weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2017 13:21:56 GMT -5
do you mind answering my question? why do you think that suicide is evil? Suicide is the unlawful taking of life. Our lives belong to God, not to us. He gives us permission to take life in certain ways, under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, punishment for capital crimes). Taking a life outside of these proscribed circumstances violates His Law and brings blood guilt upon us. This includes suicide. You might regard it as self murder--the taking of a life one doesn't have permission to take.
As I said before, I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications: genocide, spurious suicide, the risk of suicide epidemics, etc. I consider these compelling with or without the belief that suicide is acceptable in some cases. If you want a more detailed response, it will have to go in RD. Frankly, I'd rather not go there. Whenever I wind up in RD, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. If YOUR God doesn't like it, then don't do it. What does that have to do with the rest of us? YOU want to live by Biblical law, but many people don't. Why deny us? To me, it's akin to telling me I should endure prolonged suffering because that's what Spiderman wants.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,478
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 7, 2017 13:24:49 GMT -5
And if you wanted this to stay on the Current Events board, probably should have continued without you commenting on it. Just saying.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2017 13:31:12 GMT -5
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is trying to overturn Canada's euthanasia law.
Just what we need....a bunch of old men making decisions for the rest of us. If the busybodies don't like it, then they should refrain from it themselves, not impose their will on a secular Canada.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 11:30:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 13:39:07 GMT -5
Sad way to go - alone in a box. What if someone puts someone already unconscious in the box? I think it's just creepy, It is creepy and a reason I haven't watched several important films yet.
Lets not get caught up in a possible method and instead concentrate on the idea and the best ways perhaps for society to implement it. Or not.
I'm not getting caught up in it. Just responding to the thread titled Suicide Booths.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 15:38:51 GMT -5
you seem not to be capable to understanding that not everyone uses the Bible as an operating manual for life. What part of "I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications" is confusing you?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Dec 7, 2017 15:47:41 GMT -5
you seem not to be capable to understanding that not everyone uses the Bible as an operating manual for life. What part of "I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications" is confusing you? Nothing, but your interpretation of practical applications is bordering on silliness.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 15:52:19 GMT -5
"Suicide is the unlawful taking of life." Do we prosecute the dead? Do we have something like a cadaver synod like one held for Pope Formosus? actually, the quoted remark is not correct. suicide is only unlawful if there are laws against it. suicide is the taking of one's own life. period. whether it is lawful, moral, etc, is what we are discussing. "Unlawful" refers to the spiritual Law of God. I should think you could intuit as much from the rest of my post. (And no, Tenn, it is not the responsibility of the living to prosecute the dead.) You insisted I answer your question. I answered to the best of my ability. For somebody who demands the benefit of the doubt as often as you do, I should think you'd be less eager to declare "incorrect!" and more willing to seek clarification.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 15:56:42 GMT -5
What part of "I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications" is confusing you? Nothing, but your interpretation of practical applications is bordering on silliness. So dispute my silly arguments on practical implications. Don't pretend I'm ignorant of YMAM's general disposition toward scripture.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 16:02:08 GMT -5
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is trying to overturn Canada's euthanasia law. Just what we need....a bunch of old men making decisions for the rest of us. If the busybodies don't like it, then they should refrain from it themselves, not impose their will on a secular Canada. At least now you know how it feels to be a baker of wedding cakes in Oregon.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Dec 7, 2017 16:06:03 GMT -5
Nothing, but your interpretation of practical applications is bordering on silliness. So dispute my silly arguments on practical implications. Don't pretend I'm ignorant of YMAM's general disposition toward scripture. I HAVE to respond to you? Um, no. I don't need to go down that rabbit hole.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 16:18:41 GMT -5
So dispute my silly arguments on practical implications. Don't pretend I'm ignorant of YMAM's general disposition toward scripture. I HAVE to respond to you? Um, no. I don't need to go down that rabbit hole. Yes, swamp, you HAVE to respond to me. As penance for your wild and careless use of drive-by rhetoric. I will, however, accept a solemn declaration of your hatred for snow leopards in place of a response. (It's the better deal. Trust me.)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 7, 2017 17:00:09 GMT -5
