CDZ Is it inhumane to not assist with requested suicide?

[320 Years of History]

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

 

[saveliberty]

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

 

[saveliberty]

If the soul is so disconnected from the body, then what does it matter if the body dies?

If you accept the soul concept, it is further suggested that soul may not enter heaven as suicide is a sin. You literally may be assisting in eternally condemning someone.

 

[320 Years of History]

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

Blue:
I've substituted nothing. I have only identified events that have taken place and stated what is known about them with regard to their prosecutors' intents and reasons for initiating them. Nothing I wrote has a damn thing to do with theistic dogma and isn't based on it. Rather it has to do with rejecting exactly that as a basis for rational decision making.

As a theist, I believe humans have a soul. As a rational thinker, I know that I cannot use that belief to substantiate any actions or policies I'd have implemented to govern or affect others' existence or state thereof. I recognize the role theism and souls play in the ethical systems some people follow, but I also realize that for ethical principles to have maximum sustainability and merit, they must be based on ration not theistic dogma.

Pink:
If you want to get into a discussion about late term abortion, fine, but recognize that a fetus has no awareness of pain until the seventh month of its existence.

Green:
I see pain as a legitimate determinant when it comes to my personal situation. It plays no role in how I would decide anything on behalf of another human unless I have been delegated the authority and onus to personally make that decision for that individual. Be it the matter of assisted suicide or abortion, that is a choice I leave up to the individual(s) specifically faced with the immediate consequences of their decision. Whichever way they elect to go, for me what they did or did not choose to do is but a matter of "if this and if that," which is yet again an illogical basis for decision making.

Red:
No, I'm not. Indeed, I presented two essays that demonstrate as much. The first of them shows the insufficiency of pure logic for the foundation of all theistic beliefs and the other other the irrationality of the premise that there is a soul.

If you care to refute them with equally rigorous logic, please do so, but even doing so in an inductively cogent way does not prove the assertion you made and that I asked you to prove, a proof/argument must stand on its own absent a rebuttal of the two arguments I offered rather than as nothing more than a rebuttal. Moreover, your empty assertion just above (latest red text) is just that, unsupported thus empty.

 

[saveliberty]

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

Blue:
I've substituted nothing. I have only identified events that have taken place and stated what is known about them with regard to their prosecutors' intents and reasons for initiating them. Nothing I wrote has a damn thing to do with theistic dogma and isn't based on it. Rather it has to do with rejecting exactly that as a basis for rational decision making.

As a theist, I believe humans have a soul. As a rational thinker, I know that I cannot use that belief to substantiate any actions or policies I'd have implemented to govern or affect others' existence or state thereof. I recognize the role theism and souls play in the ethical systems some people follow, but I also realize that for ethical principles to have maximum sustainability and merit, they must be based on ration not theistic dogma.

Pink:
If you want to get into a discussion about late term abortion, fine, but recognize that a fetus has no awareness of pain until the seventh month of its existence.

Green:
I see pain as a legitimate determinant when it comes to my personal situation. It plays no role in how I would decide anything on behalf of another human unless I have been delegated the authority and onus to personally make that decision for that individual. Be it the matter of assisted suicide or abortion, that is a choice I leave up to the individual(s) specifically faced with the immediate consequences of their decision. Whichever way they elect to go, for me what they did or did not choose to do is but a matter of "if this and if that," which is yet again an illogical basis for decision making.

Red:
No, I'm not. Indeed, I presented two essays that demonstrate as much. The first of them shows the insufficiency of pure logic for the foundation of all theistic beliefs and the other other the irrationality of the premise that there is a soul.

If you care to refute them with equally rigorous logic, please do so, but even doing so in an inductively cogent way does not prove the assertion you made and that I asked you to prove, a proof/argument must stand on its own absent a rebuttal of the two arguments I offered rather than as nothing more than a rebuttal. Moreover, your empty assertion just above (latest red text) is just that, unsupported thus empty.

