Tragic statement of the day:

Status
Not open for further replies.

PKevman

New member
Red77, when asked by Turbo this:

Turbo said:
Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?

Responded with this:
Red77 said:
I've heard this before but I'll answer it, initially I believe no, Besides from the fact that I doubt many people would be able to do such a thing I think a loving parent would investigate every realistic and unrealistic possibility first...

now if this led to the only chance of survival then pragmatically speaking the woman is justified, where would be the sense in both the mother and child dying if the mother had a chance to live and could do nothing to save her child?

How utterly disgusting!


CONTEXT
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Well at least you posted the whole two paragraphs. Which you guys don't normally do.

1) I think a loving parent would investigate every realistic and unrealistic possibility first.

This pretty much discounts number 2 which is...

2) Pragmatic
Hard Headed, Matter of Fact.

I think number 1 would cover most bases though... but let's not forget

" where would be the sense in both the mother and child dying if the mother had a chance to live and could do nothing to save her child?"

Where would be the sense ? Unless of course two deaths are better than one.

We're loosing site of the context though, Turbo was asked a straightforward question, which was answered with another question. A poor way to debate. It's a diversion.

Red answered in a very gramatic way where the meaning of his words should be understood before you get your panties in a bunch.

And at least he answered, the thread is not over yet and I think jumping on this one statement is rather unfair.
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
and let's not forget, both are hypothetical questions, not "What would you do" but simply moral dilemas worthy of discussion.

What would your answer have been Kevin and why ?
 

PKevman

New member
and let's not forget, both are hypothetical questions, not "What would you do" but simply moral dilemas worthy of discussion.

What would your answer have been Kevin and why ?

No parent should eat their two year old child under any circumstances. They should be willing to sacrifice their own life to save their child if necessary.

You never do evil so that good may come from it!
 

PKevman

New member
Well at least you posted the whole two paragraphs. Which you guys don't normally do.

1) I think a loving parent would investigate every realistic and unrealistic possibility first.

This pretty much discounts number 2 which is...

2) Pragmatic
Hard Headed, Matter of Fact.

I think number 1 would cover most bases though... but let's not forget

" where would be the sense in both the mother and child dying if the mother had a chance to live and could do nothing to save her child?"

Where would be the sense ? Unless of course two deaths are better than one.

We're loosing site of the context though, Turbo was asked a straightforward question, which was answered with another question. A poor way to debate. It's a diversion.

Red answered in a very gramatic way where the meaning of his words should be understood before you get your panties in a bunch.

And at least he answered, the thread is not over yet and I think jumping on this one statement is rather unfair.

Red was exposed again, which happens often. Surprise-just as always his atheist and pagan buddies jump to his defense.
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
No parent should eat their two year old child under any circumstances. They should be willing to sacrifice their own life to save their child if necessary.

You never do evil so that good may come from it!
Fair enough, the question was not one of sacrifice though, if it was it should have been made clearer.

Here's another hypothetical question.

If my son misbehaves should I have another and kill him to teach the first a lesson ?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When your world view means you have to say evil things at the end of long convoluted excuses for why the evil things could never happen your world view is inherently evil. Good world views have no problem saying it's never OK to eat your baby.
 

red77

New member
Red77, when asked by Turbo this:



Responded with this:


How utterly disgusting!


CONTEXT

Ok pastor, first lets get something in context here, this is a hypothetical situation where both mother and child are obviously in extreme danger and options for survival are getting less and less, now I was asked whether the only realistic option for the mother to survive was to eat her child, I responded with no, in fact I would find it difficult to believe that a parent could do this anyway, I said that a loving parent would exhaust every realistic and unrealistic possibility first...

Then I said if the only means of survival was for the mother to do this then she would be justified - on the proviso being that both the mother and child are doomed. WHY is it so 'utterly disgusting' for one of them to have a chance to live? Would it be better for both of them to die instead?!

perhaps you can answer this as I was trying to and just to clarify why I said what I did herer it is again, if there was no doubt that the only chance of survival was for the mother to do this and the baby had no hope of living at all would the mother be justified in doing it? Or should she die as well?

Aside from the fact that I doubt any parent in this situation could do this anyway -n and not withstanding the horrid nature of the scenario - is it not hard hearted to expect the mother to die as well when she could have a chance to survive?
 

red77

New member
No parent should eat their two year old child under any circumstances. They should be willing to sacrifice their own life to save their child if necessary.

You never do evil so that good may come from it!

That was the whole POINT of my answer though, the option of sacrificing for the child isn't there!!! A two year old can't survive and be instructed how to eat the parent if they chose to sacrifice themself so both would die in this hypothetical, what good comes from that?
 

PKevman

New member
That was the whole POINT of my answer though, the option of sacrificing for the child isn't there!!! A two year old can't survive and be instructed how to eat the parent if they chose to sacrifice themself so both would die in this hypothetical, what good comes from that?

No amount of rationalizing can excuse your position on this. It is never ok for a parent to eat their own child. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. That should have been your answer. Instead you revealed your corrupt and wicked heart with the answers you give and your continued defense of them. You can drag all the godless pagans in here to defend you that you like. I will not let you get away with this one Red. You are not a Christian, so why don't you stop pretending?
 
Last edited:

PKevman

New member
Didn't your deity do such a thing ?

Please be specific about what you are referring to Doogie. God detested those who sacrificed babies.

If you are referring to Jesus giving His life, then you need to understand that Christ gave His life WILLINGLY on the cross. God gave His Son as a sacrifice for your sins and mine. That is not something to mock God over, but to thank Him for, because otherwise no man would have hope due to the effects of sin. And Jesus laid down His life, and then He resurrected, so to use THAT as an example is not accurate in this discussion. (If that was what you were hinting at that is)
 

red77

New member
No amount of rationalizing can excuse your position on this. It is never ok for a parent to eat their own child. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. That should have been your answer. Instead you revealed your corrupt and wicked heart with the answers you give and your continued defense of them. You can drag all the ungodless pagans in here to defend you that you like. I will not let you get away with this one Red. You are not a Christian, so why don't you stop pretending?

But it's ok for two people to die when one of them could survive is it? You know i don't think that any parent would be able to do it either but I was addressing a hypothetical, one in which the only chance for one of them to survive would be to do so, if the parent could scarifice their life for the child then i'm sure they would but as is obvious that isn't an option, YOU by your yardstick for what is 'wicked and corrupt' would have two people die when one might survive, you are saying that the parent should die as well with no choice,

And what is with this 'dragging pagans' in? Buy a clue....
 

PKevman

New member
But it's ok for two people to die when one of them could survive is it? You know i don't think that any parent would be able to do it either but I was addressing a hypothetical, one in which the only chance for one of them to survive would be to do so, if the parent could scarifice their life for the child then i'm sure they would but as is obvious that isn't an option, YOU by your yardstick for what is 'wicked and corrupt' would have two people die when one might survive, you are saying that the parent should die as well with no choice,

And what is with this 'dragging pagans' in? Buy a clue....

Find me someone selling a clue and I will buy it. It certainly is not YOU! You have to have a clue before you can sell one. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top