Be careful also to not make the mistake of thinking that all attempts to take one's life are serious attempts to take one's life. Many or most are not, but are instead cries for attention or help. You seem to be claiming that all of those people would immediately avail themselves of a suicide booth were it available. I find that idea to be folly. What percentage of the tens of millions of people who contemplate suicide each year in the US would have to avail themselves of a booth for you to be seriously concerned about it? The "virtual taboo on discussion" follows inexorably from the fact that our society regards suicide as off limits as a "solution". Woe to us on the day this changes. Again I ask you: what percentage of the tens of millions of people who contemplate suicide in any given year would have to conclude that suicide (or "a quick, painless transition; an end to ennui, suffering, and a life without purpose", as many will rationalize it) is "the best option for them" during open discussions for you to change your view? 1%? 100%? Do you truly not care? Is the freedom to conveniently end one's life so valuable to you? If 1% of suicide contemplators (say, 200,000 souls per year in the US) took their own lives, would you not consider that a travesty and loss of life? If not, I suppose I have no basis on which to appeal to you. If so, are you arguing for the freedom to throw one's life away merely because you lack a moral basis on which to oppose it? Honestly? No, there is no percentage that will ever convince me that it is truly any of my business whatsoever. It is not that I do not care, but rather the belief that I do not have the right to dictate. And yes, the right to self-determination and the possession of individual liberty IS that important to me. What are we without that? I would suggest that the "virtual taboo on discussion" is more a factor of our society's general discomfort with uncomfortable topics (and extreme discomfort with some.) With sharing intimate details, or hearing them. The desire to not be seen as damaged or vulnerable so not talking about it. People have a problem with suicide because it is difficult to wrap one's head around the idea. Is it a shame that it happens? Perhaps, and certainly so in some cases. Others, less so. And if 200,000 people took their own lives, I would consider it sad. A tragedy? No, not really. I reserve that word for bad things that happen to undeserving people, particularly on a larger scale. (I am assuming here that "travesty" was an unintended word choice such as an auto-correct.) I generally consider death to be death, and the fact that someone takes their own life is no more tragic than contracting a fatal disease. Things happen. Life happens. It is up to each of us to deal with it the best way we can. If someone believes that suicide is their best option, I accept that. I may not understand it, but I accept it, because it is not my right to dictate someone else's life. Should they reach out for help? Of course. Should the people around them try to help? Certainly. If nothing helps, let them be with their choice, because it is ultimately only theirs to make. No. Yours may, but that is a choice you made. It may be a valid belief for you that that applies to everyone else as well, but it doesn't. This is at least ostensibly a free society, and we have free will within it. Even your worldview acknowledges free will. That's the whole point of us being here. It is no more legitimate for you to impose your worldview on someone else than it would be for them to impose theirs on you. I can choose to agree with you, or not. Someone else can choose to agree with either of us, or not. Anyone who disagrees with you is free to do so. One of you will be proven wrong in the end, but that answer is not found now. It will come later, if at all. For now, and for our time here, we are to live our lives the best we can for as long as we can. (Given, of course, the obvious disclaimer about not harming or infringing on the rights of another in the process.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 17:11:39 GMT -5
actually, the quoted remark is not correct. suicide is only unlawful if there are laws against it. suicide is the taking of one's own life. period. whether it is lawful, moral, etc, is what we are discussing. "Unlawful" refers to the spiritual Law of God. how many fabrics is your shirt made from? edit: had to cut you short again, because.....religion. you know?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 17:14:16 GMT -5
actually, the quoted remark is not correct. suicide is only unlawful if there are laws against it. suicide is the taking of one's own life. period. whether it is lawful, moral, etc, is what we are discussing. "Unlawful" refers to the spiritual Law of God. I should think you could intuit as much from the rest of my post. (And no, Tenn, it is not the responsibility of the living to prosecute the dead.) You insisted I answer your question. I answered to the best of my ability. For somebody who demands the benefit of the doubt as often as you do, I should think you'd be less eager to declare "incorrect!" and more willing to seek clarification. i also suggested this might not be the right forum. you ignored that suggestion. this is a secular state, Virgil. there is only one set of laws that govern us as a nation. i stand by what i said. i neither needed or accede to your clarification.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 7, 2017 17:32:03 GMT -5
What if an otherwise healthy young person was temporarily not of sound mind ie distressed over the break-up of a relationship ...or harbouring a transitory mental illness..... decided to end their life in one of these booths?
