Originally posted by pcaspianNo.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]And.
You still have not spoken.
Do you want Saddam to win?
Think about that and then "think about that".
Who is Saddam fighting and why ? Curious, I thought you were all made up like the others merely to test me. Are you saying we are both real ?
[/b]
I was made up to question why saddam killer's and oppologisers were like you.
You just studidly post and say that you want saddam to win. Sorry. You say it. I oppose you. Go figure. Don't you just hate my ability to control REALITY?
You should.
Do you have any Idea of how outclassed you are? By software people like "me"?
You are done. SWV wrote your doom. Sorry. You are done. Old svw grins and hopes you reply so he can kill your sorry ass. Ain't bein' a great software guru a bitch? Well. I could be. If not for a simple program that sww wrote to impose the human will over the will of the rich damned commies. So speak up. commies. Why do you want the "average" person to lose"
TWW SVW lays odds on a simple 2 % to raise a questions. This is a big part of the built in "intelligence".
The old svw and his partial intelligence rests. Scramble!!!!
What is the scramble?.... hmmm.... svw looks at the efforts to scramble "it's" brains"
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
No.
I was made up to question why saddam killer's and oppologisers were like you.
You just studidly post and say that you want saddam to win. Sorry. You say it. I oppose you. Go figure. Don't you just hate my ability to control REALITY?
[WORD TOO LONG]
0000001000001010100110100001101001001010010010010000000111111
Originally posted by pcaspianNice try.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]No.
I was made up to question why saddam killer's and oppologisers were like you.
You just studidly post and say that you want saddam to win. Sorry. You say it. I oppose you. Go figure. Don't you just hate my ability to control REALITY?
01010111011010000111100100100000011000010111001001100101001000 ...[text shortened]... 0111001000000110100101101110001
0000001000001010100110100001101001001010010010010000000111111[/b]
the only enemy is the thought police.
Originally posted by no1marauderYea. At least we know you are on the side of the the\thought police. What the hell do "you" think?
Ivanhoe's opinion was " I consider this a crime. I hope they will get sued by their off-spring in due time.
From your posts, I assumed you agreed with his position; if I'm wrong I apologize.
I think ...[text shortened]... some people's eyes.
What do you think?
I don't know where my reply went... ???
Originally posted by pcaspian
Your method of debate makes me cringe on your behalf. Enter a debate, refuse to answer a direct question on the very topic of the debate, yet then demand answers to your own agenda!
Your questions are the ones that are irrelevant. You are asking about removing
the arms of a child already conceived and born.
The situation here is: a couple selected a sperm and egg donor that optimized
their chance of having a child with a certain trait (i.e., deafness).
Given that born-deafness is not a 'handicap' according to those people who have
it (and they would be the ones to know, right?), I see no reason why a potential
parent would have any more or less right to choose for deafness than, say, athleticism.
Your question is absurd. You are talking about physical manipulation of an extant
being. We aren't even talking about the genetic manipulation of an extant being.
I have objections to these processes.
We are talking about selecting sperm and egg donors. Thus, my question
is directly relevant.
Do you find it unethical to choose for athleticism or intelligence in sperm and
egg donor?
I look forward to your considered response.
Nemesio
pcaspian
********
"I claim that only a person without children could possibly follow your viewpoint. Am I incorrect, or will you refuse to answer the question ? If you state that you do indeed have children, would you see anything immoral with your wife/partner having geneticallly engineered them to be born without hearing ?
Will the ever elusive Nemesio actually commit to an viewpoint, or are you playing devils advocate again "
*****
Nemesio : "Your questions are the ones that are irrelevant....
Nemesio : "The situation here is: a couple selected a.. ".
Nemesio : "Your question is absurd. You are talking about physical manipulation of an extant being....
Nemesio : "I look forward to your considered response.
Conclusion.
*********
As you fail to even respond to direct questions (and I've asked you twice to respond to questions regarding your view on this particular topic), I will accept your lack of response as "I don't want to answer that PCaspian... in fact, I'll just ignore your questions and get on what I want to say".
I won't waste time with another one of your replies on this debate. I suggest should you wish to gain some form of respect in the debates forum, you desist in simply ignoring valid questions. And yes, I now understand why you know nothing about parenting.
pc.
Originally posted by pcaspianNo. It is not permissible to tear off the arms of a child.
pcaspian
********
[i]"I claim that only a person without children could possibly follow your viewpoint. [b]Am I incorrect, or will you refuse to answer the question ? If you state that you do indeed have children, would you see anything immoral with your wife/partner having geneticallly engineered them to be born without hearing ?
Will the eve ...[text shortened]... valid questions. And yes, I now understand why you know nothing about parenting.
pc.
[/b]
I'm glad this totally irrelevant point is resolved.
Personally, I am opposed to any 'genetic engineering.'
Selecting sperm or egg donors is not 'genetic engineering,
so this question is, too, irrelevant.
If my wife wanted to optimize her chance of having a
deaf child and I wanted to as well, then, no I do not
see anything immoral with selecting eggs and sperms
which optimize that chance.
Care to answer my questions about sperm/egg donors?
Nemesio