63
   

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 05:43 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is that a true fact ?


Yes
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 05:54 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I would have to guess that suicide can't be forgiven because there is none to ask forgiveness
And you would be wrong...are you not from the West? The is fundamental Christian theology, and I believe that the Jews and Muslims are in agreement on this point.

Suicide is the one sin that will not be, can not be forgiven, when you reach your maker after death. It is a very special, very heinous, crime against God.


good thing there's no god
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 05:57 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Being from the West, I must very obviously be Christian, Muslim, or Jew, right hawkeye?
of course not, but you damn well better take the time to learn some of the major traditions and beliefs of your people.

Quote:
July 28, 2008
Majority of Americans Believe in God. A large majority of Americans (78%) say they believe in God and 15% say they don’t believe in God, but do believe in a higher power
http://www.gallup.com/video/109111/majority-americans-believe-god.aspx

Europeans dont believe in God anywhere near as much as Americans, but they tend to take care to know where they come from, they are going to know the history of suicide being not forgivable, they are going to know the basic tenets of Christianity. Canadians IDK, them people are strange...are you a Canadian?


knowing something and believing something are two vastly different things
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 06:25 am
@djjd62,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Being from the West, I must very obviously be Christian, Muslim, or Jew, right hawkeye?
of course not, but you damn well better take the time to learn some of the major traditions and beliefs of your people.

Quote:
July 28, 2008
Majority of Americans Believe in God. A large majority of Americans (78%) say they believe in God and 15% say they don’t believe in God, but do believe in a higher power
http://www.gallup.com/video/109111/majority-americans-believe-god.aspx

Europeans dont believe in God anywhere near as much as Americans, but they tend to take care to know where they come from, they are going to know the history of suicide being not forgivable, they are going to know the basic tenets of Christianity. Canadians IDK, them people are strange...are you a Canadian?
djjd62 wrote:
knowing something and believing something are two vastly different things
Authenticity




David
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 07:51 am
@Intrepid,
Well, I, for one, have no intention of answering your question.

If you want a suicide debate go ahead, start a thread. You're on your own as far as I am concerned right now.

Why on earth would you feel entitled to an answer on an issue that has been mentioned tangentially on a thread, however misbegotten, on whether people should be banned for "untoward" opinions?

Me? I am off to bed and then to the back of beyond for a week.

Good grief.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:04 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
In fact, the subjecct of this thread is not political rectitude, it is whether or not people should be banned for their opinions.

That is nonsensical. Of course people should be banned from A2K for their opinions if they go outside a certain, quite limited, political acceptability.....The only question is the limits. And who applies them. Hence PC-compliance.

This entire thread is nonsensical - except for a very few posts like this one. Of course the issue is PC-compliance. By now the "vulnerable" classes - persons to be protected by PC rules - have slowly been identified. They appear to include "suicidal teenagers", "colored people", "rape victims", "posthumus suicides" (um, what?!) and - who else, exactly?

Why not make a list of all the "vulnerable" groups, state they're protected by PC-rules enforced on this forum, and comments relating to them will be deleted or modified by moderators? It would save time, especially for the useless posters - defined as those who have nothing to contribute but will waste the time necessary to downgrade other posters' posts. There's at least 9 of those useless posters as per the page just linked - presumably all of them struggling for a PC-type "glory". Here's the definition:
Quote:
"............There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

Very Happy

djjd62
 
  2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:08 am
@High Seas,
i live my life (and my internet life even more so), by this exchange

`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.

`I don't much care where--' said Alice.

`Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

`--so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explanation.

`Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, `if you only walk long enough.'

Alice felt that this could not be denied, so she tried another question. `What sort of people live about here?'

`In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round, `lives a Hatter: and in that direction,' waving the other paw, `lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.

`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.

`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:09 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Well, I, for one, have no intention of answering your question.

If you want a suicide debate go ahead, start a thread. You're on your own as far as I am concerned right now.

Why on earth would you feel entitled to an answer on an issue that has been mentioned tangentially on a thread, however misbegotten, on whether people should be banned for "untoward" opinions?

Me? I am off to bed and then to the back of beyond for a week.

Good grief.


I must admit that I am somewhat confused. I never mentioned wanting a suicide debate and would never participate in one. I am sure that this must be a case of confusion on one of our parts. Doesn't matter which one and no need to continue.
Intrepid
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:10 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i live my life (and my internet life even more so), by this exchange

`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.

`I don't much care where--' said Alice.

`Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

`--so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explanation.

`Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, `if you only walk long enough.'

Alice felt that this could not be denied, so she tried another question. `What sort of people live about here?'

`In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round, `lives a Hatter: and in that direction,' waving the other paw, `lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.

`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.

`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'



Smile
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  -3  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:11 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

This thread is out of control....