At what point does society say. "You not going to do that because you are vulnerable...... and we are going to look after you until you are feeling better"
What do you say to parents who have invested everything in their child whose life has been given over so cheaply.... when it could have been saved.
Its not just about terminally ill people facing nothing but suffering......It encompasses all walks of life.
what safe guards would be in place to protect society from going down the pan amid cries of "its their choice and none of our business"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 17:33:40 GMT -5
It is not that I do not care, but rather the belief that I do not have the right to dictate. And yes, the right to self-determination and the possession of individual liberty IS that important to me. What are we without that? Baking cakes in Oregon? I can't fathom how any rational being can compare the pain and suffering that would be effected by these machines (or their equivalent) to the minor inconvenience in the bakery debate and come out with the conclusion that individual liberty takes precedence in the former and not the latter. It's insanity. Our values are priorities are so different, we might as well end the arc here. And if 200,000 people took their own lives, I would consider it sad. A tragedy? No, not really. Insanity. I truly wish I hadn't asked. Given, of course, the obvious disclaimer about not harming or infringing on the rights of another in the process. Because we all know committing suicide doesn't cause any real harm to anyone except the ones committing the act. I deeply regret starting this thread. I expected there would be some shared values whereby most of us would regard suicide and its consequences as fundamentally harmful. I didn't expect to drown in moral relativism. I'm wondering if I'm not just sampling the opinions of a vocal fringe. If there are members reading this who share my values but don't dare comment, I'd welcome a PM.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2017 17:37:04 GMT -5
What if an otherwise healthy young person was temporarily not of sound mind ie distressed over the break-up of a relationship ...or harbouring a transitory mental illness..... decided to end their life in one of these booths?At what point does society say. "You not going to do that because you are vulnerable...... and we are going to look after you until you are feeling better" What do you say to parents who have invested everything in their child whose life has been given over so cheaply.... when it could have been saved. Its not just about terminally ill people facing nothing but suffering......It encompasses all walks of life. what safe guards would be in place to protect society from going down the pan amid cries of "its their choice and none of our business" What's to stop a healthy young person in distress from jumping off a bridge or shooting themselves or taking an overdose? While I think these young people can be helped, the mental health care in your country is sadly lacking.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 7, 2017 17:45:22 GMT -5
"Our lives belong to God, not to us. He gives us permission to take life in certain ways, under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, punishment for capital crimes). Taking a life outside of these proscribed circumstances violates His Law and brings blood guilt upon us. This includes suicide. You might regard it as self murder--the taking of a life one doesn't have permission to take. "
Virgil, the Hindu religion prohibits the eating of beef and prohibits men from cutting their hair. So, I can assume that you eschew beef and have long locks? No? Why not? Because it's not YOUR religion? It's the same reason I don't have to abide by the doctrines and tenets of your deity. It's your god, not mine.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 7, 2017 17:50:12 GMT -5
It is.... but we do recognise that people can be helped.
Point I'm making.......... is that you can't just let vulnerable people make use of this equipment
It is everyone's business that this doesn't happen, surely
or do we want to live in a society where everyone is on their own.... because no-one cares.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 17:50:58 GMT -5
"Unlawful" refers to the spiritual Law of God. I should think you could intuit as much from the rest of my post. (And no, Tenn, it is not the responsibility of the living to prosecute the dead.) You insisted I answer your question. I answered to the best of my ability. For somebody who demands the benefit of the doubt as often as you do, I should think you'd be less eager to declare "incorrect!" and more willing to seek clarification. i also suggested this might not be the right forum. you ignored that suggestion. this is a secular state, Virgil. there is only one set of laws that govern us as a nation.i stand by what i said. i neither needed or accede to your clarification. I wasn't aware of this, DJ. Thank you for pointing it out. Thank you for pointing out that you didn't require clarification. Thank you for contesting my use of the word "unlawful" for no reason whatsoever. Thank you for suggesting "this might not be the right forum" and then proceeding right on to ask more forum-inappropriate questions so you can crap on my answers. It wouldn't feel like YMAM otherwise.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 7, 2017 17:56:44 GMT -5
It is not that I do not care, but rather the belief that I do not have the right to dictate. And yes, the right to self-determination and the possession of individual liberty IS that important to me. What are we without that? Baking cakes in Oregon? I can't fathom how any rational being can compare the pain and suffering that would be effected by these machines (or their equivalent) to the minor inconvenience in the bakery debate and come out with the conclusion that individual liberty takes precedence in the former and not the latter.
