention to suggest that humans as a whole should be classified as a parasite. I am simply looking at the definition of a parasite and comparing that to a ZEF.

Click to expand...

You seem to be misinterpreting what I wrote. SO:
1. Start with a set of behaviors.
2. Decide whether or not they are parasitic behaviors.
3. Decide whether or not the organisms exhibiting those behaviors are parasites.
I choose to STOP at Step 2. We do not need to care whether or not an organism can be called a parasite; we only need to decide if its behavior is parasitic or not. Because we can take action based on that. There simply is no need to go to Step 3, before taking action.

One organism living "off of" another organism is "parasitic"....

The ZEF (one organism) living "off of" the mother (another organism) is parasitic....

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #59
I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by dottedmint, in Msg #60
And that would be a faulty definition of a parasite because not all parasites have a negative effect on the host.

Click to expand...

Heh, that group can extend/merge with another group, the "symbiotes". So, it is possible I could have phrased that better, in #59. How about:
"activity by a dependent organism which is contrary to the goals of the host organism"

And that would be just as "faulty" because not all "parasitic" behavior is "contrary to the goals of the host organism".

Many have a completely "neutral" influence on the "goals of the host organism".

Originally Posted by dottedmint, in Msg #60
The thief and the begger both would qualify as a parasite...

Click to expand...

DISAGREED. You can donate to a beggar and feel good about doing so. That's an immediate benefit for you. There is no such benefit associated with a thief.

And when I give money to a begger only to get rid of hiim I do not "feel good". (this has happened to me before) I actually feel annoyed and more than a bit bothered

Several years ago I worked for a moving company and one day I was moving a lady out of a 'not so nice part of town'. Part way through the move I had a 'gentleman' walk up to the truck and start asking me for money. I origionally refused to give him any money but he would not go away and kept bothering me and my partner. He even started to climb into the back of the truck with me......NOT GOOD!!!! Eventually I gave him a buck and told him to LEAVE.

I had no 'warm fuzzy feeling'. I was pissed at this guy for interfering with my job and felt very uneasy and I kept an eye out for him until the truck was loaded and we could leave that area.

This beggers actions were parasitic....

Yes, they are using survival-modus behavior to reach that definition. I do not deny their point, but I do think that it is a short-sighted viewpoint.

No. They are looking at (as you put it) a "set of behaviors".

One organism living "off of" another organism......A parasitic behavior...

I'm considering the long term. It might be said that a gravid female is "investing" in her offspring; well, before those offspring start to exist, that female fish is investing in a sperm supply! Which is a view that is perfectly valid, and gets us away from calling the male's behavior parasitic, doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

You still have one organism "living off of" another organism.

Also we don't really know that the female is doing anything to "invest" in her offspring.

Since the male is so much smaller it would be likely that the male seeks out the female not the other way....

Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #59
When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

The reason that your stance is not logical is because we are dealing with the same "behavior".

And what you are claiming is that a behavior is either parasitic or not parasitic.....

You can't have the same behavior be parasitic in one example but not parasitic in another example....

IF I go swimming and end up getting a leech stuck to my toe it's actions are parasitic...

IF I go to the Dr and he places a leech on my toe it's actions are also parasitic even though I want them to be placed on my toe...

In both cases you have a parasite exhibiting parasitic behavior but in one case I welcome it while in the other case I don't welcome it....

NOR AM I DECLARING ANYTHING TO BE A PARASITE, based on whether or not it is wanted. I stop at Step 2, as described above. Because it is sufficient. In general, the survival-modus of a human fetus is either unwanted/parasitic or wanted/gift-receiving. As decided by the host. Simple.

I guess I should have said that being wanted or not does NOT change if something is PARASITIC (better?) or not.

FutureIncoming · Apr 11, 2007

dottedmint said:
One organism living "off of" another organism is "parasitic"....

INADEQUATE. Go back and reread the definitions you originally posted:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/528063-post1.html
A "symbiote" can very easily be an organism that lives off of another, but it is not called a "parasite" because that is not its only behavior. That is, you could call "living off another organism" either "parasitic" or "symbiotic", if that was the only data you had to work with. Also, remember that all mammalian offspring, even after birth, live off their mothers' milk supply, but this behavior is not usually called "parasitic".

dottedmint said:
not all "parasitic" behavior is "contrary to the goals of the host organism". Many have a completely "neutral" influence on the "goals of the host organism".

SO? "Many", when there are millions of species to study, is certainly not "most". Most parasites are detriments to their hosts. Your exceptions do not invalidate the notion that when a dependent organism's behavior is contrary to the host's goals, it can be called "parasitic". And note that most mammalian offspring manage to skirt that point. A fawn that doesn't keep up with its mother may be caught and eaten by a wolf. This would be detrimental to the mother's goal of reproduction, but it is not detrimental to the mother herself. She can make more fawns. This would not be true if the parasitic behavior was that of some organism that attacked her reproductive organs and sterilized her. Besides, a fawn that gets eaten is not exhibiting any behaviors any more, parasitic or otherwise (that's why I wrote "skirt that point"). Parasites usually survive while exhibiting parasitic behavior. I could add parts of the preceding to what I previously wrote:
"I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is contrary to the goals and health of the host organism, and is not self-destructive."
Note that unborn human behavior can still qualify as "parasitic", since they are known to cause such health problems as vomiting, backaches, and so on.

