Originally posted by twhitehead
I keep suggesting you don't because you said you didn't. This is, I believe the first time you have said you did. How was I to know that your previous claims were "facetious humour "?

I told you you I was being facetious, and rather blatantly facetious, lest we forget, 4 or 5 pages ago. Why do you claim to believe I have only said so for the first time now?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The fact remains however that you are not helping all Africans. And no, I do not need to know anything about you to know this.

But I am helping Africans, though. You keep saying I'm not. Does your thought game need me to be not helping Africans. is that it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have already conceded that 'neglect' might be the wrong word and have welcomed a replacement and avoided using it in my latest post.

Stripped of the word "neglect", your whole line of questioning becomes even more incoherent than before. I think you should stick with the word "neglect", soldier on, and see where it gets you. Dropping it now just accentuates the impression that you have just been being contrary for the sake of it, and have no 'real world' point to make about the "real life dilemma" in the OP.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then why all the avoidance? Why the pretense at not understanding? Why did you say "but it does not address the issue of rights and wrongs of someone like robbie letting someone die needlessly because he is superstitious." when it clearly wasn't relevant? And no, I am not being incoherent, that is just you trying to avoid answering difficult questions. So if you are not terrified of anything, why your ridiculous behavior?

In what way is my behaviour "ridiculous"? Do you mean that fact that I live in South East Asia and don't live in Africa and don't live in India, all at the same time. "Ridiculous" in that sense?

Originally posted by FMF
Then why have you responded to the OP and my response to the OP in such an absurd and hypothetical way?

There is nothing absurd about my response. What is absurd is your behaviour on this thread. And you don't seem to know what the word 'hypothetical' means. Your nearly as bad as Dasa and his use of words totally out of context.

Originally posted by FMF
I told you you I was being facetious, and rather blatantly facetious, lest we forget, 4 or 5 pages ago. Why do you claim to believe I have only said so for the first time now?

You told me you were being facetious when you said you were coming to Africa to prove a point about morality. I didn't know the whole post was a facetious joke. Which other posts were facetious jokes? How am I expected to know?

Originally posted by FMF
Stripped of the word "neglect", your whole line of questioning becomes even more incoherent than before. I think you should stick with the word "neglect", soldier on, and see where it gets you. Dropping it now just accentuates the impression that you have just been being contrary for the sake of it, and have no 'real world' point to make about the "real life dilemma" in the OP.

There is nothing whatsoever incoherent about my line of questioning. You just refuse to actually read what I write and make up your own ideas about what you think I am saying.

Originally posted by FMF
In what way is my behaviour "ridiculous"? Do you mean that fact that I live in South East Asia and don't live in Africa and don't live in India, all at the same time. "Ridiculous" in that sense?

No. I have said nothing about where you live or what you do there. It is you that seems to have a problem with it. I am talking about the way you dodge questions, act stupid, take words out of context, pretend you cant understand what I write, quibble over nonsensical things etc. I mean why are you hanging on to the word 'neglect' like your life depends on it? Simple, you don't want to accept the point I made, so rather than mount a counter argument (which you cant, because you agree with my point), you quibble over words and try to act stupid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I mean why are you hanging on to the word 'neglect' like your life depends on it?

I think the concept of "neglect", and latterly the word "neglect" itself, are central to your obtuse questioning. I have taken the thread's issue and tackled it seriously and sincerely. Meanwhile you don't want to tell us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you, and therefore, for all your hypothetical and absurd questioning, your attempted analogies and parallels and tangents, you have still nothing substantial or 'real world'- or 'real life'-oriented to contribute to this question rooted in divegeester's "real life dilemma".

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing absurd about my response. What is absurd is your behaviour on this thread. And you don't seem to know what the word 'hypothetical' means. Your nearly as bad as Dasa and his use of words totally out of context.

I think you have the right to believe whatever you want, and while I don't have to agree, I respect your prerogative.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you give blood if the person in question was in Africa and you had to fly here at your own expense to do so?

Hypothetically speaking? Yes, sure. But in reality I already donate all the blood that I can here where I live, which is not in Africa.

Originally posted by FMF
Hypothetically speaking? Yes, sure. But in reality I already donate all the blood that I can here where I live, which is not in Africa.

So are you back to facetious jokes, or are you lying, or do you not know what the word 'hypothetical' means? Because the truth is you will not. What you do where you live is irrelevant.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you have the right to believe whatever you want, and while I don't have to agree, I respect your prerogative.

Three posts and you dodge every single one of my comments instead of addressing them. You accuse me of being absurd, why I deny, and the best you can do is say I have the right to believe what I want? Its not about belief. Explain how my questions are absurd. Explain how my claims are absurd. Or retract your statement.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the concept of "neglect", and latterly the word "neglect" itself, are central to your obtuse questioning.

The problem is, you think you can do my thinking for me. Answer the questions I ask, not what you think my questions are or should be.

I have taken the thread's issue and tackled it seriously and sincerely.
But you have not tackled my questions seriously and sincerely. Why is that?

Meanwhile you don't want to tell us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you,
I have answered that challenge several times now. Go back and read the thread over.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you have not tackled my questions seriously and sincerely. Why is that?

I think I have tackled the thread's topic seriously and sincerely. I apologise if you feel your line of questioning has been treated with an inappropriate degree of respect.

I have answered that challenge several times now. Go back and read the thread over.

I don't think you have told us us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you in terms of this topic. You have been too busy talking about Ethiopia. But if you believe that you have answered my "challenge", then that's fine by me.