Rat's Milk
-
I suspect that you are being purposly difficult so this will be my last comment in this dicussion Its my opinion that its not ok to smack women around. I can only speak of my own opinion therefore this is my personal view.
Ilíon wrote:
if it's merely a personal view, it seems that it must be OK, after all, to smack around one's woman
I disagree and suspect you are well aware thats not what I meant
Josh Gray wrote:
I suspect that you are being purposly difficult so this will be my last comment in this dicussion
Really? Why would you think that?
Josh Gray wrote:
Its my opinion that its not ok to smack women around. I can only speak of my own opinion therefore this is my personal view. Ilíon wrote: if it's merely a personal view, it seems that it must be OK, after all, to smack around one's woman I disagree and suspect you are well aware thats not what I meant
There you go again! First you say that it's merely your personal view that it isn't OK to smack around women ... and then you turn around and assert that it is objectively true that it isn't OK to smack around women. So, once again, which is it? And, if it's objectively true that one ought not smack around women, why is this so? On what objective grounds? How is it that we know this is onjectively true? How is it that we know that this is an obligation, rather than a preference?
-
I suspect that you are being purposly difficult so this will be my last comment in this dicussion Its my opinion that its not ok to smack women around. I can only speak of my own opinion therefore this is my personal view.
Ilíon wrote:
if it's merely a personal view, it seems that it must be OK, after all, to smack around one's woman
I disagree and suspect you are well aware thats not what I meant
That's pretty sad when even Ilion can win an argument with you. :laugh:
-
That's pretty sad when even Ilion can win an argument with you. :laugh:
-
Yeah, that was the wrong word. You would have to be up on his level to have an argument with him.
-
Yeah, that was the wrong word. You would have to be up on his level to have an argument with him.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
You would have to be up on his level to have an argument with him.
Yeah, well beyond my capabilities
But at least you know how to click the little 1 at the bottom of my post! :rolleyes:
-
But at least you know how to click the little 1 at the bottom of my post! :rolleyes:
-
Don't think this is a repost, but it wouldn't surprise me... Heather Mills, further off the deep end.[^] This nut thinks that we should all drink rat's milk, or dog milk. If it comes to that, I'd say screw the planet. She's a class A fruit-loop. Who in their right mind would blame Paul for smacking her around? Unless he knocked something loose to create the blathering retard we see today. If that's the case, I say string him up and put her down.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
So let's see:
Diego Moita wrote:
- some irrelevant top model talks about drinking rat's milk in some obscure newspaper.
Who's lately all over the news time and again about her bizar messages for all things Green. The news paper is irrelevant. I heard about this, searched for it and grabbed the first link. If you don't like that source, Google is free.
Diego Moita wrote:
- you conclude she is a "eco-nazi spokes person".
Well established from previously mentioned numerous news reports.
Diego Moita wrote:
- you think this is something worth attention, that should be announced for the whole world.
If you feel that's the case, feel free not to read it. And by all means, feel free not to reply.
Diego Moita wrote:
Judging by the shallowness and irrelevance of your original post
Show me a SoapBox post less shallow and more relevant. You're included in the moron pack for not having the ability to see the joke, and for thinking (despite the subject) that that was the important nugget of the post that deserved your rebuke.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Your average woman? No there isn't. Heather Mills? Sure.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Heather Mills? Sure.
No. There is never an excuse.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You really have to ask?
Of course.
oilFactotum wrote:
There is never any reason for 'smacking her around'.
Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion?
Ilíon wrote:
Of course
That's sad.
Ilíon wrote:
Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion?
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Of course
That's sad.
Ilíon wrote:
Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion?
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: Anyone in their right mind would blame him. . Ilíon: Why is that? . oilFactotum: You really have to ask? . Ilíon: Of course. . oilFactotum: That's sad.
Ah, so it's not about reason, after all, but rather emotion? Or sentimentality? Or squeemishness? Something a-rational, at any rate.
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: There is never any reason for 'smacking her around'. . Ilíon: Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion? . oilFactotum: You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period.