FutureIncoming said:
You can donate to a beggar and feel good about doing so.

dottedmint said:
And when I give money to a begger only to get rid of hiim I do not "feel good". (this has happened to me before) I actually feel annoyed and more than a bit bothered

One bad experience does not make parasites of all beggars. Especially when that particular beggar, according to your description (not quoted here) exhibited considerably more behavior than merely "living off another".

dottedmint said:
They are looking at (as you put it) a "set of behaviors". One organism living "off of" another organism......A parasitic behavior...

SEE ABOVE. I note you are only specifying one behavior, and not a "set" of them. You are also ignoring the word "can" in the quote from #61.

FutureIncoming said:
It might be said that a gravid female is "investing" in her offspring; well, before those offspring start to exist, that female fish is investing in a sperm supply! Which is a view that is perfectly valid, and gets us away from calling the male's behavior parasitic, doesn't it?

dottedmint said:
No it doesn't. You still have one organism "living off of" another organism.

SEE ABOVE.

Also we don't really know that the female is doing anything to "invest" in her offspring.

FALSE. Remember that a mere animal is basically a biological stimulus/response machine, no Free Will involved. That female fish's body's actions are her actions, therefore. And a gravid female is one in which her body is indeed investing nutrients in future offspring, that can carry her genes into future generations.

dottedmint said:
Since the male is so much smaller it would be likely that the male seeks out the female not the other way....

IRRELEVANT. If she accepts the male in her vicinity, latching onto her and sucking her blood, then it is probably because of some chemical signal that the female detects, letting her respond with something other than, say, scraping him off against a rock, followed by hunger.

FutureIncoming said:
When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

dottedmint said:
The reason that your stance is not logical is because we are dealing with the same "behavior".

SEE ABOVE. You are still focussing on just one behavior, which is inadequate by itself to reach your chosen conclusion.

dottedmint said:
And what you are claiming is that a behavior is either parasitic or not parasitic..... You can't have the same behavior be parasitic in one example but not parasitic in another example....

I CAN, INDEED. Because the behavior is not the same thing as the interpretation of the behavior. That's the mistake you make here:

dottedmint said:
IF I go swimming and end up getting a leech stuck to my toe it's actions are parasitic... IF I go to the Dr and he places a leech on my toe it's actions are also parasitic even though I want them to be placed on my toe...

YOUR ERROR IS OBVIOUS. You are referring to its behavior as "parasitic" without actually specifying the behavior ("jumping to a conclusion"). In actual fact its behavior involves blood-sucking. Your interpretation should depend on whether or not you want some of your blood to be sucked.

dottedmint said:
In both cases you have a parasite exhibiting parasitic behavior but in one case I welcome it while in the other case I don't welcome it....

SEE ABOVE. You have pre-judged/interpreted its behavior as being "parasitic", before taking all the data (your goals) into consideration. If you visited me and I told you my behavior involved poking holes in skin until it bleeds, and injecting chemicals into the holes, would you have me locked up, or would you read the sign that says "Tatoo Parlor"?

FutureIncoming said:
In general, the survival-modus of a human fetus is either unwanted/parasitic or wanted/gift-receiving. As decided by the host. Simple.

dottedmint said:
I guess I should have said that being wanted or not does NOT change if something is PARASITIC (better?) or not.

WRONG. See above.

dottedmint · Apr 12, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
INADEQUATE. Go back and reread the definitions you originally posted:.

Alright....

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

And I had said....

One organism living "off of" another organism is "parasitic"....

And that is really really close to what the first #2 said....

A "symbiote" can very easily be an organism that lives off of another, but it is not called a "parasite" because that is not its only behavior.

Symbiosis:

1 : the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism);

Please note that the definition of symbiosis includes the term "as in parasitism".

In other words a parasite can also be a symbiote.

Also compare it to one of the other definitions....

2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

SO? "Many", when there are millions of species to study, is certainly not "most". Most parasites are detriments to their hosts. Your exceptions do not invalidate the notion that when a dependent organism's behavior is contrary to the host's goals, it can be called "parasitic".

First:

Your statement that "most" parasites are "detriments to their hosts" is nothing more than your opinion unless you have some data to back up your claim.

What % of parasites are "detriments to their hosts" ?

"Most" would suggest that over 50% are.....

Can you back that up?

I only said that many have "neutral" impact on their hosts and yet they are called "parasites" and their actions are called "parasitic".

This would mean that it is "faulty logic" to limit "parasitic behavior" to only organisms that have a negative impact on the host.

"I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is contrary to the goals and health of the host organism, and is not self-destructive."

But as I said the definitions of parasitic behavior does not depend on it being "contrary to the goals" of the host.

I know you keep using that standard but it is not a logical standard...

