Well at least you are finally admitting that stealing is wrong.
Where is that written?
In your fairy tale book?
Elderly care must be free.
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
In your fairy tale book?
If it's forced, it's not charity, moron.
Pretty much, yes. Their families are the trees, and they are the fruits who deaden the grass below.
Mankind is adversarial in this regard, though I suppose it's hard to see when you aren't on the receiving end of it
No one needs you to care if they are getting robbed OR approve of how much money they earn.
Sour grapes, much?
Cru likes to blame anyone other than himself for not having enough money.
And he's perfectly OK with someone forcing it out of you.
Nah.
People who vouch for vain manslaughter calling thieves wrong are the sourest of all.
Ah, wealth envy ... the dastardly disorder of hating and envying everyone who has more than you do.
Though this is a redundant question, I will ask you anyways: Do you even think prior to posting your replies?
You have made some ridiculously, moronic statements and claims, but this one takes you to a whole new level of stupidity. Congratulations.
journey
New member
People who break into my home are prepared to deal with me and my family, so I'm prepared to deal with them. It's just this simple. I don't feel obligated to give them the first shot or the first slash with a blade. The known is that they will be carried out of my home.
It's odd that anyone needs to explain that home invaders have no right to feel safe while breaking into another person's home.
Sure, I agree with that, in either the figurative or the literal.
I think it's fine to require students to contribute something toward their education. It depends on how educated we want our future society to be. Unfortunately, the plans made in one generation don't come to fruition until later.
I'm not sure how much money might be saved curtailing surveillance, but it could actually cost more. And certainly we would hope that the government is surveilling certain people, I think.
The reason to fund education isn't really just about those receiving it. It's about the society that benefits from the greater level of education. The government can spend all it likes on health care for the elderly, but it won't matter if there are no doctors to treat them.
If dying were all there were to elder care, it would be relatively cheap and easy. What's harder, and costs a lot more, is keeping the elderly who aren't dying in the immediate healthy and comfortable.
I agree, generally, with the notion that elderly care should be free, for one reason only: I believe that all health care should be free.
If that means killing an unarmed person than that is categorically false.
Against abortion, allegedly morally upright, and all these claims of righteousness, but you all have no qualms with people killing other people due to technicality of the law.
You know how to reduce robberies? Helping the poor.
Never occurred to you, though. It never occurred to any of you that you aren't exactly that 'light in the world' when you stand by your absurd attitudes in these regards. Rather, you are this world, and it's error.
It's odd that emptying a clip into a burglar is what is necessary. It's odd that there aren't many cases at all where a person has really been justified in doing so beyond the technicality of them being in the household.
Which means it's only technically not manslaughter- and God does not play by such technicalities.
I fully support the 2nd Amendment and protection in the household. I'm just not about death- I don't venerate the idea of killing other people like you all do.
Well, it's totally preventable. Do you know how? Don't break into another person's home.
See how easy that was?
Well, it's totally preventable. Do you know how? Don't break into another person's home.
See how easy that was?
I'm glad you wear your hypocrisy on your sleeve. Saves me all matter of explaining how crooked your ideology at large is.
It's a comedy watching you all pretend to be pro-life, and yet a bad joke that you go around bashing other people with it
I'm glad you wear your hypocrisy on your sleeve. Saves me all matter of explaining how crooked your ideology at large is.
It's a comedy watching you all pretend to be pro-life, and yet a bad joke that you go around bashing other people with it
There is no hypocrisy in being pro-death penalty, pro-self defense and anti-abortion.
The scenario I presented consisted a homeowner using whatever force necessary to protect him/herself as well as their family from the type of lowlife who would threaten them by breaking into their home. Perhaps you would like to defend these lowlifes ... here's your chance.
:rotfl:
There's a major flaw in that, in the way your kind go about it anyway. But whatever makes you feel better.
And
Murderers get the death penalty. So why not women of abortion :idunno:
Flaw on a flaw. You all have absolutely no consistency on morals.
journey
New member
I think that you're out of your mind. If you don't want to protect your family and yourself from home invaders, you pay the price, and that price might be very high. It isn't a technicality or something small when someone breaks into your home. This also has nothing to do with morals. I morally and legally have the right to protect my family and myself inside my own home. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. You don't have the common sense for me to converse with you any further, so you're on my ignore list.
In 99% of your posts. Though feel free to start your own thread expressing your flawed *logic* that theft and burglary are defensible ... and not the fault of those committing the act.
