Rat's Milk
-
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?
-
Let her rant, it makes Paul look better. He's always been a nice guy. Elaine :rose:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
Let her rant, it makes Paul look better
That's certainly the truth. Actually, I don't care if she continues, but I couldn't believe somebody could in all sincerity suggest we drink rat milk to save the planet from cow farts. Makes me wonder if she's bothered to count her own during any give day. :laugh:
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
oilFactotum wrote:
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.
No doubt. I wonder why that is? Also, I wonder what does "wrong" mean? It can be so difficult to know these things when dealing with your sort.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Heather Mills? Sure.
No. There is never an excuse.
All those void of humor, please reply to this thread about domestic abuse. Don't mind the actual topic of drinking rat's milk to save the world from cow farts. Please oh please continue to cry about something I was joking about. I cannot stress this enough, please stop concentrating on the actual topic and cry to me about the dangers of hitting women. Because since I joked about it, I obviously condone violence against women. To recap, please please please keep babbling on about the little side joke, not the actual topic. Pretty please with sugar on top!
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Who in their right mind would blame Paul for smacking her around?
Yeah, if your woman has an opinion you dont like you're fully justified in smacking her around :rolleyes:
I don't belive Macca ever "smacked her around" - Heather Mills is so full off SHoneT she probably still believes in Father Christmas.
"On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't. "I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it." -Tina Farrell, a 23 year old thicky from Levenshulme, Manchester.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
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.
No doubt. I wonder why that is? Also, I wonder what does "wrong" mean? It can be so difficult to know these things when dealing with your sort.
Ilíon wrote:
I wonder what does "wrong" mean?
Wonder all you like. If your grasp of the English language is that limited, I can't help you.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
He's a fundie christian. They get to put their wives in their places and stone disobedient daughters. :sigh:
And you're jealous, aren't you?
-
All those void of humor, please reply to this thread about domestic abuse. Don't mind the actual topic of drinking rat's milk to save the world from cow farts. Please oh please continue to cry about something I was joking about. I cannot stress this enough, please stop concentrating on the actual topic and cry to me about the dangers of hitting women. Because since I joked about it, I obviously condone violence against women. To recap, please please please keep babbling on about the little side joke, not the actual topic. Pretty please with sugar on top!
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Let her rant, it makes Paul look better. He's always been a nice guy. Elaine :rose:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Yay for Macca! I honestly don't know what the former-missus-macca is thinking: Here we have an idol of the 20th Century, all-round nice guy AND BEATLE and she thinks going to the press, asking for sympathy is going to work while all-the-while she intentionally slams the guy for no good reason. Madness.
"On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't. "I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it." -Tina Farrell, a 23 year old thicky from Levenshulme, Manchester.
-
To many people such jokes are quite offensive, make they at your own peril. I dont think anybody takes whats her name seriously or gives a rats arse (or a rats nipple for that matter) where she gets her milk.
Josh Gray wrote:
To many people such jokes are quite offensive
That's a no-shiter.
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think anybody takes whats her name seriously or gives a rats arse (or a rats nipple for that matter) where she gets her milk.
I don't either, but it bugs me that the people with the biggest microphones just happen to be the most off their rockers. And if she wants to milk rats all day, I have no issue. But suggesting everybody else do it to save the earth is another matter, especially when she made that speech with her SUV running in the background.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
To many people such jokes are quite offensive
That's a no-shiter.
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think anybody takes whats her name seriously or gives a rats arse (or a rats nipple for that matter) where she gets her milk.
I don't either, but it bugs me that the people with the biggest microphones just happen to be the most off their rockers. And if she wants to milk rats all day, I have no issue. But suggesting everybody else do it to save the earth is another matter, especially when she made that speech with her SUV running in the background.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't either, but it bugs me that the people with the biggest microphones just happen to be the most off their rockers. And if she wants to milk rats all day, I have no issue. But suggesting everybody else do it to save the earth is another matter, especially when she made that speech with her SUV running in the background.
We constanly see entertainers people (sports stars, musicians, actors etc) use their profile to push their own political message. Bono cones to mind as does the guys who did the "black power" thing on the podium at the olymipcs years ago. The best we can do is ignore them.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't either, but it bugs me that the people with the biggest microphones just happen to be the most off their rockers. And if she wants to milk rats all day, I have no issue. But suggesting everybody else do it to save the earth is another matter, especially when she made that speech with her SUV running in the background.
We constanly see entertainers people (sports stars, musicians, actors etc) use their profile to push their own political message. Bono cones to mind as does the guys who did the "black power" thing on the podium at the olymipcs years ago. The best we can do is ignore them.
Yeah, I just wish there was more we could do. At least Bono isn't crazy. And he's open to other's opinions. And he seems to be for a decent cause. But he's definitely an exception to the rule.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.