Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh1plq$848$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

>>> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>>>> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

>>>> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

>>>> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

>>>> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

>>>> such an environment.

>>>> --

>>>> 655321

>>> The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

>>> stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

>>> people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials.

 

>>> The Muslims want to take over the earth.

 

Tell that to the Lebanese Muslims, who share the governing of their

country with Christians, and have done so for a long time. Tell that to

the Muslim Americans in cities like Dearborn, Michigan, who would likely

take up arms against an invasion of the United States by any Muslim

nation.

 

You really ought to have your paranoid fantasies surgically removed.

(But then again, there might be some concern [on someone's part anyway]

about what will be left.)

>> Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

>

> Do you want me to repeat what the president of Iran stated about how he

> feels about Israel?

 

The saber-rattling ramblings of one man are not evidence of any of your

claims.

> I'll quote a scripture from the Quran to let you know how Muslims feel

> about Israel?

 

Sorry, that won't work either.

> Surah 5:33

> The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger...is

 

Who's doing that?

> execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hand and feet--or exile

> from the land....

 

That passage is DEFENSIVE in posture, and is gentle compared to many

passages in your own cult's Bloody Books -- I mean Holy Bible.

 

At any rate, you changed the subject from ignorant guesses about Iran's

energy needs back to your paranoid fantasies of a planned Iranian

invasion of the world.

--

655321

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

cactus wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <lhhvi31cf4fquef710o0vrihftgg63m8m6@4ax.com>, stoney

>> <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>>

>>> On 31 Oct 2007 15:23:56 -0500, The Chief Instigator

>>> <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:Jason-3010071234070001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

>>>>>> In article <5ooqgmFnnh1aU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

>>>>>>> snip

>>>>>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't

>>>>>>>> expect

>>>>>>>> me to tell you the location of heaven.

>>>>>>> Jason, you can't tell us the location of heaven because you know it

>>>>>>> doesn't exist. Just admit it.

>>>>>> location: another dimension

>>>>> Prove it.

>>>> Jason apparently spends most of his average day in an unknown

>>>> dimension.

>>> Unfortunately, its this one.

>>

>> I will be glad when I am in the dimension that heaven is located.

> You might be already...

 

There is no question.

--

655321

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh1plq$848$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

>>> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Mike wrote:

>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>> In article <fgv416$im5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>> I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and

>>>>>>>> over and

>>>>>>>> over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for

>>>>>>>> peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could

>>>>>>>> use oil

>>>>>>>> to produce all of the electric power that is needed.

>>>>>>> No, every INTELLIGENT person (which leaves you out) knows that you

>>>>>>> need to diversify your energy sources since oil won't last forever

>>>>>>> (and since nuclear power can't be used to grease axles with and make

>>>>>>> plastics, etc. I.e. if you have an alternative, use it and save the

>>>>>>> oil for those things that we don't have alternatives for.)

>>>>>> You left out one of the uses for nuclear materials---nuclear weapons.

>>>>> You left out one of the uses for a brain--thinking.

>>>>>

>>>>> I didn't leave anything out. I simply pointed out why a country that has

>>>>> oil might want to generate power using nuclear reactors.

>>>> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

>>>> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

>>>> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

>>>> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

>>>> such an environment.

>>>> --

>>>> 655321

>>> The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

>>> stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

>>> people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials. The

>>> Muslims want to take over the earth.

>> Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

>

> Do you want me to repeat what the president of Iran stated about how he

> feels about Israel?

>

> I'll quote a scripture from the Quran to let you know how Muslims feel

> about Israel?

> Surah 5:33

> The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger...is

> execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hand and feet--or exile

> from the land....

>

>

 

What does that have to do with Israel? It didn't even exist in

Mohammad's time.

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>

>>

>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

>

> No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

> clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

>

>

 

You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

translation (ad infinitum)?

 

 

 

--

 

The truth is out there? Anyone knows the URL?

