Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >>> different. >>> >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > > Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > grenade exploded. And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f379j6$1fr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. >> So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the >> passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you >> would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they >> wanted to do? >> >> That figures. > > You are changing the goal post. No, I'm simply looking at the one statement you made above. You said that you shouldn't kill yourself. Plain and simple. > I was referring to the life boat scenario. > Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives > of those people if I had been on that plane. Including killing yourself? So which is it? Does the commandment say you can kill yourself or not? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 8:39 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f379j6$1f...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > >> So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the > >> passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you > >> would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they > >> wanted to do? > > >> That figures. > > > You are changing the goal post. > > No, I'm simply looking at the one statement you made above. You said > that you shouldn't kill yourself. Plain and simple. > > > I was referring to the life boat scenario. > > Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives > > of those people if I had been on that plane. > > Including killing yourself? So which is it? Does the commandment say you > can kill yourself or not? Perhaps he is realizing that to be a moral person sometimes means NOT doing as the Bible says. Interesting. We are finally making progress. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > I know that is what many scientists believe. However, there are other > scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is > playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been > if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that > believe that it is a natural cycle. ....that human activity is making worse. I.e. yes, there may be a natural cycle and maybe the earth would normally warm by 2 degrees and the ice caps would shrink to 1/2 their current size if humans had nothing to do with it. But instead, the earth might warm by 4 degrees and the ice caps disappear completely due to our actions (the above numbers were just as an illustration and I don't know exactly what they expect the temperature to actually rise to, etc.) Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On 23 mayo, 21:56, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On May 23, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1179916950.157502.274...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 23, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with most of your points. Other people have pointed out to > > me that > > > > > > Christians are just as likely to commit crimes as atheists. I thought > > > > > > about it and concluded that person is correct. The reason is that > > lots of > > > > > > Christians do not take their religions seriously and as a result do not > > > > > > always obey the laws. They even end up in prison if they commit > > felonies. > > > > > > Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic > > > > > countries. > > > > > I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I > > > > know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is > > > > also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in large > > > > cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit > > > > lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not > > > > legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very > > > > many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that the > > > > crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in > > > > 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their > > > > religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. > > > > No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been > > > dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may > > > have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost > > > half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the > > > 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited > > > more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? > > > > Martin > > > Martin, > > I can't explain it. Would you agree that the crime rate in 2000 is far > > higher than it was in the year 1800? > > No. It has been explained to you before that conditions were so > different in 1800 that there is no way to make a valid comparison. > > > I think that it is and the reason is > > because the vast majority of the people in America that lived in 1800 were > > Christians that took their religion seriously. I have no facts to back up > > my opinion re: to this issue. > > Therefore, you make assumptions based on your religious prejudices. > This bears no resemblance to logical thinking. You might also be > surprised at how un-Christian the early Americans were by modern > standards. Do you believe a "Christian who takes religion seriously" > would own slaves? Many did. Also, many of the founding fathers were > not Christians at all - Jefferson, for example, was a deist who did > not believe in the divinity of Christ. > > > How would I go about finding the murder rate in 1800. > > How would you go about adjusting that figure to include the killings > that were not considered "murder" in 1800? Masters were free to kill > their slaves, and whites were free to kill Indians, without being > charged with any crime. > > - Bob T. > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - even many crimes were undereported by the sheriffs and the police. Anyway, what fiability can be atributed to the records prior to year 1900? I suppose that in small populations the death of people of low class most not recorded. It is the same as in many countries in Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the >> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By >> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd >> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to >> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as >> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can >> all be rescued. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > else on the lifeboat. So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast as or faster than you can bail it back out? