quote:

Different dictionaries have different defintions.

As I have already stated in many cases there are multiple meanings of one word. You need to figure out which version of the word you are trying to find and then use those definitions.

First off it doesn't matter which one I am reffering too. Different dictionaries have different defintions. Which one are we to believe?

quote:

But my dictionary says different.

Can you repost the definition so I can be sure I am thinking of the same one that you are referring to?

But my dictionary says different. My question earlier was, which defintion am I supposed to believe?

quote:

Not all defintions in the dictionary say that.

Yes, but not all of the definitions in the dictionary are talking about a specific type of organism. If you are talking about a biological classification of what a parasite is, you will se that the host and parasite are always from different species.

quote:

Yes they are leaving it out.

Not all defintions in the dictionary say that.

quote:

If it doesn't include "two different species" you say they're leaving it out.

Yes they are leaving it out. We know this because I read the requirement for a type a parasite that said that the parasite and the host will never come from the same species. When we say that a person is a parasite, we are not saying what they are physically; we are saying what they act like. The person is acting just like a parasite.

quote:

But anyway...more importantly...using dictionary definitions is not going to help in this debate.

They should because definitions are not completely interpretational. The definitions clarify what the thing is. In this case what the Fetus is.
Definitions should agree with each other, if they don’t one of the definitions is wrong, or they are talking about different things.
Like with the Parasite. There are several definitions of Parasite. One is talking about a physical creature. Others are talking about people who are acting like a parasite. Two different meanings, of the same word. I am saying that a Fetus is not the same type of creature as a pine worm for example.

Well this whole argument...read the page. If the definition doesn't fit your view it's not valid it seems. If it doesn't include "two different species" you say they're leaving it out. Whereas someone could argue that that's just your definition. I can't remember who found a definition that literally stated someone, a person(can be a parasite). But anyway...more importantly...using dictionary definitions is not going to help in this debate. Because after all it won't change a thing. Even if you show me 5000 definitions that say a fetus is a baby, I'll continue being pro-choice. Even if I found a definition that said a fetus was not a baby, you'd still think it's a baby. Do you get what I'm saying?

quote:

Nephilem, throwing out definitions is kinda' pointless because you seem unable to accept the ones that don't fit in with your view.

Which definitions have I thrown out?

Nephilem, throwing out definitions is kinda' pointless because you seem unable to accept the ones that don't fit in with your view. If it states anything that can back you up you take it, if it doesn't you throw it out...

quote:

You aren’t but other people are, so I was addressing my response to them.

Sure you are.

I was kidding? News to me.

quote:

Okay, I'm going to say this once more. Ready? I am not going to argue definitions.

You aren’t but other people are, so I was addressing my response to them.

quote:

So, from a biological standpoint, the baby may not exactly fit the definition of a parasite, but from this other standpoint, it does.

Yes it does, but as you stated that is a completely different standpoint. It is not a description of what they are, but of how they act.
So you still cant compare a unborn baby, to a parasite as in the organism, of a different species.

Thank you, Clpo. That is why I had said this:

quote:

In this case it is all about interpretation. And if LTR wants to interpret it that way, and it fits, then so be it.

But I will. If my prior definition didn't work, how about this, simpler one: a person who lives at the expense of another.

Straight from the Oxford English Dictionary (again) and without any edits on my part. That's exactly what it says, so no calling me out on taking things out of context or whatever.

So, from a biological standpoint, the baby may not exactly fit the definition of a parasite, but from this other standpoint, it does. Although, in the same sense, homeless people, the elderly, and beggars are all parasites too, as well as small children, needy spouses, and the government. I could actually make a case that all humans are parasites, but that's beyond the scope of this argument, so I won't go there.

quote:

YouthVoice I see what you are saying but to clarify, it is not all about interpretation. A parasite and its host are not from the same species. I was clarifying the definition that you gave, to show how it supported my position.

Okay, I'm going to say this once more. Ready? I am not going to argue definitions.

quote:

If I can find one definition (which I did) that doesn't state that then my point is still valid.

It did not say that they could come from the same species. The definition did not clarify which species would be involved at all.

Now if you had read my entire post you would have seen a scientific requirement of Parasitism says that the parasite and the host will always be from different species.

YouthVoice I see what you are saying but to clarify, it is not all about interpretation. A parasite and its host are not from the same species. I was clarifying the definition that you gave, to show how it supported my position.

quote:

How did I misunderstand you?

*shakes head*

quote:

I'm not going to argue definitions. Because you will most likely find one that serves your purpose, while I'll find one that does the same.

And.

quote:

In this case it is all about interpretation. And if LTR wants to interpret it that way, and it fits, then so be it.

And what do you do?

quote:

Here’s another definition, from dictionary.com

“An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”

The point is that most of the definitions include that the parasite has to be in a different species then the host. The definition that you have simply does not mention that the animals are in a different species.

Let’s look at a scientific perspective on parasites. The first requirement says that

If I can find one definition (which I did) that doesn't state that then my point is still valid.

quote:

Wow...you really don't read what people write.

How did I misunderstand you?
Here’s another definition, from dictionary.com

quote:

“An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”

Here’s another definition, from dictionary.com

“An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”

The point is that most of the definitions include that the parasite has to be in a different species then the host. The definition that you have simply does not mention that the animals are in a different species.

Let’s look at a scientific perspective on parasites. The first requirement says that

quote:

“Parasitism always involves two species, the parasite and the host.”