The Disrespect For Life

Quote:

If I say, "they were not permitted to try medicine A," it is just not the same as saying, "medicine A would have worked."

Saying "they killed her because the didn't allow medicine A" is not the same thing as saying "they were not permitted to try medicine A" but it does sound a lot like "medicine A would have worked."

0 Replies

I will not debate 5 topics with you simultaneously. You misquoted me and I insist on finishing this debate before allowing myself to be sidetracked. I never, in any post, claimed that she could have been saved by oral feeding, only that

(a) She could have been saved by food
(b) People who wished to put food in her mouth were stopped.

I never, in any post asserted that she didn't need a feeding tube, for the simple reason that I have no idea how she would have fared with an oral feeding. The issue is perfectly simple. Either find a post in which I state that food in her mouth would be sufficient to save her, or admit that you misquoted me. You say that I said that food in her mouth would be enough to save her. Fine. Find one example of me ACTUALLY saying it.

0 Replies

and how was she to receive that food? Suppository?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

and how was she to receive that food? Suppository?

Feeding tube.

1. I stated correctly that food would keep her alive.
2. I stated correctly that people who wished to place food in her mouth
were stopped.

I never, ever stated that placing food in her mouth would have saved her, which is what he alleges he said. The matter is perfectly simple. He alleges I said something. He can resolve the matter instantly by finding a post where I said it.

0 Replies

So, unless the people who were not allowed to enter with food were medical techs, licensed and able to administer a feeding tube, then your earlier points don't make much sense at all, do they?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, unless the people who were not allowed to enter with food were medical techs, licensed and able to administer a feeding tube, then your earlier points don't make much sense at all, do they?

Cycloptichorn

When he admits that he misquoted me, I may deign to discuss other aspects of the issue, or I may not. The point is that if he quoted me correctly, he can show it effortlessly by finding a post where I say it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, unless the people who were not allowed to enter with food were medical techs, licensed and able to administer a feeding tube, then your earlier points don't make much sense at all, do they?

Cycloptichorn

When he admits that he misquoted me, I may deign to discuss other aspects of the issue, or I may not. The point is that if he quoted me correctly, he can show it effortlessly by finding a post where I say it.

Ah. King Brandon may deign to discuss it with us poor peons....

Your intent was clear, Brandon. You like to play this "tell me where I said x" game. But we all know what you were saying.

Show us where you stated you do not believe that she could eat via her mouth....

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, unless the people who were not allowed to enter with food were medical techs, licensed and able to administer a feeding tube, then your earlier points don't make much sense at all, do they?

Cycloptichorn

When he admits that he misquoted me, I may deign to discuss other aspects of the issue, or I may not. The point is that if he quoted me correctly, he can show it effortlessly by finding a post where I say it.

Ah. King Brandon may deign to discuss it with us poor peons....

Your intent was clear, Brandon. You like to play this "tell me where I said x" game. But we all know what you were saying.

Show us where you stated you do not believe that she could eat via her mouth....

The problem with arguing with you people is that you are literally dishonest. You know perfectly well that if you claim I said something, in this case that she could have survived had food been put in her mouth:

parados wrote:

...you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

and I challenge you to demonstrate that I said it, you must either show where I said it or withdraw the attribution. If I accuse you of claiming to be a Satan worshipper and you tell me to show where you claimed it, I must show the quotation or withdraw the attribution. You are not required to show a link in which you claimed not to be a Satan worshipper.

I repeat - find one post where I said it. If you are right, that should not be hard.

0 Replies

My reply to Brandon on this issue is.....

"The problem with arguing with you people(Brandon) is that you are literally dishonest."

Items you continue to fail in addressing -

Quote:

Again you refuse to give me a possible alternative meaning for your statements.

Quote:

Quote:

I never, ever stated in any post that she could have been kept alive by being given food orally. It might have worked. It might not have. I have no idea. I only state in these quotes that no one was permitted to try.

Quote:

Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Quote:

As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.

As you have just stated, you don't know whether food in her mouth would save her, yet you still referred to it as a deliberate act to cause her death to not allow food put in her mouth. Both statements of yours can not be true. Calling it a deliberate act to cause her death by preventing people from putting food in her mouth can only mean that putting food in her mouth would have prevented her death. There is no other explanation for your statement.

Please explain my failure in logic in this analogy to your argument.

