The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.

That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.

P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.

Poor etiquette to significantly edit your comment without noting so, especially after it’s already received a reply.

That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.

But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.

We can’t prove conscious entities do or don’t have souls. Asserting we don’t, as if it’s some kind of self-evident fact, is as arrogant as religious people asserting that we do.

The entire style is the same generic crap that ChatGPT and others pour out. The significant detail and cutesiness is always indicative for low-stakes events, because it’s rare for a human to put in that much effort for something this simple.

At least it’s cellulose rather than the mineral and plastic dusts from working with conventional building materials. Human bodies have pretty much zero ability to break down the latter.

As weird as it sounds, I assumed there was some logic to this, and there was at least one case where someone had been the victim of sexual abuse and was forced to engage in bestiality. Then someone with half a brain realised that such a victim had no repulsive proclivities, so shouldn’t be excluded as a candidate on that basis.

The mere mention of the topic encourages irrational discourse.

He’s only a grade 11 bureaucrat.

He’s looking at you like that because he has a PhD, and he just heard you say that unnecessary apostrophe.