Nanny State

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your attempt to re-litigate in this thread your childish vendetta towards me given the subject of it is disgusting.

Unless you have something of relevance to say regarding the issues in this thread, please stop trying to hijack it.

EDIT: For the record here is my full post not the heavily redacted one Duchess misread, deliberately or otherwise:

This is not a case of abuse; it is the case of parents trying to do what they think is best for their child. No one in their right mind would argue that it is abusive not to let a child die; well except some doctors and UK judges.

Courts should not be given such power. "What is best for the child" is an empty vessel into which can be poured any brew of ideological and philosophical preconceptions. It might be an appropriate test when two parents cannot agree on custody or other arrangements, but it is a frightening thing that the State can be given such a carte blanche to override the decisions of parents in "free" countries.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Really? But I know much more than No1Marauder (a white American native speaker of English)
about formal English grammar and usage.
And yet eight words into your arm-busting congratulatory slap on the back, you make an error of "formal English grammar and usage."

Harrump-harrump.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Here's what I said:

"Doctors have expertise in medical matters but absolutely zero expertise in what is best for someone else's child."

AND:

"And judges might have expertise in legal matters but they too have zero expertise in what is best for someone else's child."


Everything BUT my quotes in your post is a non sequitur.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your questions ask me to read the minds of people. I lack such a skill.

Moreover, your questions are irrelevant to the issues in this thread.

Sweet holy Neuk!

Get a bloody room, the two of you.
It's pathetic seeing your personal and very petty feud rearing its ugly head in every bloody discussion.

Should the State be able to over-rule parents?
Is a doctor the same as the State?

These are the questions being debated AND YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE FFING ISSUE WITHOUT ONE PARTY BEING MORE RIGHT THAN THE OTHER!!!

Damn.

Bloody grammar nazis.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your questions are irrelevant trolling. The state of mind of the doctors, judges and anybody else are besides the point. Even if they are totally sincere in their belief that Charlie Gard's "best interests" are better served by him being dead than being treated by an experimental method in the US, such beliefs should not override the wishes of Charlie's parents for reasons already stated.

Your mind is obviously seriously disturbed as again shown by an attempt to hijack a thread on a serious subject and make it another one concerned with a ridiculous personal vendetta that you just cannot let go.

Are the two of you married?
You didn't get the subtle hint in my previous post, or something?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess: In this case, however, I don't know if Charlie Gard would unnecessarily suffer much more through an experimental trial that's already known not to be a cure, so I am not sure if it should be stopped.


So you made seven posts filled with personal attacks and irrelevancies in a thread where you admit you have no opinion on the issues raised.

🙄

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes ... his mind-reading is shocking and really qualifies him for euthanasia.

I read your mind once and was violently sick - I sympathise with him.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Are the two of you married?
You didn't get the subtle hint in my previous post, or something?

Don't you hate it when you self-appoint to be forum moderator and no one gives you the professional courtesy to even respond to you, let alone heed your strongly-worded missives?