ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Nathon Detroit]

....as I can tell the only thing you've done so far to support your confusing position is to ban Allsmiles and call people rude names throughout this thread.

And that's not good enough for you?????

I am not going to do your heavy lifting.

But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. - 1 Corinthians 14:38

 

[Stripe]

If you consider anyone who does or orders such acts to be "guilty," that's all I need to hear.

heh .. you need to hear that do you? sorry. i cant go that far. firstly, that undermines the original question and secondly i cant really claim to trust god and at the same time call him not god ..

the reality is all accusations against me are null and void. if you wish to make accusations against god then that is your choice. i wont join you. that does not make me guilty.

 

[genuineoriginal]

:BRAVO:

wonderful, another completely inept answer from my new favorite lame duck.



this is not in reference to mass numbers of a civilian population.



so you equate the execution of enemy commanders (officers in the army, not civilians) with the mass genocide of a city's civilian population?

You just proved you can't read.

The two women were civilians put in charge of other civilians to prove a point. Sun Tzu murdered them because they didn't obey his orders. He did this as an example to the other civilians he was supposed to make into an army so they wouldn't disobey his orders.

The bottom line is that Sun Tzu murdered two civilian women in order to get a better paying job.

Nice role model. :rotfl:

 

[genuineoriginal]

not so, war is a facet of reality we all must face. anyone's opinion is relevant.

What do you know? allsmiles must have read my posts after all. :angel:

ever hear of necessary evils? they don't stop being evil. they are a means to an end, to try and justify them morally is absurd. survival is not a moral dilemma.

Ever hear of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jericho? These were necessary cleansings because of the evil in existence.

and Sun Tzu, over two thousand years ago contradicts everything you say.

he was a better tactician than Joshua and your god, but you have yet to respond to that allegation.

Exodus 14
22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
23And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.
24And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,
25And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
26And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
27And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
29But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
30Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.​

Lets see Sun Tzu do that! :banana:

 

[skeptech]

And that's not good enough for you?????

I am not going to do your heavy lifting.

But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. - 1 Corinthians 14:38

So, not only can you be irrational and rude, but you can also quote Bible verses to support your position. Congratulations, you share 3 common traits with just about every other nutcase out there. Is that the Christian way?

And you complain about others not answering your questions. So tell me:

What is the difference in meaning between "Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance," and "Absolute morality is relative to the specific circumstance?"

 

[skeptech]

Didn't you wonder why Bob answered the question differently than I did online? Why was that? Maybe it was because online you supplied me the circumstances yet you withheld the specifics from Bob.

Let me see if I get this right:

- Absolute Morality depends on the circumstances.
- Under different circumstances, the Absolute Morality of a situation could be different.

So, a statement like "It's absolutely wrong to kill children" is correct, depending on the circumstances. But it could also be correct to say "It's absolutely right to kill children" under some different set of circumstances.

Is this correct? If so, then how is this view of "Absolute Morality" any different from a relativistic view??

 

[fool]

For sake of accuracy that was not how fool presented his case on Bob's show which is what this thread is in reference to.

On Bob's show fool asked... "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

Prior to his call on Bob's show he tested his approach here on TOL but fool was too specific and received answers that didn't trick the audience so he altered his question and made it much more vague and ambiguous for Bob's show.

All of this is the answer to the question I have been asking fool... "why do you suppose I answered your question the opposite of Bob?" fool hasn't answered because his answer would only further prove my point that fool is disingenuous.

Wrong.

 

[fool]

On Bob's show fool asked... "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

That's a lie.
Which makes you a liar.

 

[CRASH]

That's a lie.
Which makes you a liar.

Why do you say it's a lie?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Congratulations, you share 3 common traits with just about every other nutcase out there. Is that the Christian way?

:wave2:

 

[fool]

Why do you say it's a lie?

Because that's not what I said.
The link to the first show is in my sig, around the 30 min. mark.
What I said was not what Knight put in quotes. it was significantly different.

 

[fool]

The red rash has broken out again.
Knight, I just called you a liar and now I see skeptech banned for what seems to be a pretty decent question.
Are you sure you're not projecting your hate for me onto him?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because that's not what I said.
The link to the first show is in my sig, around the 30 min. mark.
What I said was not what Knight put in quotes. it was significantly different.

So I paraphrased big deal!

The word for word question fool asked Bob was....

"Is it ever right to take a sword and butcher a newborn baby?" I paraphrased your question as follows: "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

Would you really consider that "significantly different"?

 

[CRASH]

So I paraphrased big deal!

The word for word question fool asked Bob was....

"Is it ever right to take a sword and butcher a newborn baby?" I paraphrased your question as follows: "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

Would you really consider that "significantly different"?

Same dang thing Fool!

 

[fool]

So I paraphrased big deal!

The word for word question fool asked Bob was....

"Is it ever right to take a sword and butcher a newborn baby?" I paraphrased your question as follows: "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

Would you really consider that "significantly different"?

Yes it is significantly different.
The word "ever" has an extremely far reaching meaning.

 

[fool]

Same dang thing Fool!

Not even close.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes it is significantly different.
The word "ever" has an extremely far reaching meaning.

fool = :chz4brnz:

 

[fool]

By asking " is it ever" I included past present and future.
Under any and all concievable circumstances.

 

[fool]

fool = :chz4brnz:

That all you got?
A bug crawling outa someone's head smilie?

 

[CRASH]

By asking " is it ever" I included past present and future.
Under any and all concievable circumstances.

Then just give a quick clarification instead of spending all of your time whinning and complaining and accusing.
What a baby.