Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIvanhoe, Ivanhoe...
Ashes to ashes.
Dust to dust.
God got angry
When Ivanhoe cussed.
Why must thou persist
in your diatribes irrelevant?
I'll ask you to desist
From asking silly questions
and telling bald-faced lies.
Your sinful ways cannot be hidden
from God's all-present eyes.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioPlease leave God outside this non-sense .....
Ivanhoe, Ivanhoe...
Why must thou persist
in your diatribes irrelevant?
I'll ask you to desist
From asking silly questions
and telling bald-faced lies.
Your sinful ways cannot be hidden
from God's all-present eyes.
Nemesio
EDIT: No1 and you were clearly much to eager to accuse me. That's why you both went wrong. Now you are trying to accuse me using another route. Stop waisting your time.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI will certainly apologize if you can find a post where I:
Yes, you should apologise. Good deal !
In fact no1 and Nemesio have asked me why it would be wrong to kill severely handicapped children up to an age of 12.
If not, I'm afraid you may be condemned to that ship of the Damned, the Lying Dutchman!
Originally posted by no1marauder
I will certainly apologize if you can find a post where I:
In fact no1 and Nemesio have asked me why it would be wrong to kill severely handicapped children up to an age of 12.
If not, I'm afraid you may be condemned to that ship of the Damned, the Lying Dutchman!
What do you think the thread was about No1 ? ... and what were you and Nemesio trying to do in that thread ?
You always end up accusing your opponent of lying. I'm used to it by now.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn fact no1 and Nemesio have asked me why it would be wrong to kill severely handicapped children up to an age of 12.
What do you think the thread was about No1 ? ... and what were you and Nemesio trying to do in that thread ?
You always end up accusing your opponent of lying. I'm used to it by now.
This statement is a lie; so you are accused of lying because you did. You said this thread was about some Protocols; I looked at the link you provided and it said nothing about allowing severely handicapped children up to age 12 being killed. I thought what it did say was reasonable and said so. Instead of arguing what the Protocols did say, you said A) the Protocols REALLY meant something else and B) This would lead to some kind of slippery slope to some kind of wide scale euthanasia. You've claimed both constantly without offering any evidence. If you ever want to discuss the issues rationally, I'll do so, but if all you're going to do is lie about what I've said and distort the facts there is little sense in "debating" anything with you.
Originally posted by no1marauderWow. Everybody all wrapped up in chimpness tonight. "Accuse" no less.
In fact no1 and Nemesio have asked me why it would be wrong to kill severely handicapped children up to an age of 12.
This statement is a lie; so you are accused of lying because you did. You said this thread was about some Protocols; I looked at the link you provided and it said nothing about allowing severely handicapped children up to age 12 ...[text shortened]... t what I've said and distort the facts there is little sense in "debating" anything with you.
Wow. Lighten up. it's a silly game.
The morality of killing any "potential" being is that of self awareness.
If you are self aware, you should oppose it. That applies to a fetus and a 'brain dead' "thing".
The potential is the thing to judge. There is no absolute "moral law", so we all have to learn to "judge" what is right.
Murder is not wrong. Until about a thousand years ago.
What is murder? It is a moral "law".
What is "Justice"? It is an interpretation of our advancement toward "civilization".
What is "right" and what is "wrong"?
It is the currently held advantage of statistically analyzed "chimp behaviour".
Don't worry. It (moral law) will change more quickly than you can analyze the truth/silliness of the above.
That is our nature. Change.