Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Heh, another good reason to vote Democrat this year

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
JM: That certainly wasn't my statement.
I know! I meant Ravish, mostly. I was just a little worried by your statement too.
[ February 26, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
You practically had a stroke when I quoted Saint Paul.
This is baseless crap. I did nothing of the kind. I happen to LIKE Paul, especially the Corinthians. I just hate watching some pretty good words being twisted like a pretzel to justify the death of a child and then have that called "love".
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: To justify the death of a child
But you are willing to actually *kill* unknown number of children and you don't see any problem with it???
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
But you are willing to actually *kill* unknown number of children and you don't see any problem with it???
No, Map, I don't. No matter how many question marks you put. You've already said you're willing to kill strangers to save your baby, so it's just a matter of number. The difference is that I'm not saying the babies that die, die because of my love for them.
Thomas says according to Saint Paul's definition of love, he must let his baby die rather than so much as raise a hand to a stranger. He recently did some backpedaling and tried to change it to "murder", but earlier in the thread he specifically said he would not "harm" a stranger, he would instead let his child die. He calls this love, I call it irrational. But according to him, it's the ONLY definition of love that is valid: you MUST let your babies die rather than strike a stranger.
What do you think of Tom's position?
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
if I know that a child is being abused by the parent (whether I know the parent or not) I'll interfere/call the police/or do something to help that child.


When did I object to call police ??
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: No, Map, I don't. No matter how many question marks you put. You've already said you're willing to kill strangers to save your baby, so it's just a matter of number.
"just" a matter of number is important. I could live knowing I murdered one person, I would have more problems with two. Three is very problematic. 10,000 -- there is nothing even to discuss.
And you never answered what is your limit. None?
What do you think of Tom's position?
I think it's admirable. He will take all the harm upon himself, instead of passing it on the society.
[ February 26, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I think it's admirable. He will take all the harm upon himself, instead of passing it on the society.


Originally posted by R K Singh:

others are talking about a hero who will sacrifice his family for me.


Yes, its admirable.
[ February 26, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Me: But you are willing to actually *kill* unknown number of children and you don't see any problem with it???
Joe: No, Map, I don't.

What it means? You do not see a problem about killing other children as long as they aren't your own? Explain please.
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Explain please.
Yeah, Joe. Explain. For the benefit of anyone else who hasn't been following the last eight pages of posts. :roll:
Really, Map, what's new here? Given a choice between killing strangers and allowing his child to die, Joe would kill the strangers. In large quantities if necessary, even if they're children. Hasn't that been established? Whether you agree or not, how many different ways should Joe explain this?
[ February 26, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Jim: Really, Map, what's new here? Given a choice between killing strangers and allowing his child to die, Joe would kill the strangers. In large quantities if necessary, even if they're children. Hasn't that been established? Whether you agree or not, how many different ways should Joe explain this?
I only wonder if there is a limit.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
See, this is the icky part. You said "harm", not "murder", Tom. But you change the sentence as it suits you. I find this intellectually dishonest.

No, the icky part is being willing to kill 10,000 innocent people to save one child. But if it makes you happy I will agree that I will not harm innocent people to save my child.
Just to clarify, if there was a crowd of people and I had to push them out of the way to rescue someone who had fallen on the subway tracks then I would do that. But I wouldn't deliberately injure an innocent person to save anyone.
But I really don't care what you find intellectially dishonest. You would have the same problem with anyone who wasn't willing to massacre a decent sized village to save their child.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
What I find intellectually dishonest, Joe, is the way you argue. You keep claiming that I am worried about hell and the state of my soul even though I never said anything of the kind. And the fact is that you are the one who went into a fit when I said I wouldn't murder a stranger long before we moved the discussion onto generalized harm.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Thomas says according to Saint Paul's definition of love, he must let his baby die rather than so much as raise a hand to a stranger. He recently did some backpedaling and tried to change it to "murder", but earlier in the thread he specifically said he would not "harm" a stranger, he would instead let his child die.
I have not backpedaled at all. I can only assume that you have misread what I wote.
He calls this love, I call it irrational.
But the murdering of 10,000 people is rational? I am sure the concentration camp guards thought the same thing. "We must kill sub-humans to protect our children."
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
But if it makes you happy I will agree that I will not harm innocent people to save my child.
This is the most twisted reading of Paul I have ever heard. You need to speak to a priest.
Anyway, I'm done. You and Map have both compared me to a perpetrator of the Holocaust. That's simply unacceptable from any standpoint. The moderators seem to deem it acceptable, so JavaRanch is no longer acceptable to me.
Adios.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
One quick post to wind up my participation in this and indeed in any thread in MD.
I did not intend to push my views on anyone. When I mentioned the fact that I would "smash the button with no question asked" or whatever I said, it was a pretty off-the-cuff statement that I didn't really think was cause for concern. I expected I might get some feedback from people who thought differently about it, and I thought we might get some comparisons of how much people valued their family in relation to society.
What I did NOT expect was a combined attack from an ultra-conservative Christian and an atheist, both comparing me to a Holocaust camp guard. They may disagree with me, but that level of vehemence means that there's no room for me to disagree with them.
I could have gone on except for the fact that what was being shoved in my face as "moral" was the unique and bizarre definition of "love" in which no innocent may be harmed in any way even to save our family. Jesus taught no such thing. This is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible. This is purely Thomas' own interpretation.
This is so wrong-headed, so bizarre, so foreign that I thought it would be simple to point out the obvious flaws in the argument. For example, a bunch of people are gathered around your child gawking as she has an attack. You have her inhaler, but people won't get out of your way. Will you not shove a person at the risk of injuring them? Do I get a reasonable response to that sort of question?
No. I am accused of Nazi-like genocide.
What is killing me as I write this is that there can't be a rational person on this board that sides with Thomas. Certainly not one with children. To say that you wouldn't slap a stranger, or shove them aside, in order to save your child - that's ludicrous. Yet that's exactly what Thomas says, and he then uses that argument to accuse me of not loving my child, but instead of being a genocidal monster.
If this board is set up in such a way that such behavior is acceptable, then it simply must be that I no longer belong here.
Thank you for listening.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
What I did NOT expect was a combined attack from an ultra-conservative Christian and an atheist, both comparing me to a Holocaust camp guard.
This is pretty good, Pluta.
I could have gone on except for the fact that what was being shoved in my face as "moral" was the unique and bizarre definition of "love" in which no innocent may be harmed in any way even to save our family. Jesus taught no such thing. This is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Love your enemy? Do not kill?
What is killing me as I write this is that there can't be a rational person on this board that sides with Thomas.
Don't you see that your willingness to murder all innocent children on Earth to save your child is as rational (or irrational) as Tom's unwillingness to harm a single child?
What concerns me is not that you are going to kill the babies, but your determination to tape yourself doing it. Your priority seems to prove yourself here in MD. Instead, it should be to align your reason with your morality. We are here in MD to help you, so don't shoot your allies.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Closing time. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
 
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic