"If God didn't exist... "

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... why 'lengthy'?

To emphasise the fact that detailed answers were given, so you can't honestly claim that its still a mystery to you because the responses were too brief.
Your ignorance is wilful and you are so proud of it that you specifically asked the question so that you could claim ignorance of the answer, not because you wanted to know the answer.
You did exactly the same with regards to 'WTF' ie you know perfectly well what it means, but you want to pretend you don't because you are proud you lack that vocabulary (even though you don't actually).

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... in my opinion, this post's worthy of its own thread.

thanks, bobby
people should just strive to better themselves before they ever feel the need to preach anything

Originally posted by twhitehead
To emphasise the fact that detailed answers were given, so you can't honestly claim that its still a mystery to you because the responses were too brief.
Your ignorance is wilful and you are so proud of it that you specifically asked the question so that you could claim ignorance of the answer, not because you wanted to know the answer.
You did exactly ...[text shortened]... you don't because you are proud you lack that vocabulary (even though you don't actually).

"You did exactly the same with regards to 'WTF'"

twhitehead, there's neither justification nor merit in lowering the established standards
of civilized conversation within this forum by anyone whose emotions are unbridled.

Originally posted by empovsun
thanks, bobby
people should just strive to better themselves before they ever feel the need to preach anything

Do you need to be perfect to be able to criticise genocide?


People should indeed always strive to 'better themselves'.

But you don't need to be perfect to be able to identify and criticise worse.


For a secular example I could compare the UK and USA's healthcare systems.

There are many things I could (and do) criticise about the way the NHS works.
(or doesn't work)
But while not perfect, it's vastly better than the system in the USA...

You can, and should recognise your own weaknesses and try to correct them.
and part of that process is to compare your position/side/arguments/ect to
those of others to see if others are better or worse, and also against hypothetical
alternatives as thought experiments to try to determine (where possible) a
'best solution' to aim for.

You learn from those that are better, and criticise those that are worse.


Chess is a good exemplar of this...


You could take a chess position and show it to a set of grandmasters and they could
all come up with different moves that they think are best, but the fact that you haven't
been able to agree on a single best move doesn't mean you can't determine whether
or not certain moves are bad ones.
You don't need to come up with a perfect best move to be able to do a comparison
between suggested possible moves to see which is better and which is worse...
If your suggested move looses you the game in 3 moves and mine doesn't then mines
better... even if it's not the best.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"You did exactly the same with regards to 'WTF'"

twhitehead, there's neither justification nor merit in lowering the established standards
of civilized conversation within this forum by anyone whose emotions are unbridled.

It's like typing lol or omg.

And you don't get to talk about established standards of civilised conversation
until you do us the courtesy of actually reading and thinking about our replies.
And doing us the further courtesy of bothering to type out reasoned and considered
and most of all intelligible responses to them.



Sometimes 'language' is called for.

And the level of incomprehensible garbage you often post is more than enough justification
for the occasional 'WTF?' as a response.

It's a hint that you need to rewrite your post in plain and comprehensible English.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Also, if you think the use of 'WTF?' is 'hyper-offensive' you need to get out more."

Typically, the 1st sentence contains 90-95% of your substance; the balance,
erudite fluff; do you also employ Scatological S-Words, much in public?

What the Heck?

Is that better for you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sorry, then. I assumed that this thread was somewhat like others here, inviting differing opinions.

When you take as a "hypothetical" something you already believe to be true, you're just shutting out all who believe that your "hypothetical" is ridiculous.

As such, I refuse to participate further.

Ah shucks, you refuse to participate further? I'm not sure what you've done here constitutes participation in the first place. All you did was your typical sweeping into the thread like a shrieking harpy because you want to throw another pointless jab toward twhitehead. And in doing so, hilariously, all you accomplished was showing that you had absolutely no clue what this thread was about. Gosh, one would have thought the thread title might have clued you into the fact that this discussion involves the hypothetical I mentioned. I also didn't initiate the hypothetical. So if you think it's so ridiculous, then (a) don't presume to participate in the first place and (b) don't shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you need to be perfect to be able to criticise genocide?


People should indeed always strive to 'better themselves'.

But you don't need to be perfect to be able to identify and criticise worse.


For a secular example I could compare the UK and USA's healthcare systems.

There are many things I could (and do) criticise about the way the NH game in 3 moves and mine doesn't then mines
better... even if it's not the best.

Originally posted by empovsun
thanks, bobby
people should just strive to better themselves before they ever feel the need to preach anything

"Do you need to be perfect to be able to criticise genocide?
People should indeed always strive to 'better themselves'.
But you don't need to be perfect to be able to identify and criticise worse." -googlefudge

Slow down. empovsun never implied "perfect". Without integrity in the writer, there's exaggeration
and confusion in his empty words. Think, then write. Please, for your own sake and ours. Thanks.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by empovsun
thanks, bobby
people should just strive to better themselves before they ever feel the need to preach anything

"Do you need to be perfect to be able to criticise genocide?
People should indeed always strive to 'better themselves'.
But you don't need to be perfect to be able to identify and criticise worse. ...[text shortened]... usion in his empty words. Think, then write. Please, for your own sake and ours. Thanks.

Pot calling the chinawear black.

Also, why presume that 'the writer' is a he?

If you don't want to come across as a backwards and sexist dinosaur you
might want to try writeing ungenderbiased posts.

Of course that might require thinking on your part...
Which is not somehting you seem inclined to do.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, there's neither justification nor merit in lowering the established standards
of civilized conversation within this forum by anyone whose emotions are unbridled.

I prefer honesty to polite language, as such, by my reckoning, your dishonesty brings down the standards far more than 'WTF' did.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Pot calling the chinawear black.

Also, why presume that 'the writer' is a he?

If you don't want to come across as a backwards and sexist dinosaur you
might want to try writeing ungenderbiased posts.

Of course that might require thinking on your part...
Which is not somehting you seem inclined to do.

"Also, why presume that 'the writer' is a he?" <- his avatar

Originally posted by twhitehead
I prefer honesty to polite language, as such, by my reckoning, your dishonesty brings down the standards far more than 'WTF' did.

"I prefer honesty to polite language... "

Complementary or Opposed?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"I prefer honesty to polite language... "

Complementary or Opposed?

I don't understand the question. Please clarify.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Also, why presume that 'the writer' is a he?" <- his avatar

Well first you were talking in generalisations and not specifically talking about me...
And second that's a picture of Leon from the film Leon...

And has nothing whatsoever to do with what I look like.


If you are going to talk in generalisations they should be gender neutral.
If you are talking about me then you shouldn't be talking in generalisations.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Also, why presume that 'the writer' is a he?" <- his avatar

And you therefore are either a baby or Glamorous Gran 2000