It's insanity. Our values are priorities are so different, we might as well end the arc here.And if 200,000 people took their own lives, I would consider it sad. A tragedy? No, not really. Insanity. I truly wish I hadn't asked. Given, of course, the obvious disclaimer about not harming or infringing on the rights of another in the process. Because we all know committing suicide doesn't cause any real harm to anyone except the ones committing the act. I deeply regret starting this thread. I expected there would be some shared values whereby most of us would regard suicide and its consequences as fundamentally harmful. I didn't expect to drown in moral relativism. I'm wondering if I'm not just sampling the opinions of a vocal fringe. If there are members reading this who share my values but don't dare comment, I'd welcome a PM. The bolded is where the disclaimer comes in. I have the right to self-determination as long as I do not infringe on the rights of another in the process. So do the bakers. Unfortunately, they chose to infringe on the rights of another. That means that their choice was ethically invalid in addition to being against the law. What rights are infringed by someone else's suicide? None. Are those left behind "harmed" by the loss? Sure, in a sense, but their sadness does not outweigh someone else's rights. Do they have any right to prevent that act if someone chooses it? No. You do have a gift for focusing on and responding to small parts of answers rather than the entirety which puts a line into context.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 18:10:32 GMT -5
Virgil, the Hindu religion prohibits the eating of beef and prohibits men from cutting their hair. So, I can assume that you eschew beef and have long locks? No? Why not? Because it's not YOUR religion? I realize this. I'm not making an appeal on the basis of my religion here. What was the basis for the anti-liberty side of the Oregon bakery debate? That discrimination against homosexuals is fundamentally harmful to homosexuals and society as a whole. In this thread, consider arguments I've made--excluding the response to DJ's question--to fall in the same vein: suicide is fundamentally harmful to the people who commit it, to the people who love them or care for them, and to society at large. The argument extends to the extirpation of various disabilities. Everyone on both sides of the bakery debate seemed to agree that individual liberties could take a back seat to other moral considerations if the net balance was a benefit to humanity. We disagreed on which side the scales tipped to, but most everybody acknowledged that the issue was one of morality versus freedom. This situation is no different. Differing views on the morality. Differing views on the value of the freedom. Different conclusions on the balance. Notwithstanding my response to DJ, there's nothing inherently religious about my position in this thread. Indeed it's shared by many areligious people.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 7, 2017 18:22:05 GMT -5
You appear to be assigning the "anti-liberty" position to the wrong side. The pro-liberty position would be that everybody has the same rights and guarantees to equal treatment under the law. The bakers were denying that, and in so doing were infringing the rights of the customers. That is again the disclaimer. Not infringing the rights of another is more important than the exercise of one's own wishes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 18:22:26 GMT -5
Baking cakes in Oregon? I can't fathom how any rational being can compare the pain and suffering that would be effected by these machines (or their equivalent) to the minor inconvenience in the bakery debate and come out with the conclusion that individual liberty takes precedence in the former and not the latter.