There are many parasites that have "parasitic behaviors" that are not "contrary to the goals" of the host.

One bad experience does not make parasites of all beggars. Especially when that particular beggar, according to your description (not quoted here) exhibited considerably more behavior than merely "living off another".

No....but....

There was no "benefit" to me for giving him money.

I was upset....and out some money.

I did not (as you said) "feel good about doing so".

SEE ABOVE. I note you are only specifying one behavior, and not a "set" of them. You are also ignoring the word "can" in the quote from #61.

I only listed one behavior but the scientists look at all the behaviors....

Just look at the definitions that I posted....

IRRELEVANT. If she accepts the male in her vicinity, latching onto her and sucking her blood, then it is probably because of some chemical signal that the female detects, letting her respond with something other than, say, scraping him off against a rock, followed by hunger.

Since we don't know what the 'courtship' is here it is pointless for you to speculate of any "chemical signals" or anything....

SEE ABOVE. You are still focussing on just one behavior, which is inadequate by itself to reach your chosen conclusion.

We are talking about the behavior of the 'suspected' parasite.

The behavior of the wanted ZEF is the SAME as the behavior of the unwanted ZEF.

The only thing that changed is the opinion of the host.

I CAN, INDEED. Because the behavior is not the same thing as the interpretation of the behavior. That's the mistake you make here:

But as I have pointed out more than once the goals of the host do NOT change the behavior of the parasite.

Since we are ONLY trying to decide if the behavior of an 'organism' is parasitic or not the ONLY thing that we need to look at is the behavior of that 'organism'. NOT of the host.

YOUR ERROR IS OBVIOUS. You are referring to its behavior as "parasitic" without actually specifying the behavior ("jumping to a conclusion"). In actual fact its behavior involves blood-sucking. Your interpretation should depend on whether or not you want some of your blood to be sucked.

In the situation where I WANT my blood sucked the behavior of the leech does NOT change from teh behavior of when I don't want my blood sucked.

In both cases the leech is sucking my blood.

SEE ABOVE. You have pre-judged/interpreted its behavior as being "parasitic", before taking all the data (your goals) into consideration.

My "goals" do NOT change the behavior of the leech.

My "goals" ONLY change what I will or will not allow that leech to do to me.

The behavior of the leech is to suck my blood and it doesn't stop sucking my blood because it could tell that I didn't want it to suck my blood.

WRONG. See above.

[/QUOTE]

The "behavior" of the organism does NOT change if I don't want it.

It simply does NOT happen.

The ONLY thing that changes is MY "behavior"....

FutureIncoming · Apr 12, 2007

dottedmint said:
One organism living "off of" another organism is "parasitic"....

FutureIncoming said:
INADEQUATE. Go back and reread the definitions you originally posted

dottedmint said:
Alright.... {{parasite:}}
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
{{parasitism:}}
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially: one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

I added some stress to that last item because of this:

dottedmint said:
Your statement that "most" parasites are "detriments to their hosts" is nothing more than your opinion unless you have some data to back up your claim.

See the stressed definition. (Even the kind of parasite which is not directly injurous can be detrimental, in that it consumes resources that the host organism might instead use for reproduction; it is obviously detrimental to a species if reproduction rates go down too far.) And now, back to an earlier thing:

dottedmint said:
And that {{quote from #62}} is really really close to what the first #2 said...

HEH.

unknown said:
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades.

Your argument DOES have a problem. For example:

2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
1 : the behavior of a parasite

Those two definitions reference each other without giving any details of what they are talking about. (For an equivalent and off-topic wild-goose chase, try looking up the word "holy" sometime.) What you have done isn't quite that bad, though, since you have specified:

dottedmint said:
One organism living "off of" another organism

But you have ignored the rest of the definitions available!

3...without making a useful or adequate return
2...obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Skipping a bit:

dottedmint said:
I only said that many have "neutral" impact on their hosts and yet they are called "parasites" and their actions are called "parasitic".

This would be because of (3) in the unattributed quote above. I suspect that if you studied the history of those words, you will find that "parasite" was originally defined as in (2) of the unattributed quote, and was later expanded to the more-encompassing (3). But nowhere is the definition as encompassing as what you are trying to do to it.

dottedmint said:
Please note that the definition of symbiosis includes the term "as in parasitism".

More precisely: "as in the first part of the definition of parasitism". That's why a "symbiote" is different from a "parasite"; a symbiote does make a useful/adequate return, and also does not injure the host.

And so when a leech is being used medicinally, even though the leech is sucking your blood, you are deriving some benefit from that. By failing the not-ignored parts of the defintion of "parasitism", therefore, the medicinal leech cannot be called a parasite! (Not even if its brother lives in a pond and latches onto your leg and is indeed a full-fledged parasite.)

dottedmint said:
But as I said the definitions of parasitic behavior does not depend on it being "contrary to the goals" of the host.

And I said you were wrong, and I stand by what I said. The definition includes effects upon the host, which cannot be ignored. Those effects must be interpreted in terms of the host's perception of things. That's why in #63 I described tattooing (which I see you ignored, as if somehow that would manage to invalidate Real Data) in terms of the person doing it, and asked about your response. That's also why I specified "can" when I wrote:

FutureIncoming said:
(Even the kind of parasite which is not directly injurous can be detrimental, in that it consumes resources that the host organism might instead use for reproduction; it is obviously detrimental to a species if reproduction rates go down too far.)

Because if a species is on the verge of a Malthusian Catastophe due to too-high a reproduction rate, it would not be a detriment to that species for some other organism to infest it, and cause some lowering of the reproduction rate!

dottedmint said:
The behavior of the wanted ZEF is the SAME as the behavior of the unwanted ZEF. The only thing that changed is the opinion of the host.

TRUE. And that opinion must indeed be taken into account, as explained above.

FutureIncoming said:
You can donate to a beggar and feel good about doing so.

dottedmint in Msg #62 said:
And when I give money to a begger only to get rid of hiim I do not "feel good".

FutureIncoming said:
You are also ignoring the word "can" in the quote from #61.

I see you still ignored that "can" in what you wrote in #64, which I don't need to quote here. In #61 I did not say that feeling good about donation was a sure thing. But this sub-discussion DOES relate to why the goals of the host cannot be exluded, when deciding whether or not to call some organism a parasite. If you choose to call beggars parasites, fine. But don't expect everyone else to agree with you. Some may say they offer valuable oppotunities for learning and practicing "generosity"....

I see that much of the rest of #64 is merely reiteration of your mistaken notion that the host's goals/perception is irrelevant. No need to keep saying that you are mistaken, therefore.

dottedmint said:
Since we don't know what the 'courtship' is here it is pointless for you to speculate of any "chemical signals" or anything....

"Pheromones" are very common chemical signals associated with mating. Even humans have them. I have no reason to think fish wouldn't.

dottedmint · Apr 14, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
I added some stress to that last item because of this:

See the stressed definition. (Even the kind of parasite which is not directly injurous can be detrimental, in that it consumes resources that the host organism might instead use for reproduction; it is obviously detrimental to a species if reproduction rates go down too far.) And now, back to an earlier thing:

This definition

2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially: one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

is different from

"activity by a dependent organism which is contrary to the goals of the host organism"

Saying that something "usually injures" is NOT the same as "contrary to the goals of the host".

None of the definitions that I posted says anything about the actions being "contrary to the goals of the host".

Perhaps you could show me where you found the definition that you are pointing to....

I know.....you made the definition up YOURSELF.....

Those two definitions reference each other without giving any details of what they are talking about.

Since there are (what?) millions of species to study it is not possible to list each and every detail about each and every parasite/host relationship.

The definition includes effects upon the host, which cannot be ignored. Those effects must be interpreted in terms of the host's perception of things.

The definition only says that a parasite usually injures the host.

It does NOT say a parasite is "contrary to the goals" of the host.

IF I get a tiny scratch it is an injury but is NOT "contrary to the goals" that I have.

"Pheromones" are very common chemical signals associated with mating. Even humans have them. I have no reason to think fish wouldn't.

Well.....again...

Since we don't know what the 'courtship' is here it is pointless for you to speculate of any "chemical signals" or anything....

Your entire argument seems to be based on the defintion that you ...well... made up.

The defintions of parasite and parasitic do NOT say anything about the acitons being "contrary" to anything.....

Your definition also does not include all examples of parasites/parasitic behaviors.

This means your definition is more than a bit faulty.

FutureIncoming · Apr 16, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism.

dottedmint, just because I phrased my view that way, that does not make it inconsistent with the actual dictionary definition. We have even discussed how the dictionary definition allows many behaviors, that ranges from the destructive to the merely annoying, to be called "parasitic".

And so you are grasping at straws, trying to find some inconsistency which isn't there. That is, if I interpret the definition in a way that it allows, then even though I'm not using verbiage that is nearly identical to the definition, I am still consistent with its meaning. Furthermore, even that word "injure", which is in the dictionary definition, is subject to interpretation by the host. Does a surgeon injure his patients? Yes, every time --except that no such injury is ever brought to court, unless the surgeon botches the goal of the surgery.

So, the medicinal leech does injure you, in breaking your skin to let the blood out. But this injury is discounted, when the goals of the host include wanting some blood drained.

I therefore stand by what I originally wrote:

FutureIncoming said:
When reproduction is a chosen goal, the behavior of the intimately-involved unborn human cannot be called parasitic. But when reproduction is not a goal, or is an "anti goal", then an unborn human which happens to become involved can have its behavior classed as parasitic.

And nothing you have written has shown that view to be erroneous.

dottedmint · Apr 17, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
dottedmint, just because I phrased my view that way, that does not make it inconsistent with the actual dictionary definition. We have even discussed how the dictionary definition allows many behaviors, that ranges from the destructive to the merely annoying, to be called "parasitic"..

That's the point.

Your "definition" does NOT include all examples of parasites/parasitic behavior. This makes your "definition" incomplete. This makes your "definition" wrong.

