It looks like Arafat was murdered by the Israelis after all. No surprise there.

@Advocate,

**** off you racist piece of ****. This is my thread, if you want to ignore me go and do it elsewhere.

Don't worry about me, I've got loads of chums on A2K.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

First, I post wherever I wish. Taking direction from a little **** like yourself will never happen.

BTW, how does my talking about documented black racism make me a racist? When you post in this forum, you should make at least a little sense.

You exude stench. Thus, I doubt that you have any chums here.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

The fact that Izzy attaches the crime or the hate to the messenger is the oldest trick in the book. And there are countless fools that suck his garbage up.

I am not one of them.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I'm not in least uncomfortable in the context of our exchange izzy. While I hardly profess to be a paragon of morality, there is nothing fundamentally immoral about my views, and, you know what? I don't think there is anything fundamentally immoral about yours.

I call others fools who I believe to be fools.

BTW, I called you an asshole. That's different from a simple fool.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

This is my thread,

and if you don't wanna sniff my junk, go elsewhere.

Quote:

I've got loads of chums on A2K.

That's your warm nose and tongue, Iz.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I've met many blacks in and out of the US, and have never found one of questionable character.

In that case you haven't met too many. There are questionables in every ethnic and racial group and religious and non-religious group. You can keep trying to play your ultra-liberal card to appease some sacks of ****; but, at the end of the day, if you say you've never met a black person of questionable character, then you are either a full out liar or your idea of having 'met' means you saw them on some game show or at a distance and did not truly interact with more than a couple of handfuls at most, which sure as hell ain't quackified as 'many'.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Killing the poor through neglect is immoral.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Killing the poor through neglect is immoral.

In Catholic theology. Let's not proselytize.

Being poor can be the product of being under-educated possibly, a product of slothfulness possibly, or bad circumstances possibly, or bad karma possibly, or a desire of burying one's adversay in one's own muck and mire possibly?

Children are innocent though, so letting them die can be argued to be immoral. So, since the parents might not be "innocent" for their poverty, an argument can be made to have the state oversee the raising of children, even though parents may still live with children. A conundrum. The workhouse was once an option, a la Charles Dickens.

But, in a society that subscribes to accounting procedures, an argument might be ethical to make children indentured for the charity their parents receive for raising children? A disencentive for the poor to keep having children. Or, possibly a way for the poor to take over the state by eventually becoming the state indentured workers?

But, again, let's not proselytize Catholic beliefs. You are living in a Protestant country, with a grand tradition of having the poor suffer in squallor, with all the accountrements of child waifs.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

It's immoral, end of, but you've never worried about morality, always siding with the jackboot, the oppressor over the oppressed.

You lost all credibility long ago.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

But, again, let's not proselytize Catholic beliefs. You are living in a Protestant country, with a grand tradition of having the poor suffer in squallor, with all the accountrements of child waifs.

You really should read the Essex Pauper Letters, Foofie - a treasure trove to understand the pauper laws and the Catholic-Reformed ethics of the Church of England regarding the poor.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Killing the poor through neglect is immoral.

That's an interesting comment.

It sounds matter of fact, but who is responsible for the poor to such a degree that their neglect might kill them?

Certainly you don't think I'm personally responsible for "the poor."

What have I ever proposed in this forum that would lead you to believe that I think society should neglect people who are in immediate danger of dying (with the exception of violent criminals)?

You throw around grand condemnations with the ease of a true Liberal.

Since you opened the door, what are you personally doing about the poor?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't believe in allowing people to die from preventable diseases by denying them medical treatment. A position you've consistently argued against, on the grounds of sustainability and cost.

I've got no idea what Liberals think, I'm not a Liberal, I've never voted Liberal and never will.

I think there's a limit beneath which none should sink in terms of food, shelter, healthcare and energy, which should be funded by progressive taxation.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

What am I personally doing? I did my time working in social security, and staring up life's arsehole in the process.

The main thing I do for the poor is vote Labour.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's immoral, end of, but you've never worried about morality, always siding with the jackboot, the oppressor over the oppressed.

You lost all credibility long ago.

You really don't know me, so your accusations are just part of your dramatice flair for rhetoric, in my opinion.

While this is an international forum, as I've been told, you do seem to proselytize, in my opinion, a form of morality that might not be adhered to by all demographics in the U.S. So, your delivery of rhetoric does seem to presuppose that anyone with any thinking ability must agree with you. Your error might be that your position on morality is not universal, as you seem to suggest. Not everyone deserves concern; perhaps all children, but not all adults, in my opinion.

So, if you are not Catholic, per se, you do appear to me to be taking a very Catholic view of who deserves charity, and that one would be committing a sin of ommision to ignore any needs of the poor.

