Name something good religion has caused

AnyOldIron said:
And differing is different to being above....
Click to expand...
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?
 
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?

I don't subscribe to it, but there is a position that argues that it is ethically wrong to discriminate based purely on species alone....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

They use negative utilitarianism and value-based rights theories to justify their position.

But that isn't my point. I'm trying to draw WM on the notion of a 'soul' that differentiates.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?

I don't subscribe to it, but there is a position that argues that it is ethically wrong to discriminate based purely on species alone....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

They use negative utilitarianism and value-based rights theories to justify their position.

But that isn't my point. I'm trying to draw WM on the notion of a 'soul' that differentiates.....
Click to expand...
AssHat is not Watermark.
 
AssHat is not Watermark.

Didn't he start a thread to claim he was? lol

In that case I apologise to whoever wants an apology.... lol
 
AnyOldIron said:
AssHat is not Watermark.

Didn't he start a thread to claim he was? lol

In that case I apologise to whoever wants an apology.... lol
Click to expand...
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.
 
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.


lol, He's such a prankster....
 
To be clear, PeeStain started a thread claiming to be me. He could only dream of being so fan-friggin-tastic.

I'd rate WM higher than yourself on debating ability..
 
I'm yet to see you formulate an argument.

Seen you present your conclusion, refuse to support it with reasoning and then bat away any comment on that conclusion by insulting the person bringing it up.

Tell me, are you some kind of preacher?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I'm yet to see you formulate an argument.

Seen you present your conclusion, refuse to support it with reasoning and then bat away any comment on that conclusion by insulting the person bringing it up.

Tell me, are you some kind of preacher?
Click to expand...

pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There's not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...
 
AnyOldIron said:
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...
Click to expand...


But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.
 
AnyOldIron said:
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...
Click to expand...
He did. He argued in the literary sense of one being an adjective describing the origin of something, such as a human toenail, and the other being a noun describing an organism, as in 'a human'.

The distinction isn't "fine". One is a noun and describes an organism, the other simply defines the distinction of origin.

I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

I also asked questions regarding this, and gave one of the methods one could use to identify if something were 'a human' or just of human origin.
 
But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.


Not if it is relevant to the context it is being used.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.

You haven't got an argument then?

Anyone who disagrees with you is transparent, childish and stupid?

Try again, see if you can formulate a coherant argument.

My toenail is human, and it is alive. It isn't a human being...
 
AnyOldIron said:
But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.


Not if it is relevant to the context it is being used.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.

You haven't got an argument then?

Anyone who disagrees with you is transparent, childish and stupid?

Try again, see if you can formulate a coherant argument.

My toenail is human, and it is alive. It isn't a human being...
Click to expand...

No. anyone who denies what words mean, or invents new and fraudulent concepts on the fly in childish and stupid. Follow along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top