I see a lot of denial on your part in all the replies. You want facts? You have a right to a DNR, if you are conscious, you can pull a trigger. Do not bring other people into your pain.

 

[320 Years of History]

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

Blue:
I've substituted nothing. I have only identified events that have taken place and stated what is known about them with regard to their prosecutors' intents and reasons for initiating them. Nothing I wrote has a damn thing to do with theistic dogma and isn't based on it. Rather it has to do with rejecting exactly that as a basis for rational decision making.

As a theist, I believe humans have a soul. As a rational thinker, I know that I cannot use that belief to substantiate any actions or policies I'd have implemented to govern or affect others' existence or state thereof. I recognize the role theism and souls play in the ethical systems some people follow, but I also realize that for ethical principles to have maximum sustainability and merit, they must be based on ration not theistic dogma.

Pink:
If you want to get into a discussion about late term abortion, fine, but recognize that a fetus has no awareness of pain until the seventh month of its existence.

Green:
I see pain as a legitimate determinant when it comes to my personal situation. It plays no role in how I would decide anything on behalf of another human unless I have been delegated the authority and onus to personally make that decision for that individual. Be it the matter of assisted suicide or abortion, that is a choice I leave up to the individual(s) specifically faced with the immediate consequences of their decision. Whichever way they elect to go, for me what they did or did not choose to do is but a matter of "if this and if that," which is yet again an illogical basis for decision making.

Red:
No, I'm not. Indeed, I presented two essays that demonstrate as much. The first of them shows the insufficiency of pure logic for the foundation of all theistic beliefs and the other other the irrationality of the premise that there is a soul.

If you care to refute them with equally rigorous logic, please do so, but even doing so in an inductively cogent way does not prove the assertion you made and that I asked you to prove, a proof/argument must stand on its own absent a rebuttal of the two arguments I offered rather than as nothing more than a rebuttal. Moreover, your empty assertion just above (latest red text) is just that, unsupported thus empty.

I see a lot of denial on your part in all the replies. You want facts? You have a right to a DNR, if you are conscious, you can pull a trigger. Do not bring other people into your pain.

Red:
Well, when you claim I've done something that I have not, or claim I am something I am not, what do you expect to see but a denial? Make multiple incorrect accusations and assertions, and you'll see multiple denials.

Other:
What I have yet to see from you is a rationally cogent argument/proof supporting your currently unsubstantiated assertion that humans have a soul and animals do not.

 

[saveliberty]

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

Blue:
I've substituted nothing. I have only identified events that have taken place and stated what is known about them with regard to their prosecutors' intents and reasons for initiating them. Nothing I wrote has a damn thing to do with theistic dogma and isn't based on it. Rather it has to do with rejecting exactly that as a basis for rational decision making.

As a theist, I believe humans have a soul. As a rational thinker, I know that I cannot use that belief to substantiate any actions or policies I'd have implemented to govern or affect others' existence or state thereof. I recognize the role theism and souls play in the ethical systems some people follow, but I also realize that for ethical principles to have maximum sustainability and merit, they must be based on ration not theistic dogma.

Pink:
If you want to get into a discussion about late term abortion, fine, but recognize that a fetus has no awareness of pain until the seventh month of its existence.

Green:
I see pain as a legitimate determinant when it comes to my personal situation. It plays no role in how I would decide anything on behalf of another human unless I have been delegated the authority and onus to personally make that decision for that individual. Be it the matter of assisted suicide or abortion, that is a choice I leave up to the individual(s) specifically faced with the immediate consequences of their decision. Whichever way they elect to go, for me what they did or did not choose to do is but a matter of "if this and if that," which is yet again an illogical basis for decision making.

Red:
No, I'm not. Indeed, I presented two essays that demonstrate as much. The first of them shows the insufficiency of pure logic for the foundation of all theistic beliefs and the other other the irrationality of the premise that there is a soul.