It's insanity. Our values are priorities are so different, we might as well end the arc here.Insanity. I truly wish I hadn't asked. Because we all know committing suicide doesn't cause any real harm to anyone except the ones committing the act. I deeply regret starting this thread. I expected there would be some shared values whereby most of us would regard suicide and its consequences as fundamentally harmful. I didn't expect to drown in moral relativism. I'm wondering if I'm not just sampling the opinions of a vocal fringe. If there are members reading this who share my values but don't dare comment, I'd welcome a PM. The bolded is where the disclaimer comes in. I have the right to self-determination as long as I do not infringe on the rights of another in the process. So do the bakers. Unfortunately, they chose to infringe on the rights of another. That means that their choice was ethically invalid in addition to being against the law. What rights are infringed by someone else's suicide? (1) None. Are those left behind "harmed" by the loss? Sure, in a sense, but their sadness does not outweigh someone else's rights. Do they have any right to prevent that act if someone chooses it? No. You do have a gift for focusing on and responding to small parts of answers rather than the entirety which puts a line into context. [2] 1. You're moving the goalposts. Your original statement was "not harming or infringing on the rights of another". As I've said in other threads, "rights" are whatever a man can put to paper and enforce. Ideally they're based on moral principles, but they're inherently fungible. Morals do not proceed from rights. As far as the universe is concerned, man has no inalienable rights. Which is why I prefer to discuss things like this in terms of principles (e.g. harm). 2. I generally do this to reduce bulk and improve readability. If you'd prefer I highlight statements and include numbered references, such as I'm doing in this post, just say so.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 18:23:15 GMT -5
You appear to be assigning the "anti-liberty" position to the wrong side. The pro-liberty position would be that everybody has the same rights and guarantees to equal treatment under the law. The bakers were denying that, and in so doing were infringing the rights of the customers. That is again the disclaimer. Not infringing the rights of another is more important than the exercise of one's own wishes. Call the sides whatever you want. My point stands.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 19:15:14 GMT -5
i also suggested this might not be the right forum. you ignored that suggestion. this is a secular state, Virgil. there is only one set of laws that govern us as a nation.i stand by what i said. i neither needed or accede to your clarification. I wasn't aware of this, DJ. Thank you for pointing it out. Thank you for pointing out that you didn't require clarification. Thank you for contesting my use of the word "unlawful" for no reason whatsoever. Thank you for suggesting "this might not be the right forum" and then proceeding right on to ask more forum-inappropriate questions so you can crap on my answers. It wouldn't feel like YMAM otherwise. no need to get snarky. i just was defending my reasoning for my post, which- for the record- was not addressed at you, only at your statement. i wasn't "crapping" on anything. you punched, i punched back. i understand that there is an ignore button. i don't think i can use it with you, but i don't think the reverse is true.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 7, 2017 20:10:54 GMT -5
You do have a gift for focusing on and responding to small parts of answers rather than the entirety which puts a line into context. [2] 2. I generally do this to reduce bulk and improve readability. If you'd prefer I highlight statements and include numbered references, such as I'm doing in this post, just say so. Shouldn't be necessary. I have no problem with the reasoning. I do the same thing. Where problems may arise is when the response indicates little or no understanding of the context. What is insanity? That we apparently have a different opinion on the meaning and proper use of the word "tragedy?"
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 7, 2017 20:15:35 GMT -5
I wasn't aware of this, DJ. Thank you for pointing it out. Thank you for pointing out that you didn't require clarification. Thank you for contesting my use of the word "unlawful" for no reason whatsoever. Thank you for suggesting "this might not be the right forum" and then proceeding right on to ask more forum-inappropriate questions so you can crap on my answers. It wouldn't feel like YMAM otherwise. no need to get snarky. i just was defending my reasoning for my post, which- for the record- was not addressed at you, only at your statement. i wasn't "crapping" on anything. you punched, i punched back. i understand that there is an ignore button. i don't think i can use it with you, but i don't think the reverse is true. Just for information, posters can, indeed, use the Block function to block staff members.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Dec 7, 2017 20:20:56 GMT -5
2. I generally do this to reduce bulk and improve readability. If you'd prefer I highlight statements and include numbered references, such as I'm doing in this post, just say so. Shouldn't be necessary. I have no problem with the reasoning. I do the same thing. Where problems may arise is when the response indicates little or no understanding of the context. What is insanity? That we apparently have a different opinion on the meaning and proper use of the word "tragedy?" In this case, the "insanity" is claiming that only a "general discussion based on practical implications" is going on while simultaneously disingenuously throwing in occasional references to "God's Laws."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 8, 2017 8:25:31 GMT -5
Shouldn't be necessary. I have no problem with the reasoning. I do the same thing. Where problems may arise is when the response indicates little or no understanding of the context. What is insanity? That we apparently have a different opinion on the meaning and proper use of the word "tragedy?" In this case, the "insanity" is claiming that only a "general discussion based on practical implications" is going on while simultaneously disingenuously throwing in occasional references to "God's Laws." Take it up with DJ. He's the one who asked and then insisted. My religious arguments aren't disingenuous. They're sincere and of greater importance to me than worldly arguments. At the same time, they don't wipe out or invalidate everything else I've said. If you don't value them, disregard them, but be selective. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
|
|