And so you are grasping at straws, trying to find some inconsistency which isn't there. That is, if I interpret the definition in a way that it allows, then even though I'm not using verbiage that is nearly identical to the definition, I am still consistent with its meaning.

If I were to define a "tree" as being a woody plant that drops it's leaves each year it would be an incomplete definition. It would be a WRONG definition.

In order for me to have an accurate definition of a "tree" I would need to include all examples of trees in my definition. Until I did that my definition is incomplete......WRONG.

Until you come up with a definition that covers all examples of parasite/parasitic behavior your definition is incomplete.....WRONG.

Furthermore, even that word "injure", which is in the dictionary definition, is subject to interpretation by the host.

First it says "usually injures". This means that some times it does NOT injure.

Next if it injures the host it doesn't matter what the host interprets it as. And I have to question if all hosts have the ability to "interpret" the actions of the parasite.

Perhaps you can tell me how a fish "interprets" the parasitic clam that is attached to it's gills????

That would assume the fish is aware that there is a parasitic clam attached to it's gills.

So, the medicinal leech does injure you, in breaking your skin to let the blood out. But this injury is discounted, when the goals of the host include wanting some blood drained.

But the actions are still parasitic and the leech is still a parasite.

I therefore stand by what I originally wrote:

And nothing you have written has shown that view to be erroneous.

Except as I said your definition is incomplete....inaccurate...WRONG.

Untill you come up with a definition that covers ALL parasites/parasitic behaviors your definition will continue to be incomplete...inaccurate...WRONG.

FutureIncoming · Apr 17, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
I view parasitic behavior as being activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism.

FutureIncoming said:
dottedmint, just because I phrased my view that way, that does not make it inconsistent with the actual dictionary definition. We have even discussed how the dictionary definition allows many behaviors, that ranges from the destructive to the merely annoying, to be called "parasitic".

dottedmint said:
That's the point.
Your "definition" does NOT include all examples of parasites/parasitic behavior. This makes your "definition" incomplete. This makes your "definition" wrong.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! So this is why they now only teach Relativistic Mechanics in school, instead of Newtonian Mechanics? See, Newton was wrong, because his work is "incomplete" compared to what Einstein came up with. Get a grip! I do not need a complete "working" definition, to be conisistent with the actual definition. With ordinary everyday velocities and instruments, nobody can measure the differences between Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics (I think they had to put far-from-ordinary "atomic clocks" on round-the-world jet-velocity flights, to notice a difference).

In other words, it is not at all wrong to say that "activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism" qualifies as parasitic behavior. I do not need a complete definition of parasitic behavior to see that that particular type of behavior, in quotes, fits under the umbrella of the complete definition. It is consistent.

And by corollary, it is not-at-all wrong to say that "activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is in accordance the goals of the host organism" does not qualify as parasitic behavior. (Any pet animal fits into that category.)

FutureIncoming said:
even that word "injure", which is in the dictionary definition, is subject to interpretation by the host

dottedmint said:
First it says "usually injures". This means that some times it does NOT injure.

TRUE. It also makes it more difficult to come up with a "complete, accurate-at-all-times" definition of "parasitic behavior", doesn't it?

dottedmint said:
Next if it injures the host it doesn't matter what the host interprets it as.

FALSE. Else all surgeons could be arrested and charged with mutilation or some such thing. That is true even if the surgery merely involves liposuction ---"AARRGH! He has changed your shape; you are mutilated!!!" (heh, heh) Why did you ignore what I wrote about surgeons in #67?

dottedmint said:
And I have to question if all hosts have the ability to "interpret" the actions of the parasite.

I admit I could have better-phrased that line from #67. On the other hand, I did explain what I meant in a prior message, and assumed you would recall it.

FutureIncoming said:
Now let's look at generic mammalian reproductive biology from that viewpoint. Being merely animals, most mammals are basically biological stimulus/response machines. They are far more sophisticated in analyzing stimuli, and responding to them, than are the obviously robotic-in-behavior members of the insect kingdom -- but all in all, mammalian actions quite plainly appear to be genetically scripted. No significant Free Will. In consequence we can view them as little more than fancy biological systems with reproduction as the primary goal. Life in general is like that.

FutureIncoming said:
Remember that a mere animal is basically a biological stimulus/response machine, no Free Will involved. That female fish's body's actions are her actions, therefore.

The "interpretation by the host" that I mentioned in #67 needs to take the lack of Free Will into account, for ordinary animals. THEIR goals, quite simply, are to survive and reproduce. Nothing more and nothing less. And so, again,

FutureIncoming said:
"activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism" qualifies as parasitic behavior

dottedmint said:
Perhaps you can tell me how a fish "interprets" the parasitic clam that is attached to it's gills???? That would assume the fish is aware that there is a parasitic clam attached to it's gills.

See above. If the clam is interfering with the goals of survival and reproduction of the host-fish, it logically follows that the clam's behavior can be called parasitic. --Oh, and remember, that's for hosts that don't have Free Will. Those that do have it can have all sorts of other goals, than those two. (Yes, even survival can be excluded; think about the goals of "suicide bombers", for example.)

FutureIncoming said:
So, the medicinal leech does injure you, in breaking your skin to let the blood out. But this injury is discounted, when the goals of the host include wanting some blood drained.

dottedmint said:
But the actions are still parasitic ...

FALSE. You are still ignoring the goals of the host, as if they had nothing to do with the definition. Yet a dependent organism that benefits the host is exhibiting "symbiotic" behavior, not "parasitic" behavior. Remember??? Therefore, when the medicinal leech is benefitting you, perhaps similarly to a surgeon, why would you call its behavior parasitic?

dottedmint said:
... and the leech is still a parasite.

Go back and reread the stuff about jumping to conclusions near the end of Msg #63.
You might also refresh your memory of the 3 steps to identifying a parasite, mentioned in #61 ---and why it isn't always necessary to take the 3rd step.

dottedmint · Apr 17, 2007

:rofl

TRUE. It also makes it more difficult to come up with a "complete, accurate-at-all-times" definition of "parasitic behavior", doesn't it?

No. It does NOT. Just go back to my origional posting. I included the "accurate-at-all-times" definition of a parasite.

And by corollary, it is not-at-all wrong to say that "activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is in accordance the goals of the host organism" does not qualify as parasitic behavior. (Any pet animal fits into that category.)

The "interpretation by the host" that I mentioned in #67 needs to take the lack of Free Will into account, for ordinary animals. THEIR goals, quite simply, are to survive and reproduce. Nothing more and nothing less. And so, again,

See above. If the clam is interfering with the goals of survival and reproduction of the host-fish, it logically follows that the clam's behavior can be called parasitic. --Oh, and remember, that's for hosts that don't have Free Will. Those that do have it can have all sorts of other goals, than those two. (Yes, even survival can be excluded; think about the goals of "suicide bombers", for example.)

But the parasitic clam that I am mentioning does NOT interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction" of the fish and yet it is called a parasite/parasitic.

It does not harm the fish in any way. It does not keep the fish from reproducing. It does NOTHING that you suggest a parasite does.

This is why your definition is WRONG.

There are MANY parasites that do not interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction" of the host.

There are MANY parasites that do NOT interfer with ANY goal of the host.

FALSE. You are still ignoring the goals of the host, as if they had nothing to do with the definition. Yet a dependent organism that benefits the host is exhibiting "symbiotic" behavior, not "parasitic" behavior. Remember??? Therefore, when the medicinal leech is benefitting you, perhaps similarly to a surgeon, why would you call its behavior parasitic?

And remember that a symbiote is a type of a parasite.

Symbiosis:

the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism)

In a symbiotic relationship both the parasite and the host get something good out of the relationship.

Something that is symbiotic is also parasitic....

When you come up with a definition that will fit all the examples of parasites/parasitic behavior feel free to share it with me.

Hint: I already posted it for you. You just need to read it.

Until then you are wasting our time.

Don't get me wrong I am still getting a kick out of it......:rofl

1069 · Apr 17, 2007

Perhaps it would be useful to specify which definition of "parasite" or "parasitic" we are referring to, here.

A biological parasite is still a biological parasite regardless of the feelings or goals or motivations of its host.
A leech will suck if you want it to, and it will continue to suck if you don't want it to, if not removed.
The fact that humans have discovered some useful function for leeches is a testament to human ingenuity, nothing more. It does not mean a leech is no longer a parasite, or is only a parasite in certain cases.
In the 80s, I heard (although perhaps this is apocryphal), that some women desperate to lose weight were buying "diet pills" in Mexico that were actually tapeworm larvae. Knowingly consuming tapeworm larvae, in order to lose weight.
Whether this is factual is neither here nor there; suppose, hypothetically, that it is. Does that mean the tapeworm is not a parasite in such cases?
Its fundamental nature- its function- has not changed, has it?

On the other hand, if you're using the term "parasitic" in a sociocultural sense... I mean, like if you're saying, "People on welfare are parasites leeching off the government", or "My thirty-year-old unemployed cousin who still lives at home with his mother is a parasite leeching off the family", then I guess intent is everything; if my hypothetical cousin's mom is paralyzed by a stroke, and he lives with her so that he can provide round-the-clock care for her, at her request, then he's not- by definition- parasitic.
So in that sense of the word, whether one is a "parasite" or not is defined by one's relationship to one's host: is it symbiotic? Mutually beneficial? Is the "parasitism" occurring with the consent or at the request of the host? If yes, then one is not a parasite. If no (and one is still engaged in the exact same behavior) then one is.

dottedmint · Apr 17, 2007

1069 said:
Perhaps it would be useful to specify which definition of "parasite" or "parasitic" we are referring to, here.