If you care to refute them with equally rigorous logic, please do so, but even doing so in an inductively cogent way does not prove the assertion you made and that I asked you to prove, a proof/argument must stand on its own absent a rebuttal of the two arguments I offered rather than as nothing more than a rebuttal. Moreover, your empty assertion just above (latest red text) is just that, unsupported thus empty.

I see a lot of denial on your part in all the replies. You want facts? You have a right to a DNR, if you are conscious, you can pull a trigger. Do not bring other people into your pain.

Red:
Well, when you claim I've done something that I have not, or claim I am something I am not, what do you expect to see but a denial? Make multiple incorrect accusations and assertions, and you'll see multiple denials.

Other:
What I have yet to see from you is a rationally cogent argument/proof supporting your currently unsubstantiated assertion that humans have a soul and animals do not.

You conceded the human soul part.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
Prove it.

• Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
  
• "Do Souls Exist?"

Blue:
Your not participating in assisted suicide is perfectly fine. For you to intimate that there's something wrong with others -- the rest of society meant by "we" -- doing so, that there is failing in the rationale the other member presented re: humaneness on the basis of there being a soul, while acceptable for you, is not fine overall.

I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not; one can believe whatever they want, regardless of the rational basis or lack thereof for doing so. I have a problem with folks who espouse those beliefs not realizing the logical fallacy underpinning their belief and thus refraining from using that belief as a guide to what actions a society must, must not, should and/or should not undertake or allow.

Look around the planet and you'll find groups of people who want to "run things" in accordance with the dogma given by their faith-based belief system. Zealous members of those groups who unwaveringly insist on and in turn advocate for and act to effect a world managed in accordance with those guidelines fall into three general classes: haters, war mongers, and terrorists. What's the difference between the latter two, in this context, between the two? War mongers have a nation state from which to launch their campaigns and terrorists do not.
Time and time again we see that dogmatic belief systems and organizations have, in the aftermath of proclaiming what is "right" based on their dogma eventually get to the next level and violently force some or the rest of the world to see things their way, and history's litany of holy wars/battles/incidents provides ample illustration of as much:

• Moses and Aaron conquer Canaan
• Battle of Jericho
• The Crusades
• Thirty Years War
• Eighty Years War
• Slavery
• 20th and 21st century faith-based fundamentalist (pick whatever monotheistic system you want) terrorism

You are just substituting your dogma. You are fine with causing pain to a fetus for convenience. Pain is not your standard, but take another situation you are personally uncomfortable with and pain becomes the determinator. You are being illogical.

Blue:
I've substituted nothing. I have only identified events that have taken place and stated what is known about them with regard to their prosecutors' intents and reasons for initiating them. Nothing I wrote has a damn thing to do with theistic dogma and isn't based on it. Rather it has to do with rejecting exactly that as a basis for rational decision making.

As a theist, I believe humans have a soul. As a rational thinker, I know that I cannot use that belief to substantiate any actions or policies I'd have implemented to govern or affect others' existence or state thereof. I recognize the role theism and souls play in the ethical systems some people follow, but I also realize that for ethical principles to have maximum sustainability and merit, they must be based on ration not theistic dogma.

Pink:
If you want to get into a discussion about late term abortion, fine, but recognize that a fetus has no awareness of pain until the seventh month of its existence.

Green:
I see pain as a legitimate determinant when it comes to my personal situation. It plays no role in how I would decide anything on behalf of another human unless I have been delegated the authority and onus to personally make that decision for that individual. Be it the matter of assisted suicide or abortion, that is a choice I leave up to the individual(s) specifically faced with the immediate consequences of their decision. Whichever way they elect to go, for me what they did or did not choose to do is but a matter of "if this and if that," which is yet again an illogical basis for decision making.

Red:
No, I'm not. Indeed, I presented two essays that demonstrate as much. The first of them shows the insufficiency of pure logic for the foundation of all theistic beliefs and the other other the irrationality of the premise that there is a soul.

