en(un)lightened
Nobody said anything about embracing it, Liam; as a necessity (as you say), yes-the fact it is not as "rare" as we would like it to be is often beyond our control.Originally posted by Lamsey@12 August 2003 - 11:11
I too am against all killing.
Just because it is (in a few very rare cases) a necessity, doesn't mean we have to embrace it.
As re: your Depots:
Watch for the telltale color red, particularly with soot stains; the sight of bricks is another dead giveaway.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
re-member
BT Rep: +1
When I say I am against all killing, then I do mean ALL killing. I do not differentiate, when I make such a statement. All life has a right to life. If you feel the need to kill, then go ahead. I would stongly advise you against such thoughts.Originally posted by nigel123@3 August 2003 - 11:42
I am against all killing.
If someone wants to kill me or my family, how could I stop them? By killing them before they had the chance? I am quite sure that such a person is not going to send me an e-mail, in advance, of his/hers intent.
If someone did murder one of my children, what would I gain by revenge? It would not return my loved one. It would only consolidate the misery.
Finally, I feel your attack on what I believe in is mainly to justify your views. I could be wrong of course.....
en(un)lightened
My attack?Originally posted by nigel123@12 August 2003 - 12:33
Finally, I feel your attack on what I believe in is mainly to justify your views. I could be wrong of course.....
What attack?
If I disagree, and point out what I believe to be the absurdity of your stance, and seek to demonstrate my perception of your absurdity by being commensurately absurd, this constitutes an attack?
Would that all attacks were so mild, Nigel.
Not only 'could you be wrong', Nigel, you are wrong; how have I offended so greatly as to warrant leap-frogging over such words as "difference of opinion", or "disagree", among many others?
Why is the first inclination to elicit any available pity from the gallery be claiming to have been ATTACKED?
As my colleague JPaul would say, "it does you no credit" to react in such fashion; I've seen your stuff, and you usually do much better.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
re-member
BT Rep: +1
My attack?Originally posted by j2k4+12 August 2003 - 20:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 August 2003 - 20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@12 August 2003 - 12:33
Finally, I feel your attack on what I believe in is mainly to justify your views. I could be wrong of course.....
What attack?
If I disagree, and point out what I believe to be the absurdity of your stance, and seek to demonstrate my perception of your absurdity by being commensurately absurd, this constitutes an attack?
Would that all attacks were so mild, Nigel.
Not only 'could you be wrong', Nigel, you are wrong; how have I offended so greatly as to warrant leap-frogging over such words as "difference of opinion", or "disagree", among many others?
Why is the first inclination to elicit any available pity from the gallery be claiming to have been ATTACKED?
As my colleague JPaul would say, "it does you no credit" to react in such fashion; I've seen your stuff, and you usually do much better.
Well we all have our off days you know and I was not looking for any credit. You picked on one word (attack) and become blind for the rest. I feel that that you feel personally attacked for your patriotisme. You do indeed do your best to clarify your position. More often than not there then appears a weak spot in your attempts to clarify, that is often used against you. I think that is what clocker meant when he said give it up. I had to agree with him. Not because I disagreed with you.
In this world there will always be individuals or groups with different ideas. If you have read more of my posts then you will have realized that I follow the boedhhist way of thinking although I would not call myself a boedhhist. The idea of having respect for all creatures right to live, a boedhhist philosophy, I reached independently. I love life and all life forms and defend their right to existence. Although some may believe me to be naive in my thoughts, beliefs etc. I am not ashamed of then.
Considering who is running (ruining?) the U.S.A. at this point and time, I'd do it gladly. But first I'd need a signed letter from God informing me I'll be going to heaven when I die, and a letter from the Federal Government of the U.S.A. pardoning me for what surely would be a "mercy-killing," somewhat akin to putting down an insane mutt.
en(un)lightened
Do you mean "Buddhist", alternatively, Nigel?Originally posted by nigel123@12 August 2003 - 13:44
In this world there will always be individuals or groups with different ideas. If you have read more of my posts then you will have realized that I follow the boedhhist way of thinking although I would not call myself a boedhhist. The idea of having respect for all creatures right to live, a boedhhist philosophy, I reached independently. I love life and all life forms and defend their right to existence. Although some may believe me to be naive in my thoughts, beliefs etc. I am not ashamed of then.
If so, I apologize for not being familiar with your spelling of it-
Yes, certainly, to each his own belief-system, but I, as an observer of your persecution, would render aid unbidden, and you would need a quality of geographic remoteness (an island, perhaps) to avoid my help.
What then? Would you refuse me?
An aggressor, a protector/defender, and a pacifist-how does this one shake out, Nigel?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
en(un)lightened
Bad odds, there.Originally posted by chalkmongoose@12 August 2003 - 14:06
Considering who is running (ruining?) the U.S.A. at this point and time, I'd do it gladly. But first I'd need a signed letter from God informing me I'll be going to heaven when I die, and a letter from the Federal Government of the U.S.A. pardoning me for what surely would be a "mercy-killing," somewhat akin to putting down an insane mutt.
I'd pass.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
re-member
BT Rep: +1
Oh right that was a slip of the pen... it's dutch for budhhist.
It is often a good idea to leave a spelling mistake in as it gives the 'opposition' something to grasp when he/she is in danger of 'losing' the argument.
I think that I will take clockers advice here and "Give it up." As I have in other threads explained why I am against violence and revenge.
It still does not change my position; I would not kill or assasinate anyone. Which is the topic of this thread.
en(un)lightened
Good enough, then.Originally posted by nigel123@13 August 2003 - 02:57
Oh right that was a slip of the pen... it's dutch for budhhist.
It is often a good idea to leave a spelling mistake in as it gives the 'opposition' something to grasp when he/she is in danger of 'losing' the argument.
I think that I will take clockers advice here and "Give it up." As I have in other threads explained why I am against violence and revenge.
It still does not change my position; I would not kill or assasinate anyone. Which is the topic of this thread.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks