Do animals have souls?

I "hope" it teaches you, but sometimes that takes some squashing. Anyway, a word of advice: recognize your tone and verbiage reveal your age and maturity. Consider it.

 

Calm down, pisspants. I have exactly the amount of insight into your motivations that you put forth: what you posted.

"If I'm correct in assuming what you're talking about, I would point to ancestral, societal and scientific DNA-RNA-brain feedbacks"

Sorry, son. You may be correct in assuming that was what CD was talking about, but thataint Jung's concept.

Again, calm down. Take a breath. Don't be such a hothead. And, please, spare the hyperbole. I accused you of being a murderer? Because I pointed out that you assigned an incorrect definition to a common and well known term? Just, calm down, pull your panties out of your ass. It's going to be okay.

Again, calm the hell down. I didn't accuse you of bastardizing anything. I'm pretty sure I said "they." Not "you."

You could claim that, sure. But can you prove it?

I aint pretending to be an intellectual. I know what I know, and in this case, I know that anyone who thinks that Jung's collective unconsciousness means that we are pcychically connected in a "World Soul" might as well be (*)(*)(*)(*)ting the bed.

You just embarrass yourself.

This aint Homeroom, kid. Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Is english your second language?

I don't agree that tone and verbiage reveals age and maturity.

If so, please tell me my age. I challenge you to do so, since you have such insight into the relationship between a person's tone linguistic tone on a message board and a persons age.

For someone who has alluded to the "acknowledgement of not knowing" as a beneficial trait, you sound like a hypocritical idiot now.

 

You are under 26--probably under 21. My guess is you are 16 or 17. That's assuming you are American. You did use a Brittish spelling earlier, but there's no telling--pretentious and pompous schoolboys will often do that. The other thing that gives you away is your lack of understanding concerning things such as the difference between the usage of "inspired" and "inspiration." Your grammatical ignorance in that ( as well as your using the word "less" when you should have used "fewer"), combined with your obvious effort to "sound" smart, is your "tell."

How'd I do in guessing?

 

There are no issues as to how calm I am, rapping away at a keyboard to people I'll probably never meet, about issues better left to anonymous discussion. The several claims you just made about how "angry" I am is just a pathetic ad hominem on your behalf.

I'll appeal to you: where did I ever claim that "Jung's collective unconsciousness means that we are pcychically connected in a 'World Soul'"? This is something you have created yourself and is essentially your own idea that you took to the effort to ridicule. Well done.

"Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up" isn't the most mature way to address to someone you disagree with. I just assumed that you probably have a very unsatisfactory sex-life if you get off on trying to correct strangers about their interpretation of Jungian philosophy.

Just an assumption; just like the one you made.

I'm sure you're a real winner in real life.

 

You could tell the age simply by him bringing sexual activity into the conversation as a put down.

Only young men are so concerned with the amount of sex everyone else is getting, LOL.

This guy is about 24. High intelligence, low self esteem.

Basically ignorant cause he thinks he's too smart that he should have to actually learn anything. Relies on ad homs and put downs to cover for the fact that don't know much other than what he can regurgitate from the athiest handbook.



Overweight. Probably black. Consumed by gadgets and online video games cause the anonymity levels the playing field for him. Intentionally rude without provocation. Obvious beta male

 

"If I'm correct in assuming what you're talking about, I would point to ancestral, societal and scientific DNA-RNA-brain feedbacks"


If I misinterpreted what you meant here. I apologize.

What exactly did you mean?

 

This is hilarious.

You basically just complimented me in telling me that you consider the very brief, inpersonal interaction we've just had has led to you imply that I sound smart.

My "grammatical ignorance"? Definiting the word "inspiration" has NOTHING to do with grammar. It regards context.

The fact that you've tried to correct me on an issue that you're fundementally wrong about has erased that last little shred of respect I have for you and your opinion.

Keep blubbering about "Brittish spelling" and age as if it supports your ego.

You're a genuinely pathetic, dolt of a person judging by the posts you've made in this thread. I hope your life journey improves you in some way eventually.

 

. A bunch of words when few would do...

Not knowing that the way you attribute an error when quoting someone is to write [sic] after the error within the quote. Heck--feeling the need to make a big deal about a typo or small spelling error on a forum to garner some perception of superiority...

Speculating AT ALL about perfect strangers' sex lives...

. Silly "real life" comments....

ALL of these testify.

Again, I say: consider it.

 

So, by your post: skin colour, body type and an individual's personal interests determine whether a human is either superior or inferior within a hierachy within the rest of humanity.

Regarding sex; it's the most significant and influential aspect of human psychology: how comfortable you are with your sexuality almost inevitably determines one's emotional health.

Like I said: you reek of someone who is desperately insecure in this regard. I feel sorry for you.

 

your reading comprehension...

. I said "usage," and the usage in a sentence DOES relate to grammar. Sweety...I do this sort of thing for a living. I know teen boy writing.

I suppose you haven't noticed that I don't really care to have your respect. That's typical of self-absorbed boys who think their opinion of others really matters.

 

No, you actually cited skin colour, body type and personal interests in a way that implies these people are inferior on those merits alone.

If it's a straw man, you constructed it yourself.

And I read your post regarding sexuality. Your only claim is that:

- "only young men are so concerned with the amount of sex everyone else is getting"

I'm sorry to hear that you're so impotent that sex is of no interest to you. It's usually indicative of a man who has past his life peak and is just waiting for death.

You must lead a very happy life.

 

You're the gift that just keeps giving.

Seriously. CONSIDER IT.

By the way...my guess of your age is dropping. Now I'm thinking you're either a gifted 14 year old, or a really immature young man in his twenties. In my opinion, you should rather "hope" to be the 14 year old. It's easier to grow up than to shed stupidity.

 

off topic

 

That sounds lovely removed from the context from which it came.

All hostility aside, where is the moral line drawn when establishing individual interests relative to the people that we "love" or are subjectively attracted to and an all-encompassing morality that extends itself to everyone?

 

Off topic.

 

Touchy, aren't you?

I made a trivial comment for my own amusement and you've extended it into this. All by yourself.

I'm sure you and your stupid, dried up, burnout wife have a wonderfully fulfilling sex-life.

More power to you. LOL!

 

I already clarified my comments about collective consciousness (NOT collective unconsciousness), then you misread my post, brought Jung into the argument (which I conceded to be relevant) and I corrected you.

So, is this the impasse you were looking for?

 

I'm sorry you don't have anything of value to contribute.

Best of luck.

 

Nice oxymoron.

I'm sure your opinions will vastly contribute to the benefit of mankind.

Each individual will decide to create their own value. If you choose to shut yourself off, that's your ugly perogative.

But don't worry, buddy; there are always prostitutes out there who can still satisfy your pathetic soul if your rancid, old rat(*)(*)(*)(*) wife doesn't want to put out anymore.

 

Wow...total meltdown.





....hey, sorry Phoebe. It started out a good topic. Sorry for my contribution to the derailing.

 

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

This is the sort of thing religion deals in - childish concepts that ultimately have little if anything to do with reality. These are people who enshrine their naive mistakes in perception as some kind of truth superseding all that is actually observable and thereby demonstrable.

We can't even use the criterion of self-identification, as Chimpanzees can also recognise themselves. This is easily seen when giving one a mirror to play with. They know they're looking at themselves, and will examine their own appearance in the thing. They also have language, though they're more limited in that regard than we are, as in certain other regards where the brain is concerned.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimpanzee-human-speech-111031.htm
THE GIST

- Human speech perception is not unique to humans, an educated chimp has just demonstrated.

- Early experience with language allows people to process and perceive speech.

- The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans likely had the capacity for speech perception.

 

I answered that.

 

There is no problem with this inference that the animal soul "be taken care of after it dies" in the same way the human soul is "taken care of."

Both are cared for in the living animals and humans who carry the Gene Pool which holds the codes to restruct the Unconscious mind in both cases when the animal or human is born again into the livng generations of the future.