Whose control? Btw, I'm the person who voted your post up. I don't know who are the 8 or 9 down votes for other posts earlier on the same page.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:15 am
@High Seas,
I have voted failures art up as well when I agree with him. Which is more often than it used to be. I don't, however, make it a habit of pointing out when I post up. Just as I don't when I post down.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  -2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:17 am
@djjd62,
As several posters already made it clear 3 or 4 pages back, cats are OK as long as they instantly disappear leaving behind only a <G> Very Happy
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  -1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 09:12 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

I would have to guess that suicide can't be forgiven because there is noone to ask forgiveness.

True, and I wonder what becomes of all those horribly depressed people who show up once but never come back in spite of encouragement expressed by A2K members - and mind you I never contribute to psychobabble threads but sometimes a genuine cry for help can't be mistaken for anything else: http://able2know.org/topic/163157-1
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:02 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
I must admit that I am somewhat confused. I never mentioned wanting a suicide debate and would never participate in one.
I am sure that this must be a case of confusion on one of our parts. Doesn't matter which one and no need to continue.
I do not recommend suicide for u, Richard.

In fact, I DEMAND that u restrain yourself from any suicides.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:05 am
@roger,
roger wrote:
I would have to guess that suicide can't be forgiven because there is noone to ask forgiveness.
If u run into any problems after u have commit suicide, I recommend that u yell for HELP!





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:33 am
What I can't understand is why evolutionists suddenly start milking the udder of compassion and human kindness over people who are susceptible to harming themselves at the sight of a few words on a screen. Such a susceptibility is surely a serious weakness from a Darwinian perspective and a candidate for weeding out.

That it is sympathised with, and with an implied recommendation that others should change their behaviour to take account of it, which places the susceptible person in a controlling position, is bound to encourage the behaviour and the bringing of it into fashion. Only if it becoming a popular strategy for getting one's own way, and the susceptibility might well arise from a habituation to getting one's own way in the first place and be the root cause of the tale of woe, can be shown to be of benefit to the species could justify an evolutionist taking such a position.

If an evolutionist cannot provide the justification for the benefits to the species of others adjusting their behaviour to take account of someone threatening to harm themselves, or being at risk of harming themselves, then he can hardly be said to be an evolutionist at all. His Christian depths are on display.

Then the obvious possibility arises that the asserted evolutionism has nothing to do with evolutionary principles and thus is likely to derive from subjective sources probably associated with attacking certain religious proscriptions which limit the capacity to satisfy the appetites which are not covered by legal prohibitions.

Another possibility is that he also seeks popularity (a bid to lead) amongst those who also have a subjective interest in undermining the proscriptions on the satisfactions of appetites not already prohibited by law and are eager to see some scientific justifications for doing so. Prof Dawkins being a case in point at the top of a hierarchy of lesser beings constructed, as with a pyramid, with the heaviest, largest and thickest stones at the bottom.

Which is a pretty pickle of the sort I take care not to get stuck in.

That the Pope could be wrong about anything is inconceivable to me. After 2,000 sodding years employing the best brains, with a vast cumulative archive and sequestered from the influence of the female sex, I simply cannot find it in myself to imagine that little ol' me knows better.

Perhaps I was influenced by Zelig remonstrating with Pope Pius XI on the balcony overlooking the densely packed Piazza San Pietro which Woody Allen made look so utterly ridiculous.

High Seas
 
  -2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:44 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

...... people who are susceptible to harming themselves at the sight of a few words on a screen. Such a susceptibility is surely a serious weakness from a Darwinian perspective and a candidate for weeding out.

Utter, unmitigated, and inexcusable nonsense. Even viewed from the most crassly pecuniary Darwinian perspective a college student has already cost an absolute minimum of $750,000 to bring up, educate, keep in good physical shape etc; it's rational for society as a whole to want to save that investment.
BillRM
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:54 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
Utter, unmitigated, and inexcusable nonsense. Even viewed from the most crassly pecuniary Darwinian perspective a college student has already cost an absolute minimum of $750,000 to bring up, educate, keep in good physical shape etc; it's rational for society as a whole to want to save that investment.


AGREE
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 11:05 am
@High Seas,
How is it rational? Millions are spent on racehorses and they shoot them if they don't work out in races.

Your rationality is entirely subjective. The $750,000 investment is only one out of 4 million similar investments in each age year and it is thus possible to rationally envisage it might, if flawed, more than counteract the benefits to society of at least one, and possibly a lot, of those others.

Your understanding of evolution is self-evidently inadequate for you to criticise mine.

0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  -1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 11:51 am
Hadn't logged in for 5 about months. Dropped in to see that it's mostly the same crap, mostly being argued about by the same pack of f@ckwits. Bye.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 11:02:52