If you care to refute them with equally rigorous logic, please do so, but even doing so in an inductively cogent way does not prove the assertion you made and that I asked you to prove, a proof/argument must stand on its own absent a rebuttal of the two arguments I offered rather than as nothing more than a rebuttal. Moreover, your empty assertion just above (latest red text) is just that, unsupported thus empty.

I see a lot of denial on your part in all the replies. You want facts? You have a right to a DNR, if you are conscious, you can pull a trigger. Do not bring other people into your pain.

Red:
Well, when you claim I've done something that I have not, or claim I am something I am not, what do you expect to see but a denial? Make multiple incorrect accusations and assertions, and you'll see multiple denials.

Other:
What I have yet to see from you is a rationally cogent argument/proof supporting your currently unsubstantiated assertion that humans have a soul and animals do not.

You conceded the human soul part.

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

 

[saveliberty]

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

Post #21, read your own writing.

"I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not"

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

Post #21, read your own writing.

"I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not"

Yes. One can believe anything in the world or not in the world. Your remark was not presented as a statement of personal belief; it was written as a statement of fact.

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

As I said, I have no issue with one's arbitrarily or otherwise believing (1) that humans have souls, and (2) their soul is what distinguishes humans from other animals. I absolutely take exception with someone presenting those two concepts as statements of fact in support of a conclusion....namely, with regard to your post, the conclusion you delivered that avers that the "definition" of "humanity" needs work as a consequence of humans having souls and thereby being different from other animals.

For reference, JoeMoma's remark that you replied to:

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

FWIW, two little words would have been enough to convert your statement from an assertion of fact to a personal belief: I believe....As in, for example, "I believe that humans have a soul which makes them different from animals." The difference being that whatever justification you deem acceptable for allowing you to believe as you do on literally anything is up to you...it need not make any sense or be true or be based on anything resembling demonstrated/-able facts in anyone's mind other than yours.

Absent your indicating you welcome challenges and refutations of your belief and its basis, nobody in their right mind would have a damn thing to say about it other, perhaps, than, "Okay, I understand that you do believe that and I understand why you do. I don't share your belief, but I'm not going to refute it." I say "in their right mind," because there are folks out there who feel that they are obliged to present/clarify not only facts and information, and provide input on the proper rational weighting of that data, but to also convert one from their current faith based (theistic or not) beliefs.

I'm not among those folks. I will sometimes endeavor to show that a given belief (or set of them) stand on shaky ground rationally speaking, but as long as the individual/group accept the weakness of their position and avers that they believe it because they just want to, despite the lack/thinness of intellectual/rational rigor that underpins their belief, I'm done. If one just wants to believe X because that's what their "gut" tells them, well then go on and believe it. Time will tell which of our positions in fact held water.

 

[saveliberty]

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

Post #21, read your own writing.

"I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not"

Yes. One can believe anything in the world or not in the world. Your remark was not presented as a statement of personal belief; it was written as a statement of fact.

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

As I said, I have no issue with one's arbitrarily or otherwise believing (1) that humans have souls, and (2) their soul is what distinguishes humans from other animals. I absolutely take exception with someone presenting those two concepts as statements of fact in support of a conclusion....namely, with regard to your post, the conclusion you delivered that avers that the "definition" of "humanity" needs work as a consequence of humans having souls and thereby being different from other animals.

For reference, JoeMoma's remark that you replied to:

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

FWIW, two little words would have been enough to convert your statement from an assertion of fact to a personal belief: I believe....As in, for example, "I believe that humans have a soul which makes them different from animals." The difference being that whatever justification you deem acceptable for allowing you to believe as you do on literally anything is up to you...it need not make any sense or be true or be based on anything resembling demonstrated/-able facts in anyone's mind other than yours.

