Society

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his whole modus operandi is to create or engineer some kind of conflicting detail, either
through a perceived inconsistency, for example when he attempts to draw a
comparison with your posts and mine on the basis of some subjective interpretation or
to attempt to make the debate personal with references to a persons character etc Its
harmless enough, but rather fruitless.

I agree. I never asked for any long and drawn out answer, just a simple "YES I'd like things to be better or NO I wouldn't".
If he had said yes, I was simply wanting to share with him that there is hope with God's help, but which I do know he's not interested, but still that's where this was going to go I thought.
But he always turns some simply discussion into this ever turning maze of questions that are not needed to have a simple discussion.....

Originally posted by galveston75
I agree. I never asked for any long and drawn out answer, just a simple "YES I'd like things to be better or NO I wouldn't".
If he had said yes, I was simply wanting to share with him that there is hope with God's help, but which I do know he's not interested, but still that's where this was going to go I thought.
But he always turns some simply disc ...[text shortened]... this ever turning maze of questions that are not needed to have a simple discussion.....

IT WAS NOT A SIMPLE QUESTION!

And yes we all knew exactly where you were going with this.

The point you seem to be utterly impervious to is that we care what the price is of achieving your
'no crime or suffering' promised solution.

If the price is more than we are prepared to pay then we don't want your solution.

So HOW it is to be achieved is of absolute importance to answering the question.


Heck even RJHinds gets this, How can you not understand it.

Originally posted by galveston75
I agree. I never asked for any long and drawn out answer, just a simple "YES I'd like things to be better or NO I wouldn't".

But galveston75, you did not ask me if I'd "like things to be better". You asked me: "If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?" Completely different.

Originally posted by FMF
But galveston75, you did not ask me if I'd "like things to be better". You asked me: "If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?"

And if he had asked if you "wanted things better" the response I suspect is "better according to whom?"

EDIT: I can pretty much guarantee that MY version of 'better' would not be approved of by Galveston75 for example.

Originally posted by galveston75
But he always turns some simply discussion into this ever turning maze of questions that are not needed to have a simple discussion.....

Simple discussion? When you asked me if I thought there was a way for "all crime on all levels against humanity" to be done away with and "stopped by any means", did you want a discussion about science fiction or about some sort of supernatural control or some other ludicrous hypothetical, because if you did, why didn't you just say so?

Originally posted by FMF
Simple discussion? When you asked me if I thought there was a way for "all crime on all levels against humanity" to be done away with and "stopped by any means", did you want a discussion about science fiction or about some sort of supernatural control or some other ludicrous hypothetical, because if you did, why didn't you just say so?

It gets worse because "crime" involves breaking laws...

So there is another very relevant and valid question that needs to be addressed before the question can be answered...

Who's laws?

Originally posted by FMF
But galveston75, you did not ask me if I'd "like things to be better". You asked me: "If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?" Completely different.

Lol. This is so silly. All you had to say is yes I'd go for that or not and ask what were the options that I had in mind. So again I say just forget it and sooooo sorry I ever asked.
Believe I've learned my lesson, which I should have learned by.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. This is so silly. All you had to say is yes I'd go for that or not and ask what were the options that I had in mind.

I've been asking you "what were the options that [you] had in mind" repeatedly but you've just ignored the request.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. This is so silly. All you had to say is yes I'd go for that or not and ask what were the options that I had in mind. So again I say just forget it and sooooo sorry I ever asked.
Believe I've learned my lesson, which I should have learned by.

I really don't understand why you are not getting this.

There is a real life law being proposed by the UK government right now which intends to
require all UK ISP's to record every person their customers send and receive e-mails from
and every website their customers visit and keep this data for years so that the government
can look at it any time they like and see exactly what any person in the UK is up to online.

This is 'supposed' to be to enable the police to deal with modern crime and that great bogeyman
'terrorism'.

Of course this wont do anything of the sort.

What it will do is give the government an immense capability to snoop on anyone they like
and monitor and control the population and eliminate everyone's privacy.
While at the same time creating vast databases of information about us that can and will be
stolen and used BY criminals for identity theft (among other things) as well as used by the
advertising industry (among others)

This is unacceptable to me (and many many other people).

I don't care if this will help reduce crime or not (it really wont) because the price (loss of privacy)
is unacceptable.



So your question as to if FMF (or anyone else) would 'go for' a something that would eliminate
"all crime" is asking us to accept the removal of "all crime" (and again who's laws?) as the absolute
most important and overriding thing ever to the exclusion of all else.

I don't know ANYONE who thinks that.

So the question cannot be answered in good faith without the answer to the question of HOW this
"elimination of all crime" is going to take place.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really don't understand why you are not getting this.

There is a real life law being proposed by the UK government right now which intends to
require all UK ISP's to record every person their customers send and receive e-mails from
and every website their customers visit and keep this data for years so that the government
can look at it any ti ...[text shortened]... the question of HOW this
"elimination of all crime" is going to take place.

Well I really wasn't discussing this with you but that's ok. The only point I was getting at was in connection with God and his promise to rid the earth of all crime and wickedness in the future. I also stated that man has had over 6K years to govern ourselves with all kinds of rulers and kingdoms and governments and we have not come close to solving all those problems. If we had we would not still be coming up with all these different ideas and plans to solve them.
I know you don't buy that and that's your decision, but that still does not change the fact that it will happen. Humans have no control over God whatsoever and can dismiss his existence all they want in the meantime as you do.
It is really no concern of mine what you or FMF thinks and the reason you think it.
But it will happen, mark my word.

John 3:36
New Living Translation (NLT)

36 And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.”

Just saying!!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
It is really no concern of mine what you or FMF thinks and the reason you think it.

Why then did you ask me what you called a point blank question, and then dissemble as to what that question meant and what it was about when my answer didn't suit you?

Originally posted by FMF
Why then did you ask me what you called a point blank question, and then dissemble as to what that question meant and what it was about when my answer didn't suit you?

"A point blank question for you this time.. If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?"

Originally posted by galveston75
"A point blank question for you this time.. If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?"

NO!

Originally posted by galveston75
"A point blank question for you this time.. If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?"

And you would not say what this "way" was. So the premise of the question doesn't work. You asked me why I would not "wish it could be stopped by any means" but wouldn't say what this expression "any means" refers to, even when asked. Then, later, we saw your true colours when you admitted - a little more honestly perhaps - "It is really no concern of mine what you or FMF thinks and the reason you think it."

Originally posted by FMF
And you would not say what this "way" was. So the premise of the question doesn't work. You asked me why I would not "wish it could be stopped by any means" but wouldn't say what this expression "any means" refers to, even when asked. Then, later, we saw your true colours when you admitted - a little more honestly perhaps - "It is really no concern of mine what you or FMF thinks and the reason you think it."

Whatever. No matter how I would have worded it this same sillyness would have happened. C ya!!!!!!!