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh1plq$848$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

>>> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Mike wrote:

>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>> In article <fgv416$im5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>> I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and

>>>>>>>> over and

>>>>>>>> over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for

>>>>>>>> peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could

>>>>>>>> use oil

>>>>>>>> to produce all of the electric power that is needed.

>>>>>>> No, every INTELLIGENT person (which leaves you out) knows that you

>>>>>>> need to diversify your energy sources since oil won't last forever

>>>>>>> (and since nuclear power can't be used to grease axles with and make

>>>>>>> plastics, etc. I.e. if you have an alternative, use it and save the

>>>>>>> oil for those things that we don't have alternatives for.)

>>>>>> You left out one of the uses for nuclear materials---nuclear weapons.

>>>>> You left out one of the uses for a brain--thinking.

>>>>>

>>>>> I didn't leave anything out. I simply pointed out why a country that has

>>>>> oil might want to generate power using nuclear reactors.

>>>> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

>>>> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

>>>> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

>>>> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

>>>> such an environment.

>>>> --

>>>> 655321

>>> The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

>>> stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

>>> people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials. The

>>> Muslims want to take over the earth.

>> Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

>

> Do you want me to repeat what the president of Iran stated about how he

> feels about Israel?

 

No, I want you to grow a brain and learn what "provide evidence" means.

Quoting someone's feelings about Israel doesn't mean they are developing

nukes. I think you're an idiot that not only shouldn't be allowed to

breed but that should be a poster child for post-birth abortions. Does

that mean I'm working on nukes to bomb you?

> I'll quote a scripture from the Quran to let you know how Muslims feel

> about Israel?

> Surah 5:33

> The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger...is

> execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hand and feet--or exile

> from the land....

 

What does that prove about your claim that Iran has or is developing nukes?

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

>>> killings. They

>>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

>>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

>>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

>>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their

>>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

>>>>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're

>>>>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of

>>>>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally,

>>>>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

>>>>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a

>>>>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

>>>>>

>>>> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

>>>> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

>>>> prohibits killing people.

>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

>> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

>

> Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

>

> Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

> eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

> punishment.

>

> When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

 

That's not what I asked for. I asked for a definitive definition of

"murder" and "kill" that would cover ALL possible cases of person A

causing person B's death. Nowhere in your above "definitions" are things

like "mercy killing", "suicide", "self defense", "manslaughter", etc.

covered.

Posted

In article <fh36o7$4tv$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

> > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> >>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> >>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

> >> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

> >

> > No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

> > clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

> >

> >

>

> You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

> translation (ad infinitum)?

 

I disagree. The Hebrew word for "murder" that is used in Ex. 20:13 is

ratsach (raw-tsakh'). It means "put to death or to murder".

 

Therefore, it would be more accurate to use the term "Thou shall not murder."

Posted

In article <fh4enn$t4t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> >>> killings. They

> >>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> >>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> >>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

> >>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

on their

> >>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

> >>>>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're

> >>>>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of

> >>>>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally,

> >>>>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

> >>>>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a

> >>>>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

> >>>>>

> >>>> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

> >>>> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

> >>>> prohibits killing people.

> >>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> >>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> >>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

> >> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

> >> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

> >

> > Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

> >

> > Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

> > eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

> > punishment.

> >

> > When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

>

> That's not what I asked for. I asked for a definitive definition of

> "murder" and "kill" that would cover ALL possible cases of person A

> causing person B's death. Nowhere in your above "definitions" are things

> like "mercy killing", "suicide", "self defense", "manslaughter", etc.

> covered.

 

I don't believe mercy killing that is done on people that are already on

their death beds (eg cancer, heart disease) is murder.

 

On the other hand, in some cases, it could be considered to be murder. For

example, if a person killed their grandfather since he found out he would

be receiving 1 million dollars as a result of the official "will" of the

grandfather--that would be First Degree Murder. That would be true even if

the murderer claimed in court that he was mercy killing the grandfather.

Mercy killing should only be legal if it done by medical doctors that are

NOT related to the patient.