Absent your indicating you welcome challenges and refutations of your belief and its basis, nobody in their right mind would have a damn thing to say about it other, perhaps, than, "Okay, I understand that you do believe that and I understand why you do. I don't share your belief, but I'm not going to refute it." I say "in their right mind," because there are folks out there who feel that they are obliged to present/clarify not only facts and information, and provide input on the proper rational weighting of that data, but to also convert one from their current faith based (theistic or not) beliefs.

I'm not among those folks. I will sometimes endeavor to show that a given belief (or set of them) stand on shaky ground rationally speaking, but as long as the individual/group accept the weakness of their position and avers that they believe it because they just want to, despite the lack/thinness of intellectual/rational rigor that underpins their belief, I'm done. If one just wants to believe X because that's what their "gut" tells them, well then go on and believe it. Time will tell which of our positions in fact held water.

Wow, quite the diatribe on deflecting the fact you admitted to humans souls. You plan on continuing with circular reasoning or maybe introduce another point, since this one has been refuted.

 

[JoeMoma]

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

Post #21, read your own writing.

"I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not"

Yes. One can believe anything in the world or not in the world. Your remark was not presented as a statement of personal belief; it was written as a statement of fact.

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

As I said, I have no issue with one's arbitrarily or otherwise believing (1) that humans have souls, and (2) their soul is what distinguishes humans from other animals. I absolutely take exception with someone presenting those two concepts as statements of fact in support of a conclusion....namely, with regard to your post, the conclusion you delivered that avers that the "definition" of "humanity" needs work as a consequence of humans having souls and thereby being different from other animals.

For reference, JoeMoma's remark that you replied to:

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

FWIW, two little words would have been enough to convert your statement from an assertion of fact to a personal belief: I believe....As in, for example, "I believe that humans have a soul which makes them different from animals." The difference being that whatever justification you deem acceptable for allowing you to believe as you do on literally anything is up to you...it need not make any sense or be true or be based on anything resembling demonstrated/-able facts in anyone's mind other than yours.

Absent your indicating you welcome challenges and refutations of your belief and its basis, nobody in their right mind would have a damn thing to say about it other, perhaps, than, "Okay, I understand that you do believe that and I understand why you do. I don't share your belief, but I'm not going to refute it." I say "in their right mind," because there are folks out there who feel that they are obliged to present/clarify not only facts and information, and provide input on the proper rational weighting of that data, but to also convert one from their current faith based (theistic or not) beliefs.

I'm not among those folks. I will sometimes endeavor to show that a given belief (or set of them) stand on shaky ground rationally speaking, but as long as the individual/group accept the weakness of their position and avers that they believe it because they just want to, despite the lack/thinness of intellectual/rational rigor that underpins their belief, I'm done. If one just wants to believe X because that's what their "gut" tells them, well then go on and believe it. Time will tell which of our positions in fact held water.

Wow, quite the diatribe on deflecting the fact you admitted to humans souls. You plan on continuing with circular reasoning or maybe introduce another point, since this one has been refuted.

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I did not. Whatever made you think I did?

Post #21, read your own writing.

"I have no issue with one's believing humans have a soul and animals do not"

Yes. One can believe anything in the world or not in the world. Your remark was not presented as a statement of personal belief; it was written as a statement of fact.

Humans have souls which makes them different from animals. We also consider it humane to dismember unwanted human fetuses. So the definition needs work.

As I said, I have no issue with one's arbitrarily or otherwise believing (1) that humans have souls, and (2) their soul is what distinguishes humans from other animals. I absolutely take exception with someone presenting those two concepts as statements of fact in support of a conclusion....namely, with regard to your post, the conclusion you delivered that avers that the "definition" of "humanity" needs work as a consequence of humans having souls and thereby being different from other animals.

For reference, JoeMoma's remark that you replied to:

We consider it humane to "put down" animals when they are old and suffering, yet humans are denied this option when they are old and suffering. Interesting!

