MY RESPONSE TO WHY TISSUES ARE CALLED LIVING AND VIRUS NON-LIVING

I came across a conversation between two fellows on viruses and whether they are living or non-living. The fellow opposing the non-living theory made a comparison to body tissues and their inability to survive outside humans yet they are still referred as living whereas viruses who don't live outside hosts are called non-living.

---

I wasn't quick enough to partake in their conversation but dropped my thoughts (facts) later on for any interested person to read and learn. Here is what i wrote below.

---

The tissue comparison is wrong on at least two basis.

1. Viruses and tissue cells are by nature two completely different types of organisms, tissue cells are body cells (they are part of us), viruses are opportunistic foreign particles that belong nowhere, tissue cells were made to function within the body hence their death outside of the body. Viruses on the other hand belong nowhere but try to take over wherever they go.

2. Despite their inability to survive outside the body, within the body tissue cells act on their own accord, they move, produce new cells, grow, shrink etc. But viruses can't do anything on their own, no movement, reproduction, growth etc, they only instruct the host cells to carry out those functions for them.
   (Remember MR NIGER D is the basis for determining living and non-living).

What are your own thoughts, feel free to share so we can all learn.