Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle
That's not her point, I thought this would happen when the Singapore dude got in with his euthanasia talk.
We were talking of which life would be better, not of should somebody prevent her from doing anything.
|
I'm not talking about which life is better in an absolute referential. My point is that there's no absolute. Only personal preferences. Which gives you little ground to call her a moron just because, in her own referential, life without a heart transplant is better than with one. You have other preferences? That's your prerogative. But how about respecting others'?
Quote:
--
(I let Anh answer Knight)
And notice, Knight also targetted his post at me.
|
What we're doing is acknowledging that you were right when you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle
I don't really like to argue mainly because I'm not too good at it,
|
As evidenced by all the times you've had to say "that's not what I meant!", the amount of irrelevant content in your posts, the times I, WK, or Ledgem (and we're probably not alone) didn't understand you, or that time
you, yourself, lost track of what you meant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle
Quote:
|
I feel you've gone off on a tangent. I can't claim to understand what you're talking about, though.
|
Okay I don't get it either. |
And after posting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle
I did no say so, I said I call them zealots, but I did not say they are zealots.
|
Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Quote:
And Knight, how would Indiana Jones respond when somebody was falling off a cliff and Indiana shouted "grab my hand" and the person in trouble would shout back "why".
Indeed I was gonna shout "because you are f***** falling", but rather, I just placed that example.
|
Did that person throw itself off the cliff and exhibited no desire to get back up?