Quote:

Saying "they killed her because the didn't allow medicine A" is not the same thing as saying "they were not permitted to try medicine A" but it does sound a lot like "medicine A would have worked."

In light of my analogy... How can someone DELIBERATLY cause her death by refusing to allow food be put in her mouth but then the food in her mouth won't prevent her death? You IMPLY quite heavily that the act of putting food in her mouth would keep her alive since failure to do so would cause her death. You can argue what you "really said" all day but until you can answer my simple question I have you in a logical corner that you can't escape without lying or admitting something you don't want to.

0 Replies

Why don't you people stop being so goddam afraid of death?

0 Replies

Brandon, you did seem to be under the impression that food could be of some benefit to Mrs. Schiavo at this point

Quote:

And if her parents tried to bring food and water to her now, what would be done? Would the state or its agents just sit back and continue to do nothing? This is a particularly cruel murder.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1236829#1236829

0 Replies

You are making a very simple claim. You claim that I said something. Either I said it or I didn't. It's just that simple.

parados wrote:

...you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

Either find one quotation in which I said it (not 300 in which I didn't), withdraw the accusation, or it will be quite apparent to everyone who reads this that you are dishonest.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon, you did seem to be under the impression that food could be of some benefit to Mrs. Schiavo at this point

Quote:
And if her parents tried to bring food and water to her now, what would be done? Would the state or its agents just sit back and continue to do nothing? This is a particularly cruel murder.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1236829#1236829

Not at all. I only said that people who tried it would be stopped. I never said or implied that it would have worked. It might have worked. It might not. No one will find a post on this board in which I asserted that she could eat for herself. It would probably have been a good thing to have tested, but I certainly never claimed that she could swallow food.

0 Replies

Brando writes:

Quote:

I never, ever stated that placing food in her mouth would have saved her, which is what he alleges he said.

Please provide your evidence of where I specifically stated you said "that food in her mouth would have saved her." I don't recall ever saying those words.

"I challenge you to demonstrate that I said it, you must either show where I said it or withdraw the attribution." - (quoted from Brandon9000 but it fits my sentiments quite nicely.)

0 Replies

Fine spin cycle going there, BigB.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brando writes:

Quote:
I never, ever stated that placing food in her mouth would have saved her, which is what he alleges he said.

Please provide your evidence of where I specifically stated you said "that food in her mouth would have saved her." I don't recall ever saying those words.

"I challenge you to demonstrate that I said it, you must either show where I said it or withdraw the attribution." - (quoted from Brandon9000 but it fits my sentiments quite nicely.)

parados wrote:

...you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.

Now. You are a liar. You have attributed a statement to me. I challenged you repeatedly to provide the quotation in which I said it. You can't. You won't withdraw the allegation. That is what liar means. I am done with you, because it is impossible to argue with someone who has no compunctions against lying. Any fair person who reads these posts will know that you have been dishonest, despite all of your attempted distractions. Your attempted distractions are irrelevant. I have argued with many people here who have attributed words to me, and when I challenged them to produce the quote admitted that they had been wrong. Those, however, were honest people.

If you wish to maintain that what I have just said is false, you need only produce the quotation in which I said what you attributed to me.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

The quetion is whether or not I posted that "Terry Schiavo only needed food put in her mouth." He alleged that I said this, but I did not.

I never once said you 'posted that "Terry Schiavo only needed food put in her mouth." ' (your quotation marks, not mine.)

"Either find one quotation in which I said it... withdraw the accusation, or it will be quite apparent to everyone who reads this that you are dishonest." (quoted from Brandon9000 but it fits my sentiments quite nicely.)

0 Replies

"Now. You are a liar. You have attributed a statement to me. I challenged you repeatedly to provide the quotation in which I said it. You can't. You won't withdraw the allegation. That is what liar means."
(quoted from Brandon9000 but it fits my sentiments quite nicely.)

0 Replies

you fellas need to add a little softener to the spin cycle there....

0 Replies

Quote:

If you wish to maintain that what I have just said is false, you need only produce the quotation in which I said what you attributed to me.

"spinning fantastical tales" does not mean that I was a directly quoting you. I have already explained your fantastical tale and you refused to refute it.

Your use of quotation marks however DO mean you were directly quoting me. So, find my quote.

Call me all the names you want Brandon. It will only get the thread locked for all of us to link to it later. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

The Disrespect For Life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know