Posted

In article <fh4anr$p8u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh1plq$848$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

> >>> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Mike wrote:

> >>>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>>> In article <fgv416$im5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>>>>> I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and

> >>>>>>>> over and

> >>>>>>>> over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for

> >>>>>>>> peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could

> >>>>>>>> use oil

> >>>>>>>> to produce all of the electric power that is needed.

> >>>>>>> No, every INTELLIGENT person (which leaves you out) knows that you

> >>>>>>> need to diversify your energy sources since oil won't last forever

> >>>>>>> (and since nuclear power can't be used to grease axles with and make

> >>>>>>> plastics, etc. I.e. if you have an alternative, use it and save the

> >>>>>>> oil for those things that we don't have alternatives for.)

> >>>>>> You left out one of the uses for nuclear materials---nuclear weapons.

> >>>>> You left out one of the uses for a brain--thinking.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> I didn't leave anything out. I simply pointed out why a country

that has

> >>>>> oil might want to generate power using nuclear reactors.

> >>>> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

> >>>> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

> >>>> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

> >>>> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

> >>>> such an environment.

> >>>> --

> >>>> 655321

> >>> The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

> >>> stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

> >>> people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials. The

> >>> Muslims want to take over the earth.

> >> Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

> >

> > Do you want me to repeat what the president of Iran stated about how he

> > feels about Israel?

>

> No, I want you to grow a brain and learn what "provide evidence" means.

> Quoting someone's feelings about Israel doesn't mean they are developing

> nukes. I think you're an idiot that not only shouldn't be allowed to

> breed but that should be a poster child for post-birth abortions. Does

> that mean I'm working on nukes to bomb you?

>

> > I'll quote a scripture from the Quran to let you know how Muslims feel

> > about Israel?

> > Surah 5:33

> > The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger...is

> > execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hand and feet--or exile

> > from the land....

>

> What does that prove about your claim that Iran has or is developing nukes?

 

The Muslims want to "exile from the land" Israel. The Muslims have a goal

of taking over Israel. They have been trying to take over Israel for over

50 years. They hate Jews.

 

What does that prove about my claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

 

A nuclear missile that is fired into the center of Israel would allow the

Muslims to do exactly what they have been trying to do for over 50 years.

 

The Muslim clerics have a great amount of political power in Iran. Read this:

 

 

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

 

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

 

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh36o7$4tv$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>>>> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

>>> No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

>>> clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

>>>

>>>

>> You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

>> translation (ad infinitum)?

>

> I disagree. The Hebrew word for "murder" that is used in Ex. 20:13 is

> ratsach (raw-tsakh'). It means "put to death or to murder".

 

Ehm... QED?

>

> Therefore, it would be more accurate to use the term "Thou shall not murder."

 

Therefor? Your conclusion is fallacious.

 

 

Tokay

 

 

--

 

All true wisdom is found on T-shirts.

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:55:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>I don't believe mercy killing that is done on people that are already on

>their death beds (eg cancer, heart disease) is murder.

 

We're not talking about ANY killing - we're talking about assisted

suicide. Killing someone, whether they're on their death bed or not,

is illegal in every state.

>On the other hand, in some cases, it could be considered to be murder. For

>example, if a person killed their grandfather since he found out he would

>be receiving 1 million dollars as a result of the official "will" of the

>grandfather--that would be First Degree Murder. That would be true even if

>the murderer claimed in court that he was mercy killing the grandfather.

 

Unless the grandfather committed suicide, it doesn't fall under

assisted suicide laws. Claiming that a killing was a "mercy killing"

is an admission of guilt, not a defense.

>Mercy killing should only be legal if it done by medical doctors that are

>NOT related to the patient.

 

Mercy killing IS NOT legal, and it's not going to be.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity,

human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and

stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of

religious or political idols."

- Aldous Huxley

Posted

Jason wrote:

> The Muslims want to "exile from the land" Israel. The Muslims have a goal

> of taking over Israel. They have been trying to take over Israel for over

> 50 years. They hate Jews.

>

> What does that prove about my claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

 

Nothing, that's what it proves.

