My point is that you seem to have had a misunderstanding about what charli.m originally said. She was not CALLING them 'souls,' in a literal sense of the word, she was just speaking of their personal characteristics as people. Saying that they are 'sweet little souls' is basically just saying that they are special in a good way :)
Furthermore, in my experience, that is completely normal to say something like that in that manner.
char·ac·ter·is·tic\ˌker-ik-tə-ˈris-tik, ˌka-rik-\
noun
1 : a distinguishing trait, quality, or property
Humans, simply do not have any Physical properties of a 'soul'. Stated a different way, a 'soul', does not have any Physical properties. Everything in the Universe has Physical properties, including space. Ergo, a 'soul', simply does not exist in this Universe, or in any other Universe.
The sensation that might mislead us into believing in this Archaic concept, might be due to the configuration of our Nervous System.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system
Humans do have traits. These traits, however, are Genetic in nature, being inherited from their respective biological parents. (Transfer of DNA in sexual reproduction).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
If something does not exist, it could not possibly have any qualities.
'Sweet', is a sensation of taste.
I have helped to raise children, and never in my experience, has a child tasted sweet. 'Cherished', is by far, more appropriate.
In which way(s) are these children 'special'? This instills a behavioural trait, which often leads to greediness.
Please teach the children correctly.
They are sensitive and loving little people. You can cherish them.
A perfect example of someone using a turn of phrase understood by the general population who speak that language (therefore NOT creating a division...)
And you being pedantic (can we say creating a division?)
Is it normal that I believe men are being portrayed as morons?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Why are you taking what she said so literally?
In my experience, it is quite normal to refer to the nature of someone's soul (eg: sweet, loving, sensitive, etc.)
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
He has a serious case of 'pompous arse' syndrome :(
Please see my response below.
--
Shackleford96
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I read your response(s) and I believe you missed my point.
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your point being? In a clear and concise manner, please.
--
Shackleford96
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My point is that you seem to have had a misunderstanding about what charli.m originally said. She was not CALLING them 'souls,' in a literal sense of the word, she was just speaking of their personal characteristics as people. Saying that they are 'sweet little souls' is basically just saying that they are special in a good way :)
Furthermore, in my experience, that is completely normal to say something like that in that manner.
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
char·ac·ter·is·tic\ˌker-ik-tə-ˈris-tik, ˌka-rik-\
noun
1 : a distinguishing trait, quality, or property
Humans, simply do not have any Physical properties of a 'soul'. Stated a different way, a 'soul', does not have any Physical properties. Everything in the Universe has Physical properties, including space. Ergo, a 'soul', simply does not exist in this Universe, or in any other Universe.
The sensation that might mislead us into believing in this Archaic concept, might be due to the configuration of our Nervous System.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system
Humans do have traits. These traits, however, are Genetic in nature, being inherited from their respective biological parents. (Transfer of DNA in sexual reproduction).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
If something does not exist, it could not possibly have any qualities.
'Sweet', is a sensation of taste.
I have helped to raise children, and never in my experience, has a child tasted sweet. 'Cherished', is by far, more appropriate.
In which way(s) are these children 'special'? This instills a behavioural trait, which often leads to greediness.
Please teach the children correctly.
They are sensitive and loving little people. You can cherish them.
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
-
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
A perfect example of someone using a turn of phrase understood by the general population who speak that language (therefore NOT creating a division...)
And you being pedantic (can we say creating a division?)
'Normal' and 'Common Sense' aren't always necessarily correct.