A biological parasite is still a biological parasite regardless of the feelings or goals or motivations of its host.
A leech will suck if you want it to, and it will continue to suck if you don't want it to, if not removed.
The fact that humans have discovered some useful function for leeches is a testament to human ingenuity, nothing more. It does not mean a leech is no longer a parasite, or is only a parasite in certain cases.
In the 80s, I heard (although perhaps this is apocryphal), that some women desperate to lose weight were buying "diet pills" in Mexico that were actually tapeworm larvae. Knowingly consuming tapeworm larvae, in order to lose weight.
Whether this is factual is neither here nor there; suppose, hypothetically, that it is. Does that mean the tapeworm is not a parasite in such cases?
Its fundamental nature- its function- has not changed, has it?

On the other hand, if you're using the term "parasitic" in a sociocultural sense... I mean, like if you're saying, "People on welfare are parasites leeching off the government", or "My thirty-year-old unemployed cousin who still lives at home with his mother is a parasite leeching off the family", then I guess intent is everything; if my hypothetical cousin's mom is paralyzed by a stroke, and he lives with her so that he can provide round-the-clock care for her, at her request, then he's not- by definition- parasitic.
So in that sense of the word, whether one is a "parasite" or not is defined by one's relationship to one's host: is it symbiotic? Mutually beneficial? Is the "parasitism" occurring with the consent or at the request of the host? If yes, then one is not a parasite. If no (and one is still engaged in the exact same behavior) then one is.

But as I pointed out a symbiote is a type of a parasite.

In a symbiotic relationship both the parasite AND the host benefit from the relationship.

FutureIncoming · Apr 18, 2007

dottedmint said:
a symbiote is a type of a parasite.

Then YOU, and every other human as well, is a parasite.

Your interpretation of the definition of "symbiote" is wrong. A symbiote is "like a parasite" only because it shares bodily resources with a different lifeform. But "symbiosis" is usually a two-way thing, not a one-way thing. Every human alive contains symbiotic bacteria without which every human would instead be dead. That means all humans are symbiotes with respect to those bacteria. Thus all humans are parasites, according to dottedmint's mistaken interpretation of the definition.

The truth is that both the bacteria and the humans are simply and only symbiotes. That is the correct and only applicable word in this case. Each benefits the other; that is what symbiotes do, that parasites don't.

And so once again I can focus on the phrase "parasitic behavior". This is behavior that would allow us to call an organism a parasite. And whether or not that behavior is beneficial to the host cannot be ignored, despite dottedmint failing effort to convince anyone otherwise. She can't even get this right:

dottedmint said:
Perhaps you can tell me how a fish "interprets" the parasitic clam that is attached to it's gills????

dottedmint said:
But the parasitic clam that I am mentioning does NOT interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction" of the fish and yet it is called a parasite/parasitic.

Actually, if the clam is clamped onto a fish's gills, the clam is reducing the amount of oxygen that the fish can extract from the water. That makes it a detriment to the fish's goal of survival (need max oxygen access to escape predators at max-speed/max-duration --should I mention "extra drag" (resistance to smooth fluid flow) as well?).

dottedmint also has managed to miss the point of this:

FutureIncoming said:
{{my view}} is not at all wrong to say that "activity-by-a-dependent-organism which is not in accordance the goals of the host organism" qualifies as parasitic behavior. I do not need a complete definition of parasitic behavior to see that that particular type of behavior, in quotes, fits under the umbrella of the complete definition. It is consistent.

The point is that almost every single dependent organism that exhibits behavior like described above, "not in accordance with the goals of the host organism", is indeed proclaimed to be a parasite. I don't care about all the other organisms out there, that might or might not be parasites. Because in this Abortion Debate, that subdefinition is all I need, to be able to view certain unborn humans (not all, only the unwanted ones!) as exhibiting parasitic behavior.

dottedmint can fuss all she wants about that, uselessly. Even her "parasitic clam" qualifies as a parasite because its actions are not in accordance with the goals of the host-fish, as described above. So, instead of saying this:

dottedmint said:
There are MANY parasites that do not interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction" of the host.
There are MANY parasites that do NOT interfer with ANY goal of the host.

...she should find an ordinary dependent animal that does interfere, and isn't called a parasite. Then she would have an example with which to compare unborn humans, and claim that because those animals aren't called parasites, neither should any unborn human.

Good luck!

=======================
To 1069, do not fall into her trap of talking about parasites instead of about parasitic behavior. It is the behavior which I am Debating here, because it is the behavior that lets us decide to call some organism a symbiote, and some other organism a parasite. And because the medicinal leech's behavior can be beneficial, during the time it works to that beneficial purpose only, it does not deserve to be called a parasite. The rest of the time, I have no objection!

I see we haven't yet brought up in this Thread the subject of medicinal fly maggots that eat gangrenous tissue and aid healing. Usually the maggots feast on completely dead animals --which means that usually the maggots are completely outside the scope of the definition of "parasite". Also, it is just plain rare and not-normal for a living animal to have a chunk of feast-able/dead (gangrenous) tissue handy. Let's pretend part of your arm is suffering in this way, and the doctor has applied the maggots. If you show this infested tissue to a casual person on the street, freaking-out can first be expected to happen. If you then ask that person whether or not the maggots qualify as parasites, without explaining what they are actually doing, what do you suppose the response would be?

