Stop accusing me of being a troll, please:

[pauledwardwagemann]

rockysigman said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

Sory. I left out the word 'human' in my reply to Ken. It sohoud read that I am against abortion because it is the destruction of human life. As for eating meat, yes I do. I think it is our obligation as homo sapiens to preserve our species. Meat provides nutrients that man needs to survive.
Anyway Rocky are you comparing killing an unborn baby to slaughtering a cow???

Again, I don't think of a zygote as being the killing of a human. But regardless, I made no comparison anyway. I was just wondering getting clarification on where you drew the line in the life that you value. You now have thrown in the word "human", but since you didn't before, at the time it seemed as though perhaps you considered destruction of all life equally.

Do cows or viruses have souls in your view?

They dont have human souls.

[Thorngrub]

kenholzman said:

"What you have effectively done, is to enter a party/meeting held at
someone's home, and then proceeded to make an arse of yourself by
spoiling the party for many of the people there and make it look less
inviting to those peering through the windows. What we have
effectively done is then eject you from the party. That you then want
to invite a neighbour around to arbitrate your ejection strikes me as
extraordinary."

Sounds like an awfully good reason to ban someone to me. An individual has absolutely no right to go to a private web site and then just piss people off, which is what you did there -- and are well on your way to doing here.

Oh boy, this is classic.

If anyone hears of a party w/"250 raging Mary Blaneys", er, could you be sure to invite me please?

[Thorngrub]

pauledwardwagemann said:

Who have I pissed off here?
I look at it like this, if I yada yada yada blah blah blah...

You haven't pissed off anyone here, pauledwardwagemann. You're just annoying as a fly trapped in the house, you know when that happens? & You just can't stand it's incessant buzzing anymore? Yeah, like that

[Thorngrub]

frag said:

So is stepping on an ant hill, no? The universe is in motion! The soul exists!
Shut the fuck up.

*wiping tears of laughter from eyes*, oh this was great . . . really, can he stay just a little while longer ?

[JACkory]

pauledwardwagemann said:

rockysigman said:

Are you a vegetarian? Have you ever taken an anti-viral medication?

Sory. I left out the word 'human' in my reply to Ken. It sohoud read that I am against abortion because it is the destruction of human life. As for eating meat, yes I do. I think it is our obligation as homo sapiens to preserve our species. Meat provides nutrients that man needs to survive.
Anyway Rocky are you comparing killing an unborn baby to slaughtering a cow???

Ban this moron already, strat-0.
Anyone with such a lofty reason for eating meat has no business posting amongst those of us who eat it because it tastes good, ois filling and quite nutritious to boot.
I barely know this guy, but he deserves to get the boot on the strength of this post alone...

[strat-0]

Good point, Jac. There are other ways to get protein if you are averse to eating animals for moral reasons. Riley doesn't seem too puny. I eat it for the nutrition, but mainly because animals are so tasty. In fact, I'm a member of People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA). Also, I believe that when you eat animals, you consume their soul and it makes you stronger.

[Galactus]

Oooo, I want a bear soul!

[kool]

I want to eat a cat, you know, for the nine souls. Why do you think a third of the world's population is Chinese?

I'll probably go for a Red Tabby. Those bitches look juicy.

[Kensterberg]

If I were to assume, arguendo, that souls exist, and that all living creatures have them, I would have to them assume that there is no distinction between souls of various animals. After all, we know that there is no quantum physical difference between humans and other animals, ergo there must not be such a difference in the souls of all living things. Moreover, since PEW says that "soul" is what binds everything together, then inanimate objects must also have souls.

So you would have to treat everything around you as if it has a soul and value its uniqueness and contribution to the universe. Under this perspective, the dust on the bottom of your shoe is at least as important as a human baby. You can't have any preferences for anything, as everything has a soul and must be treated as such.

That's what I've gotten from PEW's "proof" (which really isn't "proof" at all, just a bare assertion of his beliefs). And I really don't see how this helps in either (1) choosing a position regarding whose choice it should be to carry a pregnancy to term; or (2) determining if PEW is or is not a "troll."

Maybe we need to look into his "soul" to see his true nature ... do trolls have souls? are they any different from the souls of anything else?

[Fuzznuts]

Hey Mantits, did you know there's a monkey washing a cat in your avatar? Thought you might want to check that out.

[Galactus]

More so even, in Paul's "definition" there's is no individual soul, making completely irrelevant to the abortion debate. The thing seperating us is not that spark of life but rather our temperary vessels, meaning everything that makes us special is happenstance and irrelevent on the universal scale at which Paul is pontifcating.

[Galactus]

fuzznuts said:

Hey Mantits, did you know there's a monkey washing a cat in your avatar? Thought you might want to check that out.

Yeah, that monkey just keeps washing and washing and washing...you gotta wonder what a cat did to get a so dirty a monkey just had to clean it.

[strat-0]

With apologies to Mary for lifting such a small snippet:

I mean, how does this in any way support an argument about the unique preciousness of the human soul? If we are somehow morally obligated to preserve "soul" based upon this logic, then tearing up a piece of paper is every bit the atrocity that aborting a fetus is.

Or, carelessly letting one of those magazine subscription cards blow out of your magazine and into San Francisco Bay. I'm sure as the ink bled, that poor card lost its soul. You should have swum for it, Mary. Litterer.

[limitdeditionlayla]

jackory said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

I think it is our obligation as homo sapiens to preserve our species.

This is an interesting thing to point out, PEW. I don't want to talk about eating meat (for the record, I love red meat & though I wholeheartedly support vegetarianism for a number of reasons, I have super-low iron levels, so meat is good).

Humans do have an obligation to preserve our species, yes. But this is sometimes at the expense of another human life, because though we are programmed to instinctively care for our young & to use our best efforts to promote & protect another human's life, our primary goal is always the continued survival of our species. Please make the distinction between preserving the species & preserving an individual life.

The act of abortion, in the current chapter of human history, is NOT in any way a threat to human survival, in terms of our species.

[pauledwardwagemann]

limitdeditionlayla said:

jackory said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

I think it is our obligation as homo sapiens to preserve our species.

This is an interesting thing to point out, PEW. I don't want to talk about eating meat (for the record, I love red meat & though I wholeheartedly support vegetarianism for a number of reasons, I have super-low iron levels, so meat is good).

Humans do have an obligation to preserve our species, yes. But this is sometimes at the expense of another human life, because though we are programmed to instinctively care for our young & to use our best efforts to promote & protect another human's life, our primary goal is always the continued survival of our species. Please make the distinction between preserving the species & preserving an individual life.

The act of abortion, in the current chapter of human history, is NOT in any way a threat to human survival, in terms of our species.

Abortion may or may not be a threat to the survival of our species (for instance some may argue that morally abortion could be a first step in a slippery slope toward mass acceptance of social engineering).
But my point was that if killing animals is neccessary for the survival of mankind then it is justified. I dont see how killing unborn babies is crucial to man's survival in the way that eating meat is