FWIW, two little words would have been enough to convert your statement from an assertion of fact to a personal belief: I believe....As in, for example, "I believe that humans have a soul which makes them different from animals." The difference being that whatever justification you deem acceptable for allowing you to believe as you do on literally anything is up to you...it need not make any sense or be true or be based on anything resembling demonstrated/-able facts in anyone's mind other than yours.

Absent your indicating you welcome challenges and refutations of your belief and its basis, nobody in their right mind would have a damn thing to say about it other, perhaps, than, "Okay, I understand that you do believe that and I understand why you do. I don't share your belief, but I'm not going to refute it." I say "in their right mind," because there are folks out there who feel that they are obliged to present/clarify not only facts and information, and provide input on the proper rational weighting of that data, but to also convert one from their current faith based (theistic or not) beliefs.

I'm not among those folks. I will sometimes endeavor to show that a given belief (or set of them) stand on shaky ground rationally speaking, but as long as the individual/group accept the weakness of their position and avers that they believe it because they just want to, despite the lack/thinness of intellectual/rational rigor that underpins their belief, I'm done. If one just wants to believe X because that's what their "gut" tells them, well then go on and believe it. Time will tell which of our positions in fact held water.

Wow, quite the diatribe on deflecting the fact you admitted to humans souls. You plan on continuing with circular reasoning or maybe introduce another point, since this one has been refuted.

Call it anything you want, but you have yet to prove your assertion.

 

[saveliberty]

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

He removed it as a debate point, makes no difference at this point. Refuses to acknowledge pain felt by a fetus before seven months.


Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

He is apparently okay with painful deaths of a fetus, but holds an illogical view those near death should not.

 

[320 Years of History]

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

He removed it as a debate point, makes no difference at this point. Refuses to acknowledge pain felt by a fetus before seven months.


Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

He is apparently okay with painful deaths of a fetus, but holds an illogical view those near death should not.

You have yet to prove your assertion that humans have souls and those souls are what distinguish humans from other animals.

Off Topic:
When I had surgery, I'm sure the procedure was painful; however, as my brain was effectively "turned off," I had no awareness of that pain. That is exactly the situation for a fetus prior to the seventh month, and you'd know that were you to have read the content at the link I provided.

 

[JoeMoma]

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

He removed it as a debate point, makes no difference at this point. Refuses to acknowledge pain felt by a fetus before seven months.


Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

He is apparently okay with painful deaths of a fetus, but holds an illogical view those near death should not.

I personally am more troubled by abortion than by assisted suicide. Abortion; however tangentially related, is not the topic of this thread.

 

[saveliberty]

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

He removed it as a debate point, makes no difference at this point. Refuses to acknowledge pain felt by a fetus before seven months.


Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

He is apparently okay with painful deaths of a fetus, but holds an illogical view those near death should not.

You have yet to prove your assertion that humans have souls and those souls are what distinguish humans from other animals.

Off Topic:
When I had surgery, I'm sure the procedure was painful; however, as my brain was effectively "turned off," I had no awareness of that pain. That is exactly the situation for a fetus prior to the seventh month, and you'd know that were you to have read the content at the link I provided.

My link contradicts your link. You conceded souls were a possibility, you can't retract a point. Debate does not work this way. You lost that point make your case with another point. Currently your pain argument is in jeopardy as a fetus feels pain and you have no problem with that pain.

 

[sartre play]

He did not admit that humans have souls, but he did state that he is okay with you believing it. Big difference.

He removed it as a debate point, makes no difference at this point. Refuses to acknowledge pain felt by a fetus before seven months.


Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.

He is apparently okay with painful deaths of a fetus, but holds an illogical view those near death should not.

 

[sartre play]

How did fetus get into this? was this about adults choice to die?

 

[saveliberty]

Post #24 you admit to being a theist. Most theist have a belief in a soul. You cannot accept it as a belief then counter it is not fact later in a debate. You apparently believe a fetus feels no pain prior to seven months, yet I linked information showing that belief was incorrect. You mix belief with facts, yet hold others to a different standard. This simply will not do in the CDZ as a proper debate.