Heh, heh, heh....

dottedmint · Apr 19, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
Then YOU, and every other human as well, is a parasite.

Your interpretation of the definition of "symbiote" is wrong. A symbiote is "like a parasite" only because it shares bodily resources with a different lifeform. But "symbiosis" is usually a two-way thing, not a one-way thing.

Actually you are wrong as well.....

I had origionally said that a symbiote is a type of parasite.

I basically had mis-spoke/mis-typed.

The definition of symbiosis

: the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism);

Parasitism is a type of symbiosis....not the other way around.

Symbiosis can be EITHER a one way thing or a two way thing.

Actually, if the clam is clamped onto a fish's gills, the clam is reducing the amount of oxygen that the fish can extract from the water. That makes it a detriment to the fish's goal of survival (need max oxygen access to escape predators at max-speed/max-duration --should I mention "extra drag" (resistance to smooth fluid flow) as well?).

Actually most parasites (such as this clam) do not interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction".

Obviously there are some parasites that are deadly but most do not wish to kill their hosts.

It is not in the clams interest to do anything to the fish that would harm it

Without the fish the clams would not survive.

I don't care about all the other organisms out there, that might or might not be parasites. Because in this Abortion Debate, that subdefinition is all I need, to be able to view certain unborn humans (not all, only the unwanted ones!) as exhibiting parasitic behavior.

And as I pointed out before, your definition is faulty for not including the other examples of parasites/parasitic behavior.

FutureIncoming · Apr 20, 2007

dottedmint in Msg #74 said:
: the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism);

dottedmint said:
Parasitism is a type of symbiosis....not the other way around.

FALSE. Unless you want to think of yourself (and any other human) as a parasite, because of all the symbiotic bacteria inside, that you cannot live without.

Which doesn't help your case at all, in trying to claim that unborn humans aren't parasitic!

Symbiosis and parasitism merely have certain characteristics in common. We could say that the letter M and the letter N have certain things in common, too. But that doesn't make M a "variety of N". Or we could say that a predator and a parasite have certain things in common, too. But that doesn't make us suddenly call tigers parasites.

The main difference between symbiosis and parasitism is that both organisms benefit from symbiosis, while only one benefits from parasitism. (The main difference between predators and parasites is that predators take bigger bites.)

dottedmint said:
Actually most parasites (such as this clam) do not interfer "with the goals of survival and reproduction".

FALSE. Because you are failing to understand that "interfere" does not only mean "stop completely". It can be a matter of degree, how much something interferes with something else. So, if the clam blocks 1% of the fish's oxygen supply, that is indeed interference, to that degree, with the fish's goal of survival. If the clam's presence on the fish's body causes extra turbulence when the fish moves through the water, then that counts as interfering to some degree, with the efficiency of the fish's ability to swim --also interference with the fish's goal of survival.

dottedmint said:
most do not wish to kill their hosts.

BAD PHRASING. There is no "wish" involved. It is simply a matter of Natural Selection, that the parasites that interfere the least can be the most successful. But they all interfere, one way or another, to some degree or another, with the survival and/or reproductive goals of their hosts. This is as obvious as the resources that parasites extract, which the host organisms could instead have used to, if nothing else, produce greater numbers of offspring.

Resources figure in a "zero sum game". There is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Mass. The host acquires resources from the environment, and uses some of them for growth and body maintenance, and uses the rest for reproduction. If you cannot see that the presence of a parasite means that the host now has less of those resources available, then you are either stupid (which I doubt), or you are deliberately pretending to be obtuse (which I wouldn't put past any pro-lifer who is losing a Debate).

FutureIncoming said:
The point is that almost every single dependent organism that exhibits behavior like described above, "not in accordance with the goals of the host organism", is indeed proclaimed to be a parasite. I don't care about all the other organisms out there, that might or might not be parasites. Because in this Abortion Debate, that subdefinition is all I need, to be able to view certain unborn humans (not all, only the unwanted ones!) as exhibiting parasitic behavior.

dottedmint said:
And as I pointed out before, your definition is faulty for not including the other examples of parasites/parasitic behavior.

Your feeble attempt to ignore what I wrote has failed. I DON'T CARE if "my view" of parasitism is incomplete. (Not to mention that you haven't actually presented any examples that that view doesn't cover, and therefore you haven't proved that it is actually incomplete.) I only care that almost every single organism that fits "my view" is in Scientific Fact normally considered to be a parasite --with the only exception I know of being unwanted unborn humans --and in one sense we happen to be Debating "Why is that?" here. I urge that for the sake of Consistency, unwanted unborn humans be considered as parasitic as any formal parasite. You may disagree, but so far you haven't offered even a hint of a rationale as to why. You have merely argued definitions, and not very well, either.

Do humans begin life as a parasite....

dottedmint

Member

talloulou

jallman

talloulou

jallman

dottedmint

Member

jallman

1069

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

1069

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming

dottedmint

Member

FutureIncoming