The U.S. was not built on such concern. Perhaps, you like this forum, since it allows you to spread your "gospel" far and wide. Could you be the incarnation of St. Paul? For now, I'll just think of you as Saint Izzy. After your demise, we need to have you perform three miracles from the hereafter, so you can be canonized. What would you like to be the patron saint of? I know. The patron saint of "endless arguing." Boys and girls in parochial school can wear medals of Saint Izzy to remind them that endless arguing is a way not to lose a debate. And, good Catholics on school debating teams can ask Saint Izzy for Intercession before they attempt to enter a debate.

I think you should develop your own prayer of Intercession, so after your canonization, it can be adopted world-wide by all school debaters that are good Catholics.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

Killing the poor through neglect is immoral.

That's an interesting comment.

It sounds matter of fact, but who is responsible for the poor to such a degree that their neglect might kill them?

Certainly you don't think I'm personally responsible for "the poor."

What have I ever proposed in this forum that would lead you to believe that I think society should neglect people who are in immediate danger of dying (with the exception of violent criminals)?

You throw around grand condemnations with the ease of a true Liberal.

Since you opened the door, what are you personally doing about the poor?

FYI, it is also Catholic doctrine to not ignore the poor. That would be a sin of omission.

While it is also a liberal perspective, the Catholic perspective is the same, but with the added emphasis of The Church's doctrine. So, unless one knows the faith of any poster, one might be getting Catholic proselytizing incognito?

To me what is funny is, if someone who is Jewish took this perpective someone would likely mutter to himself, "Commie, Pinko, Jew." Notice how non-Jews (aka, Gentiles) might not see their own double standards. But, not Protestants mostly, since they seem to see the world more realistically, in my opinion.

Also, to answer your question, as to who is reponsible for the poor, my answer is the poor are responsible for their own predicament, since there is no slavery in the U.S. anymore, and aside from those that have medical conditions, one can work and perhaps survive with sharing a cost of living with someone else. Living the life of rugged individualism, in one's own house, etc., was never promised to anyone coming to these shores. It really is so simple when one gets off of a high horse, so to speak.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

FYI, it is also Catholic doctrine to not ignore the poor. That would be a sin of omission.

You've written that a couple of times now, on various threads.

I'd thought that the evangelical counsels ("consilia evangelica", Mt 19,16) were followed by all Christian churches.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
FYI, it is also Catholic doctrine to not ignore the poor. That would be a sin of omission.

You've written that a couple of times now, on various threads.

I'd thought that the evangelical counsels ("consilia evangelica", Mt 19,16) were followed by all Christian churches.

Thank goodness you're keeping an eye on me. Who knows what I'd be up to without someone keeping tabs on what I say (not that it means anything to anyone).

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I don't believe in allowing people to die from preventable diseases by denying them medical treatment. A position you've consistently argued against, on the grounds of sustainability and cost.

I've got no idea what Liberals think, I'm not a Liberal, I've never voted Liberal and never will.

I think there's a limit beneath which none should sink in terms of food, shelter, healthcare and energy, which should be funded by progressive taxation.

Bravo! As a citizen of the UK, you can feel proud of your position; however, when you promulgate it on a forum with people from all forms of government, it might fall on deaf ears, since there is no universal morality, except in religion, and we don't want to believe this forum is used for proselytizing that.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Thank goodness you're keeping an eye on me.

This is (an international, as you say) forum, I'm on this thread.

Why do you think that I'm "keeping an eye" on you when I respond to your contributions here?
What do you think, is the purpose of a thread on a forum kije this= Why is it called "Start a discussion"?
Do you think "Read a discussion" means, I'm not allowed to answer here?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Thank goodness you're keeping an eye on me.

This is (an international, as you say) forum, I'm on this thread.

Why do you think that I'm "keeping an eye" on you when I respond to your contributions here?
What do you think, is the purpose of a thread on a forum kije this= Why is it called "Start a discussion"?
Do you think "Read a discussion" means, I'm not allowed to answer here?

Thank you for believing I do "think"; however, that could be just largesse on your part. Or, if I do "think," it might be somewhat different than your thinking, since my thinking reflects all that I experienced from my little bird's nest in the U.S. Anyway, I never claimed to be well tolerated for mass consumption. Many a person can be allergic to even a small amount of Foofie.

I think my curiosity was piqued when you mentioned that I stated something a few times before on the forum. So, it seemed odd, in my opinion, that you could point that out. However, you can comment/answer/pontificate (as others might)/argue all that you want. However, as an international forum, it is interesting that most posters are North American? Meaning that so few Brits, or other English speaking people are on the forum? Plus, with so many Germans today that have a command of the English language, you seem to be the one German national that frequents this forum? Odd? Or, are most German nationals as reclusive as some tropical birds?

1 Reply

It looks like Arafat was murdered by the Israelis after all. No surprise there.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know