Tragic statement of the day:
- Thread starter PKevman
- Start date
- Status
No you havent, and neither has anyone else to be fair, I asked whether the woman would be justified if she had other children who were dependant on her or whether they should be allowed to die as a result of the mother's death, care to answer that? I've just noticed what you're on about with Turbo's question so I will answer it, I didn't realise he'd posted a second post amidst my last long reply, happy now?
Well you've answered all of my other 'retarded' questions apparently, why is this one so hard to answer? i think we both know why and you're just tryin to squirm around it
Numerous people have made numerous sensible responses to many of your retarded posts. Every time you meet common sense and decency you are forced to make up a more retarded situation. Why can you not just be comfortable with that fact that evil things are evil? Why do you love to look for situations where you think people might be tricked into agreeing with you that evil things might be justified in certain retarded situations?Well you've answered all of my other 'retarded' questions apparently, why is this one so hard to answer? i think we both know why and you're just tryin to squirm around it
For a start it wasn't me who dreamt up the scenario of a mother eating her child to survive, and there's no trickery involved in the question i've asked, if the mother has other children dependant on her for survival then is she justified, yes or no? It's not that difficult Stipe....
Your question is retarded.
PKevman
New member
I have known Red for a year now, and this has been a characteristic of his from the very first time I met him and began discussing things with him. He always insists his questions aren't being answered even when they are, then he wil insists he answered a question when in fact he didn't.
Pastor this question has not been answered either by Stipe or anyone else including yourself, anyone objective enough will see that on this thread, perhaps you'd care to have a go, if the mother had other children who were dependant on her for survival then would the mother be justified in surviving herself?
:think:
oh and just what questions have i not addressed by you on here? pretty much double standards to accuse me of not answering them if you don't like being called on it yourself....
Red. Nobody cares who is ignoring your retarded statements enough to go back and actually read what you've posted. My summation of your strategy, that you continually search for ways that evil acts might be OK for you, is so obviously correct. Your posts are utterly bankrupt in every possible way.
What was your question again? Oh yeah .. it was actually Turbo's question. Turbo asked you if it would be OK for a mother to eat her baby and you went directly out in search of a way you could justify such a situation.
Why would you do that...
What was your question again? Oh yeah .. it was actually Turbo's question. Turbo asked you if it would be OK for a mother to eat her baby and you went directly out in search of a way you could justify such a situation.
Why would you do that...
Why would I dream up such a scenario in the first place Stipe? Oh, I'm sorry for taking the scenario to an uncomfortable place where you, the pastor, or anyone else who is so apparently 'pro life' just can't offer an answer to the question, after all - it can't be easy to justify the deaths of other children if the mother isn't morally allowed to survive in any situation, no wonder it all went silent on this thread when that question was raised....
Why can't you answer the question Stipe? Would the woman be morally justified in surviving or not in this scenario? Actually - you may already have answered this question to be fair when you said in an earlier post that in no way would it be moral for the mother to eat her child, so her other children have to die no matter what then correct? Thats just yes or no Stipe although I'm sure you'll squirm some way around it.......
It's no more perverted than the original scenario given by another poster, why can't you just answer it? all you have to do is do that :idunno:
Oh let me guess, you wont actually answer what IS actually a tricky question and you'll just carry on with nothing posts as if you've addressed the point when in fact you havent........
Yeah. It's a tricky question Red. Which makes you unqualified to pose it. The original question posed was submitted by Turbo as a test of your ability to determine right from wrong. You have perverted the intention of that question and twisted every last bit of mileage possible away from giving a simple answer to a simple question.
Pervert. Liar. Retard.
Not necessarily in that order.
Pervert. Liar. Retard.
Not necessarily in that order.
I gave a straight answer to a straight question, you've been posed with the same and you're right, it is a tricky question and thats why it was posed, care to answer - or are you just goin to do your usual trick of obfuscating and insults....? :yawn:
You certainly don't have any trouble with ignoring the question, You'd have the trouble if you attempted to answer it as you well know.....
- Status