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f379n7$1fr$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an >>>>>>> abortion >>>>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >>>>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. >>>>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something >>>>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and > even you >>>>>>>> can't remember it well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd >>>>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, >>>>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: >>> "over a >>>>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it >>> cost me >>>>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little > you don't >>>>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >>>>>>>> conviction. >>>>>>> It was about $300 to $400. >>>>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even >>>>>> paid for her food for 4 months. >>>>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the >>>>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. >>>> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. >>> I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other >>> expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry >>> requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned >>> medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the >>> exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was >>> about $300-$400. It may have been more. >> As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, >> you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the >> course for you. > > It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. Even a brain-dead idiot should know that $100/month is NOT going to pay for ALL of a person's expenses for even the food alone. But that's exactly what you claimed until you were called on the issue. However, if > it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that > I intentionally lied. It doesn't make me feel anything about myself. I simply showed how you tried to play us for fools and you got caught. The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the > ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home > for unwed mothers". Yes, the truth is that you paid what they asked for and you did NOT pay "all of the expenses for the mother" as you claimed. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180197070.276416.43850@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 mayo, 21:56, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <1179916950.157502.274...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mart= > in > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,= > Martin > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree with most of your points. Other people have pointed out= > to > > > me that > > > > > > > Christians are just as likely to commit crimes as atheists. I t= > hought > > > > > > > about it and concluded that person is correct. The reason is th= > at > > > lots of > > > > > > > Christians do not take their religions seriously and as a resul= > t do not > > > > > > > always obey the laws. They even end up in prison if they commit > > > felonies. > > > > > > > > Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheist= > ic > > > > > > countries. > > > > > > > I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other count= > ries. I > > > > > know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostituti= > on is > > > > > also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in = > large > > > > > cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members c= > ommit > > > > > lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are= > not > > > > > legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have = > very > > > > > many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that = > the > > > > > crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was = > in > > > > > 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took t= > heir > > > > > religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. > > > > > > No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been > > > > dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may > > > > have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost > > > > half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the > > > > 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited > > > > more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? > > > > > > Martin > > > > > Martin, > > > I can't explain it. Would you agree that the crime rate in 2000 is far > > > higher than it was in the year 1800? > > > > No. It has been explained to you before that conditions were so > > different in 1800 that there is no way to make a valid comparison. > > > > > I think that it is and the reason is > > > because the vast majority of the people in America that lived in 1800 w= > ere > > > Christians that took their religion seriously. I have no facts to back = > up > > > my opinion re: to this issue. > > > > Therefore, you make assumptions based on your religious prejudices. > > This bears no resemblance to logical thinking. You might also be > > surprised at how un-Christian the early Americans were by modern > > standards. Do you believe a "Christian who takes religion seriously" > > would own slaves? Many did. Also, many of the founding fathers were > > not Christians at all - Jefferson, for example, was a deist who did > > not believe in the divinity of Christ. > > > > > How would I go about finding the murder rate in 1800. > > > > How would you go about adjusting that figure to include the killings > > that were not considered "murder" in 1800? Masters were free to kill > > their slaves, and whites were free to kill Indians, without being > > charged with any crime. > > > > - Bob T. > > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > even many crimes were undereported by the sheriffs and the police. > Anyway, what fiability can be atributed to the records prior to year > 1900? > I suppose that in small populations the death of people of low class > most not recorded. It is the same as in many countries in =C1frica > today. You cannot trust these statistics in case they have any. > Bramble Yes, that is true. At least one person pointed out that crime statistics from the 1700's and 1800's could not be trusted since so many deaths (eg slaves, horse theives) were not recorded in official records. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f39bov$8oc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > I know that is what many scientists believe. However, there are other > > scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is > > playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been > > if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that > > believe that it is a natural cycle. > > ...that human activity is making worse. > > I.e. yes, there may be a natural cycle and maybe the earth would > normally warm by 2 degrees and the ice caps would shrink to 1/2 their > current size if humans had nothing to do with it. But instead, the earth > might warm by 4 degrees and the ice caps disappear completely due to our > actions (the above numbers were just as an illustration and I don't know > exactly what they expect the temperature to actually rise to, etc.) You explained it well but I am not sure of the exact numbers. One of the problems with Al Gore's movie is that he failed to take into consideration the significance of a natural cycle as the primary cause of global warming. Of course, some scientists believe that a natural cycle is not involved related to this case of global warming. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180182471.779597.291900@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 5:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180163778.288934.59...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com > > > > > > (Jason) wrot= > > > > > > > > > e: > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer > > > > > > questions with a > > > > > > > > > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out > > that they > > > > > > are now > > > > > > > > > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those > > > > > > students ca= > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was > > worried that > > > > > > she wo= > > > > > > > > > uld > > > > > > > > > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a > > > > > > crazy worl= > > > > > > > > > d=2E > > > > > > > > > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at > > > > > > America wh= > > > > > > > > > en > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I was a child. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught > > > > > > back then= > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your > > generation wasn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught > > > > about the > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting > > > > warmer since > > > > > > > > > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow > > > > > > it down. > > > > > > > > > > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but > > they now say > > > > > > > > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning > > of fossil > > > > > > > > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > > > > > > > > > cause. > > > > > > > > > > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a > > > > natural > > > > > > > > cycle. > > > > > > > > > But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, > > > > > > > scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. > > > > > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > > > > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > > > > > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > > > > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > > > > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > > > > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > > > > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > > > > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > > > > > all be rescued. > > > > > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > > > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > > > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > > > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > > > > else on the lifeboat. > > > > > And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One > > > problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than > > > the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US, > > > they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not > > > fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone > > > else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord > > > so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the > > > world. > > > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China > > > andhttp://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS) > > > > Of course, the key question is will they abide by the accord? Of course, > > if the US voted to approve it--we would abide by the accord. Clinton did > > NOT want it approved while he was president since he knew it would destoy > > our economy. > > Actually, democracy demands that something like the Kyoto Accord > requires a new mandate. Gore did run as an environmental candidate > but voters in his own state voted for Bush. Again, logically it is > Americans that don't care for other people in the world. > > Martin Martin, Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to cause harm to the economy while they were presidents. It's related to the building of their legacies. I am glad that the Kyoto Accord was not approved. The reason is because I care about the millions of people that work in American factories. If the Kyoto Accord is approved in America--even more factories will close down. It's cheaper to close down a factory than to install billions of dollars worth of pollution equipment. The problem with the Kyoto Accord is that countries like China will sign it but will do little or nothing to abide by it. That is the nature of Communist countries--they sign agreements and usually do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, environmentalists would DEMAND that America abide by all provisions of the Kyoto Accord and they will get their way. If America becomes the only country in the world that abides by the Kyoto Accord, that means the world problems related to C02 levels and pollution will get worse and not better. Jason Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f39qln$okd$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > >> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > >> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > >> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > >> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > >> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > >> all be rescued. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > > else on the lifeboat. > > So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the > ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't > stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some > water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast > as or faster than you can bail it back out? I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get tired so I stop splashing. I give up. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f39r8u$okd$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f379n7$1fr$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > >>>>>>> abortion > >>>>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>>>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >>>>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > >>>>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and > > even you > >>>>>>>> can't remember it well. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > >>>>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > >>>>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: > >>> "over a > >>>>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it > >>> cost me > >>>>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little > > you don't > >>>>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >>>>>>>> conviction. > >>>>>>> It was about $300 to $400. > >>>>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > >>>>>> paid for her food for 4 months. > >>>>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > >>>>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. > >>>> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. > >>> I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other > >>> expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry > >>> requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned > >>> medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the > >>> exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was > >>> about $300-$400. It may have been more. > >> As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, > >> you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the > >> course for you. > > > > It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. > > Even a brain-dead idiot should know that $100/month is NOT going to pay > for ALL of a person's expenses for even the food alone. But that's > exactly what you claimed until you were called on the issue. > > However, if > > it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that > > I intentionally lied. > > It doesn't make me feel anything about myself. I simply showed how you > tried to play us for fools and you got caught. It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have been more". > > The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the > > ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home > > for unwed mothers". > > Yes, the truth is that you paid what they asked for and you did NOT pay > "all of the expenses for the mother" as you claimed. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f399qi$679$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f379j6$1fr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > >> So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the > >> passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you > >> would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they > >> wanted to do? > >> > >> That figures. > > > > You are changing the goal post. > > No, I'm simply looking at the one statement you made above. You said > that you shouldn't kill yourself. Plain and simple. > > > I was referring to the life boat scenario. > > Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives > > of those people if I had been on that plane. > > Including killing yourself? So which is it? Does the commandment say you > can kill yourself or not? When I made the statement, I was referring to normal types of suicide. I did not consider situations such as falling on a grenade or risking your life to save other people. I guess that could be considered suicide but I would call that "risking your life to save other people". In those cases, I would have to make judgements on a case by case basis. I would risk my life to save people but I would have to be sure that I was not needlessly risking my life. For example, I would not go into a burning building unless I was 100 percent sure that there was someone in that building. I would not jump off a lifeboat since it's possible the rescue could happen about 1 hour after I jumped out of the lifeboat. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >>> different. > >>> > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > > > > Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > > relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > > grenade exploded. > > And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180162408.823822.269740@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 26, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180155989.252279.241...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On May 26, 6:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > <Jason-2505071510020...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> > > > >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > >> <Jason-2505071319270...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > > >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been >> > a dud. >> > >> > > > >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. >> > If you >> > > > >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The >scenarios are >> > > > >> >different. >> > >> > > > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >> > > > >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you >unwilling >> > > > >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >> > >> > > > >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from >dying. In >> > > > >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would >die if the >> > > > >grenade exploded. >> > >> > > > You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. >> > >> > > I disagree. In the lifeboat, one would have very little control over >> > > the factors determining whether or not the others live or die: a >> > > rescue could come in minutes, hours, days, weeks or never. The >> > > teacher assumed that the rescue would arrive in days or possibly weeks >> > > but there would be no advantage killing the man if the rescue came in >> > > minutes or hours. And what if the rescue never arrives? Then what >> > > good is served by killing the old man? >> > >> > I believe the end goal of the exercise was to brainwash everyone that does >> > the exercise to become advocates of euthanasia. They even use the scenario >> > in high school sociology classes and psychology classes. it's an excellent >> > exercise to help in the brainwashing of children and young adults. >> >> When I was in school we were given a similar choice in which a group >> of people were the last people left on Earth eking out their lives in >> a bomb shelter following a nuclear holocaust. The situation was >> different because there was no chance of rescue what with the world >> outside being completely destroyed. If it were a question of the >> survival of the entire human race, it was assumed that the old man >> would voluntarily leave rather than be a burden. There was no >> question of physically throwing the old man out the door. > >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young >adults to become advocates of euthanasia What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help the society in the future. I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, particularly since we are easily able to afford both. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605070156390001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180162865.376213.180240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 25 Maj, 20:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > > >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: >> > > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >> >> ... >> > >> > > >> >> >Martin, >> > > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that >> > divided the >> > > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each >> > group had >> > > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted >> > each group >> > > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so= >> that >> > > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to s= >> hare. A >> > > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard >> > since we >> > > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the >> > logical thing >> > > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the= >> term >> > > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young >> > Christian man >> > > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, >> > the other >> > > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the s= >> ame way >> > > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >> > > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> > > >> >> >Jason >> > >> > > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are in= >> capable >> > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard an= >> d you >> > > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that = >> causes >> > > >> >> all to die. >> > >> > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> > > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> > >> > > >> >Martin >> > >> > > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the >> > > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I hav= >> e to >> > > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> > > >> willingness to kill everyone. >> > >> > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to l= >> ive >> > > >several extra days? I would not do that. >> > >> > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice >> > > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because >> > > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational >> > > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. >> > >> > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower >> > > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we >> > > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care >> > > for them. >> > >> > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourse= >> lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> >> Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > >Jesus did not kill himself. That's the only possible conclusion you can draw from the stories. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:18:09 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505072218090001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <s5bf531184gghqsgln6gggss9h668uoi3u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> >> ... >> >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say >> >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil >> >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the >> >> > > cause. >> >> > >> >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a >natural >> >> > cycle. >> >> >> >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, >> >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they >> >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. >> >Jason >> >> You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a >> long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of >> that cycle, it is a result of human activity. > >I know that is what many scientists believe. Scientists gather evidence. It's not about belief in the way religion is. >However, there are other >scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been >if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that >believe that it is a natural cycle. Yet you ignore that humans are exacerbating the problem. The only 'scientists' who deny it are the anti-science fools in the Bush administration. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >>>>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >>>>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >>>>> different. >>>>> >>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >>> Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >>> relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >>> grenade exploded. >> And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. > > I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. But if this boat was rescuing you in the next hour, you would last. Remember the boat that also was rescuing you an hour after you shove the old man over the side? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f399qi$679$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f379j6$1fr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > yourself. >>>> So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the >>>> passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you >>>> would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they >>>> wanted to do? >>>> >>>> That figures. >>> You are changing the goal post. >> No, I'm simply looking at the one statement you made above. You said >> that you shouldn't kill yourself. Plain and simple. >> >>> I was referring to the life boat scenario. >>> Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives >>> of those people if I had been on that plane. >> Including killing yourself? So which is it? Does the commandment say you >> can kill yourself or not? > > When I made the statement, I was referring to normal types of suicide. I > did not consider situations such as falling on a grenade or risking your > life to save other people. I guess that could be considered suicide but I > would call that "risking your life to save other people". In those cases, > I would have to make judgements on a case by case basis. I would risk my > life to save people but I would have to be sure that I was not needlessly > risking my life. For example, I would not go into a burning building > unless I was 100 percent sure that there was someone in that building. I > would not jump off a lifeboat since it's possible the rescue could happen > about 1 hour after I jumped out of the lifeboat. > Jason I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds like "situational ethics" to me. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f39qln$okd$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the >>>> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By >>>> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd >>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to >>>> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as >>>> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can >>>> all be rescued. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue >>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries >>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to >>> control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone >>> else on the lifeboat. >> So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the >> ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't >> stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some >> water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast >> as or faster than you can bail it back out? > > I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat > that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging > about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water > much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get > tired so I stop splashing. I give up. That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop them. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f39r8u$okd$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f379n7$1fr$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an >>>>>>>>> abortion >>>>>>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >>>>>>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. >>>>>>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did > something >>>>>>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and >>> even you >>>>>>>>>> can't remember it well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for > your side. >>>>>>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, > if you'd >>>>>>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to > do this, >>>>>>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: >>>>> "over a >>>>>>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it >>>>> cost me >>>>>>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little >>> you don't >>>>>>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >>>>>>>>>> conviction. >>>>>>>>> It was about $300 to $400. >>>>>>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even >>>>>>>> paid for her food for 4 months. >>>>>>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the >>>>>>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. >>>>>> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. >>>>> I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other >>>>> expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry >>>>> requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned >>>>> medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the >>>>> exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was >>>>> about $300-$400. It may have been more. >>>> As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, >>>> you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the >>>> course for you. >>> It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. >> Even a brain-dead idiot should know that $100/month is NOT going to pay >> for ALL of a person's expenses for even the food alone. But that's >> exactly what you claimed until you were called on the issue. >> >> However, if >>> it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that >>> I intentionally lied. >> It doesn't make me feel anything about myself. I simply showed how you >> tried to play us for fools and you got caught. > > It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated > (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have > been more". Unless it was more like $10,000, you didn't come close to paying "all her expenses" for 4 or more months of pregnancy. Even $800 would work out to $50/week. I'd LOVE to see you provide just food, shelter, etc. for yourself on $50/week (not to mention the medical bills, etc.) Do you really take us for such fools? >>> The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the >>> ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home >>> for unwed mothers". >> Yes, the truth is that you paid what they asked for and you did NOT pay >> "all of the expenses for the mother" as you claimed. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <cs6h535dkikcgnpijc347tbrn6j7snknk2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:18:09 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505072218090001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <s5bf531184gghqsgln6gggss9h668uoi3u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >Martin > >> > >> ... > >> >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say > >> >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil > >> >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > >> >> > > cause. > >> >> > > >> >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a > >natural > >> >> > cycle. > >> >> > >> >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, > >> >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> >Martin, > >> >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > >> >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > >> >Jason > >> > >> You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a > >> long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of > >> that cycle, it is a result of human activity. > > > >I know that is what many scientists believe. > > Scientists gather evidence. It's not about belief in the way religion > is. > > >However, there are other > >scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is > >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been > >if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that > >believe that it is a natural cycle. > > Yet you ignore that humans are exacerbating the problem. The only > 'scientists' who deny it are the anti-science fools in the Bush > administration. I disagree. Some of the scientists that are of the opinion (based on research) that the primary reason for global warming is because it's a natural cycle. Many of those scientists that have that point of view do not work for the Bush administration. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180162408.823822.269740@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George > >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 26, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1180155989.252279.241...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On May 26, 6:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > > <Jason-2505071510020...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >> > > > >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > > >> <Jason-2505071319270...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > > >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been > >> > a dud. > >> > > >> > > > >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. > >> > If you > >> > > > >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The > >scenarios are > >> > > > >> >different. > >> > > >> > > > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >> > > > >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you > >unwilling > >> > > > >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > >> > > >> > > > >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from > >dying. In > >> > > > >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would > >die if the > >> > > > >grenade exploded. > >> > > >> > > > You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. > >> > > >> > > I disagree. In the lifeboat, one would have very little control over > >> > > the factors determining whether or not the others live or die: a > >> > > rescue could come in minutes, hours, days, weeks or never. The > >> > > teacher assumed that the rescue would arrive in days or possibly weeks > >> > > but there would be no advantage killing the man if the rescue came in > >> > > minutes or hours. And what if the rescue never arrives? Then what > >> > > good is served by killing the old man? > >> > > >> > I believe the end goal of the exercise was to brainwash everyone that does > >> > the exercise to become advocates of euthanasia. They even use the scenario > >> > in high school sociology classes and psychology classes. it's an excellent > >> > exercise to help in the brainwashing of children and young adults. > >> > >> When I was in school we were given a similar choice in which a group > >> of people were the last people left on Earth eking out their lives in > >> a bomb shelter following a nuclear holocaust. The situation was > >> different because there was no chance of rescue what with the world > >> outside being completely destroyed. If it were a question of the > >> survival of the entire human race, it was assumed that the old man > >> would voluntarily leave rather than be a burden. There was no > >> question of physically throwing the old man out the door. > > > >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young > >adults to become advocates of euthanasia > > What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have > limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from > others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help > the society in the future. > > I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can > afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable > ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we > want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to > do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every > child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, > particularly since we are easily able to afford both. Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3a9cb$8pn$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >>>>>>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. > If you >>>>>>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >>>>>>> different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >>>>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >>>>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >>>>> Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >>>>> relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >>>>> grenade exploded. >>>> And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. >>> I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. >> But if this boat was rescuing you in the next hour, you would last. >> Remember the boat that also was rescuing you an hour after you shove the >> old man over the side? > > It would make more sense to spend that hour in the boat than in the water. But you don't KNOW that this boat was coming in an hour. I.e. it's the same as the grenade situation. You don't know either way if you'd survive or if you were sacrificing yourself to save the others. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.