Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
My point was that your positions were contradictory. You aren't listening: you said that conciousness is the determining factor for personhood. Then you said that personhood is not the determining factor in conciousness. Then you, ah, 'explained' that there is nothing outside of the material realm that encompasses conciousness, contradicting your previous statements and essentially saying that no one is a person, and ergo, no one has any rights whatsoever.
You have quite clearly missed the mark on what exactly my argument is. You are putting words in my mouth, and assuming things that I never stated. I didn't say being currently concious makes someone a person. I said having the cognitive capability of concious thought is what makes a person. I wasn't not a person last night while I was sleeping, but if you pulled my brain out of my head and kept the rest of my body alive on life-support I would be not a person. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I at any point contraticted myself and deduced that nobody is a person.