Guest Jason Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time period. When God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful and multiply--that advice made sense during that time period but does not make sense today. Most Christians understand these issues. The Mormons and Catholics continue to believe that they should have as many kids as possible. The reason for this is probably so they can increase the numbers of Mormons and Catholics that are in the world. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5prc38Frdpb7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> 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? > > Each case is different. In my case, I have signed documents that will make > it legal for doctors to pull the plug on any machines that are keeping me > alive. > > Perhaps some people want to be kept alive. In those cases, a court order > would be needed if the relatives can not afford to pay the hospital bills. > > I have no idea about laws concerning that in the US. In Germany, someone who is certified brain dead IS dead. Heart beats on its own, that has not much to do with brain function. Note, that IF such a patient is still breathing on his own, that requires brain function (though lower part of the brain) and counts against brain dead. Such a patient is NOT legally dead. (To test this is required within the procedure to establish brain death. There is more. I'd have to look it up. Two independent doctors have to fulfill the protocol two times 12 hours apart, IIRC.) Once brain death is established, the patient is legally dead. That's the way it is here. Tokay -- "The Web isn't better than sex, but sliced bread is in serious trouble." Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 In article <5prc38Frdpb7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> 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? Each case is different. In my case, I have signed documents that will make it legal for doctors to pull the plug on any machines that are keeping me alive. Perhaps some people want to be kept alive. In those cases, a court order would be needed if the relatives can not afford to pay the hospital bills. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 In article <5prc1nFshbo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "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. I believe that it is mercy killing but could easily understand why many people believe that unhooking machines that are keeping a person alive is not mercy killing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 In article <fha64v$o1k$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <5prc38Frdpb7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> 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? > > > > Each case is different. In my case, I have signed documents that will make > > it legal for doctors to pull the plug on any machines that are keeping me > > alive. > > > > Perhaps some people want to be kept alive. In those cases, a court order > > would be needed if the relatives can not afford to pay the hospital bills. > > > > > > I have no idea about laws concerning that in the US. In Germany, someone > who is certified brain dead IS dead. Heart beats on its own, that has > not much to do with brain function. > > Note, that IF such a patient is still breathing on his own, that > requires brain function (though lower part of the brain) and counts > against brain dead. Such a patient is NOT legally dead. > > (To test this is required within the procedure to establish brain death. > There is more. I'd have to look it up. Two independent doctors have to > fulfill the protocol two times 12 hours apart, IIRC.) > > > Once brain death is established, the patient is legally dead. > > That's the way it is here. > > > Tokay The laws appear to be different in various states. There was a famous case in Florida. A lady that I believe was brain dead had family members that were wanting to keep her alive and a husband that wanted the machines that were keeping her alive to be unhooked. The husband went to court and won the court case. The machines were unhooked and the lady died. The family claimed that she was NOT brain dead. That case was the reason that millions of people in American contacted their lawyers and signed "right to die" documents. In Califoria, those forms are now called "Advance Health Care Directive". In the case of the lady in Florida--she had NEVER filled out a "right to die" document which was the reason that the case ended up in court. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:22:36 -0800, Jason wrote: >> 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. > No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in > the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time You've said a whole lot of things. You've backed up virtually none of them. We should take you seriously now because...? Oh, right, no reason at all. -- Waiting for wine: Grape Expectations. -- Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:nuvgj3534t9g30b862vhqlp55pjp7gph3q@4ax.com... > 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? I personally thought it was merciful when we were able to do it to my dad. Why keep a husk alive? -- Robibnikoff Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:54:38 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >The laws appear to be different in various states. There was a famous case >in Florida. A lady that I believe was brain dead She wasn't "brain dead" - she had no functional brain. > had family members that were wanting to keep her alive She wasn't alive either. >The family claimed that she was NOT brain dead. Just more proof that non-professionals shouldn't be allowed to have any say in matters like this - since she had no brain she couldn't be said to be alive. >In the case of the lady in Florida--she had NEVER >filled out a "right to die" document which was the reason that the case >ended up in court. No, it ended up in court because, as with most cases that depend on science, judges are particularly UNqualified to judge such cases. A judge who was also a neurologist (and who wasn't afraid of politics) would have dismissed case with prejudice. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire (1694 - 1778) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:59:25 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:nuvgj3534t9g30b862vhqlp55pjp7gph3q@4ax.com... >> 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? > >I personally thought it was merciful when we were able to do it to my dad. >Why keep a husk alive? Merciful to the family. Your father wasn't suffering. (I'm not being heartless, Robyn - I signed a DNR for my wife, so I know how difficult the decision is.) -- Al at Webdingers dot com "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would fully suffice." - Albert Einstein Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fha64v$o1k$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <5prc38Frdpb7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> 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? >>> Each case is different. In my case, I have signed documents that will make >>> it legal for doctors to pull the plug on any machines that are keeping me >>> alive. >>> >>> Perhaps some people want to be kept alive. In those cases, a court order >>> would be needed if the relatives can not afford to pay the hospital bills. >>> >>> >> I have no idea about laws concerning that in the US. In Germany, someone >> who is certified brain dead IS dead. Heart beats on its own, that has >> not much to do with brain function. >> >> Note, that IF such a patient is still breathing on his own, that >> requires brain function (though lower part of the brain) and counts >> against brain dead. Such a patient is NOT legally dead. >> >> (To test this is required within the procedure to establish brain death. >> There is more. I'd have to look it up. Two independent doctors have to >> fulfill the protocol two times 12 hours apart, IIRC.) >> >> >> Once brain death is established, the patient is legally dead. >> >> That's the way it is here. >> >> >> Tokay > > The laws appear to be different in various states. There was a famous case > in Florida. A lady that I believe was brain dead had family members that > were wanting to keep her alive and a husband that wanted the machines that > were keeping her alive to be unhooked. The husband went to court and won > the court case. The machines were unhooked and the lady died. The family > claimed that she was NOT brain dead. That case was the reason that > millions of people in American contacted their lawyers and signed "right > to die" documents. In Califoria, those forms are now called "Advance > Health Care Directive". In the case of the lady in Florida--she had NEVER > filled out a "right to die" document which was the reason that the case > ended up in court. > Jason > > Like I said. Around here, if the brain the brain is dead, the person is dead. And that's not a matter of opinion. You test brain functions. If there are none (tested repeatedly by two independent doctors), the patient IS dead. Maybe the heart still beats. But the heart can beat on its own. It doesn't need the brain. (Then follows the stuff that comes after a patient has been declared dead... Awful, to say the least. But necessary. You actually have to ask the relatives whether or not the patient had any intend to donate his organs. And you can't do that in three weeks time. You have to ask them NOW. I hated that. But I did it.) Tokay -- "The Web isn't better than sex, but sliced bread is in serious trouble." Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5prc1nFshbo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > I believe that it is mercy killing but could easily understand why many > people believe that unhooking machines that are keeping a person alive is > not mercy killing. > > Define "alive". Tokay -- "The Web isn't better than sex, but sliced bread is in serious trouble." Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:an2ij31vlrvqj9g5c8js2ks6ohfmrj174v@4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:59:25 -0500, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>news:nuvgj3534t9g30b862vhqlp55pjp7gph3q@4ax.com... >>> 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? >> >>I personally thought it was merciful when we were able to do it to my dad. >>Why keep a husk alive? > > Merciful to the family. Your father wasn't suffering. (I'm not being > heartless, Robyn - I signed a DNR for my wife, so I know how difficult > the decision is.) Yeah, I definitely see your point. And believe me, this wasn't a hard decision. There was no other option. I personally have NO problem pulling the plug. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:19:13 -0500, Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote: >In article <Jason-2110072132390001@67-150-174- >97.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason said... > >> Christians donate millions of dollars per year to feed >> Children in Africa and in various other countries. > >It's one dropper of aid sprinkled into into a sea of >need. > >As I've said before: If just one percent of Christians >acted with just one percent of the charity that people >like you attribute to them, there would be little >starvation or homelessness, little desperation or >want, anywhere on earth. > >But it isn't so. For every penny Christians donate, >they spend millions of dollars on gas-sucking SUVs, >designer wardrobes, spacious homes and super supreme >pizzas with four times the meat on top. Then they try >to buy their way into heaven by tossing the pizza >crumbs into the collection plate. ;-) > >(Okay okay, but what would Usenet be without >hyperbole?) > >In Christianity, a minority act nobly, but the >majority take credit for the generosity. /cue "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zepplin Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:09:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:56:36 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:43:16 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:11:10 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <5p0qj1Fo5dddU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> BTW, there was nothing to stop him from divorcing Terry. >>> >>>>He did not want to do that. Was he a Catholic? I seem to recall reading >>>>that Catholics don't believe in divorce. >>> >>>They call it "annulment". Aside from alimony, child support and >>>turning any children they had into bastards, it's the same thing, if a >>>lot less honest. >> >>Honesty isn't RCC policy. > >Or Christian policy. Just look at Jason, claiming to be a sane adult. Certainly, however the focus was on annulments. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:21:47 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:4s71j3tan97r0ca1ghrnjtm2hcij6s736h@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:10:43 -0500, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:2doui3lgc0aba28k52qp9umuq6uhc4hfls@4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:38:13 -0500, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>>snip >>>>>> I did not mean that every doctor does mercy killings every day. My >>>>>> point >>>>>> was that many different doctors conduct mercy killings every day. >>>>> >>>>>Cite? >>>> >>>> Jason-proof. http://tinyurl.com/24bq6o Over 1.5 MILLION hits, so it >>>> must be so. >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/ytve2s is also interesting. >>> >>>Are you fucking kidding me? THIS is his proof? >> >> That's what he considers enough proof to justify killing millions of >> innocent civilians - if he puts the term in question into Google, and >> he gets a lot of hits, his assertion must be true. Would Google lie? > >Gah, what a jackass It isn't that evolved. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:27:00 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <MPG.219bee4e977e1c5998a2d4@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-0711071218260001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com says... >> > In article <5pe02lFqsumtU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> > > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > news:Jason-0611071918480001@66.53.220.228... >> > > > In article <jc62j35r2l218rb27tooj038aq3ukium69@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:57:25 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >In article <5pbareFqkdqsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >> > > >> >> news:2doui3lgc0aba28k52qp9umuq6uhc4hfls@4ax.com... >> > > >> >> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:38:13 -0500, "Robibnikoff" >> > > >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>snip >> > > >> >> >>> I did not mean that every doctor does mercy killings every day. >> > > > My point >> > > >> >> >>> was that many different doctors conduct mercy killings >every day. >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>Cite? >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Jason-proof. http://tinyurl.com/24bq6o Over 1.5 MILLION >hits, so >> > > >> >> > it >> > > >> >> > must be so. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/ytve2s is also interesting. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> Are you fucking kidding me? THIS is his proof? >> > > >> > >> > > >> >If you choose to believe that no doctors ever perform mercy >> > > > killings--so be it. >> > > >> >> > > >> You can't tell the difference between "there's at least one mercy >> > > >> killing performed a day" and "no mercy killings are ever performed"? >> > > > >> > > > Mercy killings are performed every day in America. I don't know how many >> > > > are performed each day. >> > > >> > > Then why did you assert that "many different doctors perform mercy >killings >> > > every day"? >> > >> > Because I believe that statement. >> > >> Just like your belief in the old man in the sky, believing it does not >> make it so. I believe in facts, not feelings. >> >> Jim > >Mercy killing is legal in one state. Mercy killing is legal in various >countries. Therefore, many different doctors perform mercy killings every >day. Typical merciless christian. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:42:02 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (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. Make sure you sprinkle yourself with pixie dust and set course for the second star towards mourning [deliberate spelling]. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:20:29 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:54:04 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>Christians are so humble that laws and Constitutions they've sworn to >>defend and uphold do not apply to them. > >The Christian oath of office, if you can read between the lines, is "I >swear before almighty God to uphold those parts of the Constitution >that, in MY SOLE belief, do not go against anything I might think God >might not want." You forgot pandering. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:22:11 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:27:56 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:38:23 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris >>><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>>>> >>>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 >>>>can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. >>>> >>>>Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be >>>>collected.... rather tedious process.... >>> >>>None of which Iran is even working toward today. >>> >>>But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that >>>they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone >>>than that Moslems kill anyone. >>> >>>(And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...) >> >>embrace the lady with the strap-on dildo..... > >Like he's been embracing the man with the strap-on dildo all his life. The man was using his head..... Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:55:58 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:19:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:05:11 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: > >>>What about the religious nut case that is the president of the US, >>>Jason, who HAS THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons all ready to be fired NOW? > >>Shrub's in the clear, according to Jason, because he's of the same >>superstition. :\ > >Ventriloquist's dummies are superstitious? Yes. They're an extension of the puppeteer. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:10:46 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:05:43 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:36:19 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:42:51 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris >>><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Al Klein wrote: >>> >>>>> I think there are still 3 intelligent Christians alive. Maybe 4. >>> >>>>Ken Miller comes to mind. He claims to be a christian. How he does it, I >>>>don't know. But he claims it. Any others? >>> >>>My wife. My sister-in-law. My mother-in-law. Probably one priest I >>>know. >>> >>>My wife, sister-in-law and mother-in-law are Christians. That's about >>>the end of their religious involvement. The priest amazes me not >>>because he's intelligent, but because he's a priest. He's too >>>intelligent to fall for the nonsense. >> >>Yes, but such could be the easiest vehicle for him to assist others. > >Which he does very well - he works with troubled youth. Kudos to the gentleman. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:22:20 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: >stoney wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:55:02 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: >> >> [piggybacking] >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <hlchv4-e37.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [snips] >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:50:25 -0800, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, being a good, ethical person, I would never wish the horrors of >>>>>>> heaven on you, even an imaginary one I don't, as an atheist, ascribe to. >>>>>> Would you prefer to spend eternity in heaven or in hell? My choice would >>>>>> be heaven--what is your choice? >>>>> My choice would be to be worm food. >>>>> >>>>> However, if it were a choice between heaven and hell, I'd have to choose >>>>> hell. You see, both are about equivalent in terms of the suffering, but >>>>> at least in hell I wouldn't have to put up with that evil bastard god of >>>>> yours, and I could be where I was with a degree of self respect - which >>>>> would be the only thing I'd have left. >>>> Instead of having to put up with God--you will have to put up with Satan. >> >> Dang you're brainless. One doesn't have to put up with imaginary >> characters. Unfortunately, we do have to put up with mindless >> droolers prattling about them. >> >> [] >Were you talking to me? No. Jason. I indicated that via the 'piggybacking' letter string. Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. No, they don't. They look at the CONTEXT to see which would be the best usage. But even here "put to death" doesn't mean "put to death only if found guilty via a jury of his/her peers." It says "though shall not put to death/murder." VERY clear to anyone with at least one working brain cell. Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 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? That's actually not killing but simply allowing the person to dia a natural death. Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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: >>> >>>> 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." That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible act that the law does and does not cover. It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again? 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.