Bingowings said: I can't stop Warb gleefully killing mice.
1. I don't gleefully kill mice. I take no glee out of it. I don't like killing the mice, but I also don't want them in my home.
2. I promised I would stop posting about it every time I find a dead mouse in one of our traps, in the Random thoughts thread. I've kept that promise Yet, you still want to annoy me over it?
Bingowings said:
You can't prove a fetus is a human being with a soul.
can you prove it isn't a human being with a soul?
darth_ender said: You have the right to impose that moral on those who disagree, as long as most of society does agree.
here is where you lose me. the majority can not impose every single moral it believes in, on the minority. There has to be some sort of limit. Please remember, there was time when the majority of a certain state thought it was morally ok to murder Mormons.
Did I ever say "every single moral"? I know I've written a lot on the topic, but if you look carefully at previous posts yesterday and today I did point out that based on the common moral that we should protect the rights of minorities, we do impose laws that protect their rights. But again, those laws are based on what? A moral that the majority of our society holds to. There are societies that do not hold that same moral belief in general, and thus do not have laws in place to protect those minorites (i.e. Saudi Arabia). I agree, these things seem self-evident to us. I do believe we should protect minorities. But a minority believes that survival of the fittest means we should eliminate"social undesirables." We can protect some of the rights of that minority, including their right to believe whatever idiotic crap they subscribe to. But we don't allow them to actually live out their version of right and wrong.
It amazes me that I, among the most openly religious on this site, am the one arguing for the subjectivity of morality, while CP3S and Bingowings and others seem stuck on the idea that we don't impose morals on others, yet are clinging to their own presumptive interpretation of morality themselves.
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
You can't prove a fetus is a human being with a soul.
can you prove it isn't a human being with a soul?
No more than you can prove a mouse hasn't got a human soul silly.
just how could a mouse have a human soul?
How can a unborn baby have one?
because the unborn baby, is a HUMAN unborn baby.
So you are saying that only a human can have a human soul?
And you base this on what?
I think he bases it on the fact that there is only one human, a Scotsman to be precise, and that every other proxy is in fact that Scot. If you identify him as having a soul, then logically all of his appendage bodies have souls as well.
But I'm not human.
Well that does it! You were right all along! Arg! Don't you hate it when you argue with yourself and prove yourself wrong on a technical detail?! ;)
Sometimes.
Bingowings said:
So you are saying that only a human can have a human soul?
And you base this on what?
well, it just makes sense that only a HUMAN, could have a HUMAN soul.
Not if you are a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jain or Socrates, Plato or Pythagoras or a follower of one of the many Animistic beliefs or indeed a rationalist (who doesn't believe in a human soul at all).
My shoe has a sole.
My feet have balls.
Bingowings said:
Not if you are a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jain or Socrates, Plato or Pythagoras or a follower of one of the many Animistic beliefs or indeed a rationalist (who doesn't believe in a human soul at all).
true, but can you find me anyone that believes a mouse has a human soul?
Me.
you're nuts.
Sometimes.
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
Not if you are a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jain or Socrates, Plato or Pythagoras or a follower of one of the many Animistic beliefs or indeed a rationalist (who doesn't believe in a human soul at all).
true, but can you find me anyone that believes a mouse has a human soul?
Yeah as I said.
Plenty of people in the world believe people have animal spirits and rocks have the spirits of their ancestors.
But that's nuts apparently.
TV's Frink said:
I'm not a rapist, and my wife was not in danger. But if you think we acted out of convenience, you can kindly fuck off.
Okay, so I get that you have a personal event that happened in your life relating to this subject and that it was pretty hard on you and your wife. That sucks. I'm really sorry that happened to you. I'm not a parent, nor have ever been close to being one, and have no idea how difficult that must have been.
But you're just getting pissed off and getting caught up on words. I don't even think you're reading all of my posts or have any clue what I mean when I say "matter of convenience". It doesn't even relate to the heartbreaking situation you and your wife were faced with (I recall you went into vague detail about it once on the forum), yours was a very sad situation and not the sort of thing that is being discussed here at all.
Warbler said:
you're nuts.
Wow. I'm used to you being the guy that goes a long ways to defend Islam when I go off spitting venom at parts of it. You usually display multiculturalist ideals, so it is kind of surprising to see you take other beliefs and write them off as nuts.
Just because you feel there is a distinction between a HUMAN soul and any other kind of soul (your Western Judeo-Christian thought is showing) doesn't mean every else does, and just because they don't doesn't mean they're nuts.
:(
To be fair to Warb I am nuts, sometimes.