 

 

Try again.

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

[snips]

 

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason wrote:

> What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

> legal forms?

 

Why would he be in a punctuation mark? (ISTR you've been called on this

one before.)

>> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

>> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

>> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

> Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

> in all states.

 

And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh36o7$4tv$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>>>> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

>>> No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

>>> clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

>>>

>>>

>> You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

>> translation (ad infinitum)?

>

> I disagree. The Hebrew word for "murder" that is used in Ex. 20:13 is

> ratsach (raw-tsakh'). It means "put to death or to murder".

>

> Therefore, it would be more accurate to use the term "Thou shall not murder."

 

How do you get "it would be more accurate to use the term 'Thou shall

not murder.'" from "thou shalt not 'put to death or murder'"? This is a

cherry tree where you get to pick just the part of the definition that

you like. If it says "thou shall not (some word that means both 'put to

death' and 'murder')" then that's exactly what thou shall not do; "put

[someone] to death" OR "murder [someone.]"

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fh4enn$t4t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

>>>>> killings. They

>>>>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

>>>>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

>>>>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> on their

>>>>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

>>>>>>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're

>>>>>>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of

>>>>>>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally,

>>>>>>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

>>>>>>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a

>>>>>>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

>>>>>> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

>>>>>> prohibits killing people.

>>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>>>> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

>>>> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

>>> Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

>>>

>>> Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

>>> eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

>>> punishment.

>>>

>>> When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

>> That's not what I asked for. I asked for a definitive definition of

>> "murder" and "kill" that would cover ALL possible cases of person A

>> causing person B's death. Nowhere in your above "definitions" are things

>> like "mercy killing", "suicide", "self defense", "manslaughter", etc.

>> covered.

>

 

<snip non answer>

 

I asked for a definition of "murder" so that we could look at ANY act

and decide if it was murder or not. I didn't ask for yet more of your

vague, meaningless examples.

Posted

In article <fh74de$h2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > The Muslims want to "exile from the land" Israel. The Muslims have a goal

> > of taking over Israel. They have been trying to take over Israel for over

> > 50 years. They hate Jews.

> >

> > What does that prove about my claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

>

> Nothing, that's what it proves.

>

>

> Try again.

 

A nuclear missle fired into Israel will allow the President of Iran to

wipe Israel off from the map of the world. The experts have stated that

Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons about one year from now.

 

You would have to read a book about the end goal of Muslims before you

understand why the experts believe that Iran is developing nuclear

materials so that he can eventually produce nuclear weapons. He is a nut

case. For proof--read this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

 

Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

 

By Anton La Guardia

Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006

 

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear

programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What

is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

 

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of

high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in

Iraq.

 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

 

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently

described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is

another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving

the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

 

In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad

telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders

as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

 

When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr

Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead,

saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom

which we must follow."

 

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to

the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the

president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his

return.

 

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about

Posted

In article <7usj05-0is.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason wrote:

>

> > What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

> > legal forms?

>

> Why would he be in a punctuation mark? (ISTR you've been called on this

> one before.)

>

> >> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

> >> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

> >> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

>

> > Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

> > in all states.

>

> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

 

God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

and multiply. They done exactly what God told them to do. There were not

very many people in the world when gave that order.

Posted

In article <fh7m05$3s5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh36o7$4tv$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

> >>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back

in those

> >>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> >>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

> >>>> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

> >>> No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

> >>> clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

> >>>

> >>>

> >> You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

> >> translation (ad infinitum)?

> >

> > I disagree. The Hebrew word for "murder" that is used in Ex. 20:13 is

> > ratsach (raw-tsakh'). It means "put to death or to murder".

> >

> > Therefore, it would be more accurate to use the term "Thou shall not

murder."

>

> How do you get "it would be more accurate to use the term 'Thou shall

> not murder.'" from "thou shalt not 'put to death or murder'"? This is a

> cherry tree where you get to pick just the part of the definition that

> you like. If it says "thou shall not (some word that means both 'put to

> death' and 'murder')" then that's exactly what thou shall not do; "put

> [someone] to death" OR "murder [someone.]"

 

That is what translators do related to thousands of Greek and Hebrew words.

Posted

In article <fh7m39$3s6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh4enn$t4t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >>>>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> >>>>> killings. They

> >>>>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> >>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> >>>>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit

suicide?

> >>>>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> > on their

> >>>>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

> >>>>>>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin.

So you're

> >>>>>>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the

torments of

> >>>>>>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer

eternally,

> >>>>>>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

> >>>>>>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe

that is a

> >>>>>>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

> >>>>>> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

> >>>>>> prohibits killing people.

> >>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back

in those

> >>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> >>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

> >>>> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

> >>>> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

> >>> Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

> >>>

> >>> Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

> >>> eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

> >>> punishment.

> >>>

> >>> When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

> >> That's not what I asked for. I asked for a definitive definition of

> >> "murder" and "kill" that would cover ALL possible cases of person A

> >> causing person B's death. Nowhere in your above "definitions" are things

> >> like "mercy killing", "suicide", "self defense", "manslaughter", etc.

> >> covered.

> >

>

> <snip non answer>

>

> I asked for a definition of "murder" so that we could look at ANY act

> and decide if it was murder or not. I didn't ask for yet more of your

> vague, meaningless examples.

 

I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

aforethought."

 

I copied the above definition from Webster's dictionary.

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1111071904440001@66-52-55-167.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:

>In article <7usj05-0is.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>> > What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

>> > legal forms?

>>

>> Why would he be in a punctuation mark? (ISTR you've been called on this

>> one before.)

>>

>> >> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

>> >> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

>> >> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

>>

>> > Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

>> > in all states.

>>

>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>

>God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

>and multiply. They done exactly what God told them to do. There were not

>very many people in the world when gave that order.

>

God never told anyone to do that. It's a story, like the Wizard of Oz.

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

[snips]

 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

> and multiply.

 

Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said (if any)

were quoted correctly.

 

Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

litters until you can't.

 

Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig time. Hmm.

Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

the belief system which contains the command should be abolished according

to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

 

So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0911071107040001@67-150-122-51.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

> In article <5pjdd3Frneb3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

>>

>> snip

>> > I don't believe you are correct. In the state that mercy killing is

>> > legal--the rules are probably spelled out. For example, a doctor is not

>> > allowed to mercy kill a person unless the patient signes the proper

>> > forms.

>>

>> My dad was "mercy killed" and I don't live in a state where assisted

>> suicide

>> is legal. However, what was done to my dad was perfectly legal. Explain.

>

> I believe you--esp. if the doctors unhooked all machines that were keeping

> your father alive. In some states, that is NOT considered to be mercy

> killing.

 

Then, what is it considered to be?

>I believe that it is mercy killing. Do you?

 

I know that's what it was.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid>

snip

>

> Mercy killing IS NOT legal, and it's not going to be.

 

What about pulling the plug on someone who's braindead?

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:10:09 -0500, "Robibnikoff"

<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

 

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>> Mercy killing IS NOT legal, and it's not going to be.

>What about pulling the plug on someone who's braindead?

 

That's legal in some cases, but where's the "mercy" part?

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the

battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

- George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

 

"...I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult,

and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult - and we are

prevailing."

- George W. Bush, June 28, 2005

 

"Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy."

- George W. Bush, March 19, 2007

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Robibnikoff wrote:

> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid>

> snip

>> Mercy killing IS NOT legal, and it's not going to be.

>

> What about pulling the plug on someone who's braindead?

 

By legal definition (in this country at least) the death of a person is

defined as brain death.

So, for legal purposes pulling the plug on a certified (quite

complicated procedure... well. No THAT complicated, but it is strictly

regulated) brain dead patient poses no legal problem.

 

Not to confuse this with "clinically dead", because that simply means

the heart has stopped and can probably be started up again.

 

Tokay

 

 

--

 

"The Web isn't better than sex, but sliced bread is in serious trouble."

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...