Ah, but I am very serious. "Moral grounds?" What in the hell is that? Where did that come from? What does that even mean? "Legal grounds?" Ah, I get it! The reason to not smack around one's spouse is because the fellow with the gun says not to. But, apparently, if the fellow with the gun says it's OK, then it is OK. Is that how it works? "Period." Period!? That sounds rather like you're attempting to turn this into some sort of a truth claim! That sounds as though you're asserting that one ought not smack around one's spouse regardless of what the fellow with the gun says about the matter. So, it seems we're right back where we started! Why is it the case that "Anyone in their right mind would blame him?"
oilFactotum wrote:
That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
Really? Is that what I'm doing? And is it really 'ludicrous?'
-
Ilíon wrote:
Of course
That's sad.
Ilíon wrote:
Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion?
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
oilFactotum wrote:
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
He's a fundie christian. They get to put their wives in their places and stone disobedient daughters. :sigh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
He's a fundie christian. They get to put their wives in their places and stone disobedient daughters. :sigh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Of course
That's sad.
Ilíon wrote:
Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion?
You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period. That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
oilFactotum wrote:
That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous
But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?
Ian
-
oilFactotum wrote:
That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous
But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?
That, and navigating someone who denies that there even is such a thing as objective morality into asserting that there is such a thing as objective morality, after all. Of course, now we must wonder about the grounding of this objective morality.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: Anyone in their right mind would blame him. . Ilíon: Why is that? . oilFactotum: You really have to ask? . Ilíon: Of course. . oilFactotum: That's sad.
Ah, so it's not about reason, after all, but rather emotion? Or sentimentality? Or squeemishness? Something a-rational, at any rate.
oilFactotum wrote:
oilFactotum: There is never any reason for 'smacking her around'. . Ilíon: Really? You know this how? On what grounds do you assert this opinion? On what grounds do you assert -- because, after all, this is what you are doing -- that anyone else (i.e. everyone else) ought to agree with your opinion and conduct themselves in accord with that opinion? . oilFactotum: You can't be serious. I assert it on moral and legal grounds - you don't beat your spouse. Period.
Ah, but I am very serious. "Moral grounds?" What in the hell is that? Where did that come from? What does that even mean? "Legal grounds?" Ah, I get it! The reason to not smack around one's spouse is because the fellow with the gun says not to. But, apparently, if the fellow with the gun says it's OK, then it is OK. Is that how it works? "Period." Period!? That sounds rather like you're attempting to turn this into some sort of a truth claim! That sounds as though you're asserting that one ought not smack around one's spouse regardless of what the fellow with the gun says about the matter. So, it seems we're right back where we started! Why is it the case that "Anyone in their right mind would blame him?"
oilFactotum wrote:
That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
Really? Is that what I'm doing? And is it really 'ludicrous?'
Ilíon wrote:
Ah, so it's not about reason
Sure it is. You've just chosen to take statements out of context and deliberately misunderstand.
Ilíon wrote:
That sounds as though you're asserting that one ought not smack around one's spouse regardless of what the fellow with the gun says about the matter.
That's absolutely right. One shouldn't. Do you believe otherwise?
Ilíon wrote:
So, it seems we're right back where we started!
Well, no we aren't - you are. You seem to believe that it is perfectly O.K. to 'smack her around'. I don't (and neither does American society) and you may very well end up in jail for exercising your personal belief.
Ilíon wrote:
Really? Is that what I'm doing?
Are you saying you are not? If you don't believe that it is O.K. to beat your spouse - say so. And also explain what it is you are so worked up about.
Ilíon wrote:
And is it really 'ludicrous?'
Indeed. Arguing that beating one's spouse is acceptable is ludicrous. -- modified at 20:05 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
-
BoneSoft wrote:
You're included in the moron pack for not having the ability to see ...
Come now! You're hardly one to calling others morons for their inability to follow something.
You're gonna have to come up with an example or I'm uh-hmm... not gonna be able to follow you on this.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous
But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?
Ian
I see no reason to rehash why it is wrong to beat your spouse and I am equally uninterested in rehashing why it is wrong to murder.
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?
That, and navigating someone who denies that there even is such a thing as objective morality into asserting that there is such a thing as objective morality, after all. Of course, now we must wonder about the grounding of this objective morality.
Ilíon wrote:
who denies that there even is such a thing as objective morality
Who would that be?