Boycott non-answering point ho's

This will make ya answere some questions

Published on February 2, 2005 By Moderateman In Blogging

Rant of the day.... When will the left leaning liberal losers finally answer just one question put forth instead of sidestepping with some high falutin abstract crap.. that is not even close to the question.

example.. GOD says do not kill... I reply oh yeh how about this.. someone kills your whole family and you come home with a gun
would you kill then??

answer: YOU must be some kind of Godless man that believes murder and torture is ok...your a disgrace to mankind.. blah blah blah.

Well from now on when I ask a question and get abstract crap back I am not gonna respond and give em points anymore.. frell em if they cannot answer a simple question.

But then again the leftwing are masters at deflecting and avoidence of answeres, all they have is abstract solutuions and complaints.

Comments (Page 1)

Myrrander

on Feb 02, 2005

What the hell are you on about?

And if I ever use that "God says not to kill" thing on ya, feel free to ignore me -- I'd be ready to ignore my own self.

Moderateman

on Feb 02, 2005

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Wednesday, February 02, 2005What the hell are you on about?And if I ever use that "God says not to kill" thing on ya, feel free to ignore me -- I'd be ready to ignore my own self.

not you myrr another post.... and iggy yerself... lmao

Jamie Burnside

on Feb 03, 2005

Yeah. It is really effective to debate someone who uses religion as the basis for his arguments.

NJforever

on Feb 03, 2005

Heh, Myrr using God in an arguement. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

Well, in a way that is a means to my end (no more uncivilized arguing) as I doubt they will give an answer without you ranting about not giving a real answer in a post. I will miss reading your outrage about it though.

bakerstreet

on Feb 03, 2005

One of the most annoying instances of this lately was Bill Clinton is my hero. After being challenged, outright, that most of the points made were dubious, and that

"While in office President Clinton payed off the national debt"

was utterly false, the blogger just clammed up. Being mistaken is no crime, but when someone points out that you are posting something false and you ignore the protest and leave it... that's just purposely misleading people. It betrays the fact that they don't want to come to an understanding or have a discussion, they just want to spout and leave it at that.

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply By: Jamie BurnsidePosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005Yeah. It is really effective to debate someone who uses religion as the basis for his arguments

I do not mind religion as a base for an arguement, but when someone used it to Proclaim, under no circumstanses is killing allowed because God said thou shall not kill, they are an idiot.

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply By: NJforeverPosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005Heh, Myrr using God in an arguement. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?Well, in a way that is a means to my end (no more uncivilized arguing) as I doubt they will give an answer without you ranting about not giving a real answer in a post. I will miss reading your outrage about it though.

myrr did not do that, was another post, from someone that obviously has his head so far inserted in his butt, he needs a window in his stomach to see out to the real world.

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005One of the most annoying instances of this lately was Bill Clinton is my hero. After being challenged, outright, that most of the points made were dubious, and that "While in office President Clinton payed off the national debt"was utterly false, the blogger just clammed up. Being mistaken is no crime, but when someone points out that you are posting something false and you ignore the protest and leave it... that's just purposely misleading people. It betrays the fact that they don't want to come to an understanding or have a discussion, they just want to spout and leave it at that.

The road to wisdom is paved by our mistakes, I think, admitting you do not know some things is no crime.. the lack of admission shows true ignorence though.

Dr Guy

on Feb 03, 2005

There's an answer to the question? I thought Ho Chi Minh was dead.

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005There's an answer to the question? I thought Ho Chi Minh was dead.

he is not, he is working at chow lo gook vietnamese resteraunt in down town oakland... ehehehehehehe

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 03, 2005

im not sure which thread you are referring to here, and probably a liberal, abstract response to "the killing question" is not what you're looking for here, but what the hey.

here's the abstract part of my response: i don't think killing is ever "right". natural selection and survival of the fittest obsessors: give me a break. we are also rational beings, and we don't need to kill off "weaker specimens". Morally, you are not proving anything about right or wrong by killing someone you are angry at. if some one murders your family, it isn't "right" to kill them in response. you haven't restored balance to the world; you haven't returned your family to life; you haven't deterred other murderers from killing other people's families; and most importantly, you haven't created any room inside yourself to allow for healing. killing someone is violent, and the violence is only slightly less destructive to yourself.

that being said, if i returned to my home and someone had just murdered my family, and i happened to be carrying a gun (very unlikely), i have no idea what i would do. my guess is that i would use the gun to shoot the murder several times, with the intent of hurting him/her before i killed him/her. there is no reason for why i might do this; i just would. i would be crazy with anger and grief, and i cant conceive of being in a state rational enough to consider other options. none of this means that it is "right" or even "just". if the murderer had been captured already, found guilty, and was simply awaiting a sentence, i hope i could find some peace or at least silence of mind to understand that killing off this killer solves nothing, will not ease my own pain in the long run, and in no way answers that one terrible question that all victim survivors must ask themselves:

what the hell do i do now?

tbt

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply By: TaBoo TenentePosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005

that being said, if i returned to my home and someone had just murdered my family, and i happened to be carrying a gun (very unlikely), i have no idea what i would do.

Now thats an answere I can live with, the truth is most people do not know what they would do if and when..... but to PROCLAIM under no circumstances they would not kill is Ridiculous .

Manopeace

on Feb 03, 2005

he is not, he is working at chow lo gook

Racism does not win political arguments.

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply #7 By: Moderateman - 2/3/2005 9:44:48 AM
Reply By: NJforeverPosted: Thursday, February 03, 2005Heh, Myrr using God in an arguement. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?Well, in a way that is a means to my end (no more uncivilized arguing) as I doubt they will give an answer without you ranting about not giving a real answer in a post. I will miss reading your outrage about it though.

myrr did not do that, was another post, from someone that obviously has his head so far inserted in his butt, he needs a window in his stomach to see out to the real world.

Yeah but I think someone painted over that window.

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

that being said, if i returned to my home and someone had just murdered my family, and i happened to be carrying a gun (very unlikely), i have no idea what i would do. my guess is that i would use the gun to shoot the murder several times, with the intent of hurting him/her before i killed him/her. there is no reason for why i might do this; i just would. i would be crazy with anger and grief, and i cant conceive of being in a state rational enough to consider other options. none of this means that it is "right" or even "just

It may not in your opinion be "right or just". However it would be legal.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!