Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 10:31 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. If life is sacred, you'd probably be anti-abortion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 10:39 AM, Share Long wrote: From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? So far as I can tell, Judy is pro-choice, Share. So her ramblings about the sanctity of life rings kind of hollow for me. It kind of looks like Judy is trying to start another argument, sort of like the fight she picked about Luke not knowing that Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus. It's a sneak attack - everybody on this forum knows that Judy doesn't really care what anybody else thinks about life. Almost everything posted here is just an excuse for an ankle-biting session. It's never ending, like going down a rabbit hole. That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I was referring to *your* participation, dear boy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 11:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: No, I'm not against abortion. We are going to have to look this up. But, they do sound sort of like weasel words to me. How can you recognize the sanctity of life not be against abortion? I thought everyone on this list was pro-choice. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 3:47 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: Check Check Mate. This is some really good work by Share!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 4:05 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: It doesn't even matter, Share. Stevie would declare you the winner whatever you or I said. And he ain't gonna quote because he doesn't want to look STOOOPID. Haven't you ever noticed how often he refuses to back up his claims? Let's work on it and check all the claims. It might take me awhile to check in the archives, but it shouldn't be too difficult to key in: IF judy THEN petrus ELSE abortion on Google Groups. I'll get back to you on this later with my results. Unless you want to do the checking for us.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 4:06 PM, Share Long wrote: ...it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. Judy sometimes gets confused, I think, before she stops to think about what she is posting. She often thinks somebody is posting directly at her, when often it's just a general statement of opinion. It looks like something you said Judy took the wrong way, and in her zeal to discredit you, she has fallen down another rabbit hole. This time she is already down the hole, way down the hole, and it looks like you check mated her real good this time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 4:58 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: My Lord Judy, you didn't see it coming did you? You just got your clock cleaned! Just gracefully move off the stage and regroup. It's okay. Really. Judy got waxed by Share real good in this thread. Now Judy is going to just be mean. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Better read the rest of the thread before you sound off, Richard. given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. If life is sacred, you'd probably be anti-abortion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? So far as I can tell, Judy is pro-choice, Share. So her ramblings about the sanctity of life rings kind of hollow for me. It kind of looks like Judy is trying to start another argument, sort of like the fight she picked about Luke not knowing that Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus. It's a sneak attack - everybody on this forum knows that Judy doesn't really care what anybody else thinks about life. Almost everything posted here is just an excuse for an ankle-biting session. It's never ending, like going down a rabbit hole. That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/5/2014 5:26 PM, feste37 wrote: Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Judy does not take kindly to being taken to the cleaners. Why Judy even started this is debate beyond me. I've never seen an argument about the sanctity of life ever getting resolved in an internet discussion. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, I'm willing to discuss Seraphita's points with her and your points with you and Susan's points with her. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:39 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: There were two participants who were raising points, Share, not just one. Isn't that funny, you forgot all about Susan, whose views I was defending. That's OK, Stevie and Feste did as well. How convenient. Just for giggles, let's have a look at Susan's point (her first of two), which you had no interest in or opinion about: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. To me, it's astonishing that you would prefer to ignore this and instead argue about the principle of Judaism that Susan elucidated (at least once I'd gotten you back on the road after your non sequitur). Both points are important, but that one is secondary if one has an interest in relieving suffering. Seraphita made another good point, BTW, that threatening to starve oneself is an attempt at emotional blackmail. But perhaps that's why you didn't want to address it--a little too close to home. Judy, in any post, I engage with the parts that I'm interested in or knowledgeable about or just opinionated about. I don't try to cover all the points, especially when I'm replying to a long post. Susan's post was a single shortish paragraph, Share. And it's my opinion that in a discussion, the actual points and issues it raises are determined by ALL the participants, not just one of them. Actually that is, I think, part and parcel of the discussion, determining which are the salient points. IMO you and I simply have very different ways of thinking about topics. Which is fine. And this time we got pretty far before the train went off the rails. That was enjoyable for me. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:15 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You did this from the very first post Susan made. And poor Stevie doesn't know the difference. He thinks any response you come up with must be a killer because it's you who made it. (Especially when it's in a discussion with me, of course.) Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. ...it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. Judy sometimes gets confused, I think, before she stops to think about what she is posting. She often thinks somebody is posting directly at her, when often it's just a general statement of opinion. It looks like something you said Judy took the wrong way, and in her zeal to discredit you, she has fallen down another rabbit hole. This time she is already down the hole, way down the hole, and it looks like you check mated her real good this time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Non sequitur. I didn't say you had to discuss anything with anybody. I'm pointing out what you did not, in fact, discuss; and that you miswrote in your previous post when you said there was only one person raising points. Judy, I'm willing to discuss Seraphita's points with her and your points with you and Susan's points with her. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:39 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: There were two participants who were raising points, Share, not just one. Isn't that funny, you forgot all about Susan, whose views I was defending. That's OK, Stevie and Feste did as well. How convenient. Just for giggles, let's have a look at Susan's point (her first of two), which you had no interest in or opinion about: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. To me, it's astonishing that you would prefer to ignore this and instead argue about the principle of Judaism that Susan elucidated (at least once I'd gotten you back on the road after your non sequitur). Both points are important, but that one is secondary if one has an interest in relieving suffering. Seraphita made another good point, BTW, that threatening to starve oneself is an attempt at emotional blackmail. But perhaps that's why you didn't want to address it--a little too close to home. Judy, in any post, I engage with the parts that I'm interested in or knowledgeable about or just opinionated about. I don't try to cover all the points, especially when I'm replying to a long post. Susan's post was a single shortish paragraph, Share. And it's my opinion that in a discussion, the actual points and issues it raises are determined by ALL the participants, not just one of them. Actually that is, I think, part and parcel of the discussion, determining which are the salient points. IMO you and I simply have very different ways of thinking about topics. Which is fine. And this time we got pretty far before the train went off the rails. That was enjoyable for me. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:15 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You did this from the very first post Susan made. And poor Stevie doesn't know the difference. He thinks any response you come up with must be a killer because it's you who made it. (Especially when it's in a discussion with me, of course.) Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-st\ rike_n_4540369.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-s\ trike_n_4540369.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
turq, though I disagree with this man's beliefs, I admire that he's willing to go to such lengths to express them. And in the process, to pursue an action that does not physically harm others. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 5:08 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:31 AM, waybac...@yahoo.com waybac...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed for their protests were also likely mentally disturbed? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:59 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Anyone who genuinely has the intention of starving themselves to death is likely mentally disturbed, i.e., suicidal. Typically, though, it's a publicity stunt meant to call attention to the cause. Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed for their protests were also likely mentally disturbed? Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, usually the phrase *publicity stunt* is used pejoratively. Is that how you mean it? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone who genuinely has the intention of starving themselves to death is likely mentally disturbed, i.e., suicidal. Typically, though, it's a publicity stunt meant to call attention to the cause. Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed for their protests were also likely mentally disturbed? Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Depends on the stunt in question and what cause it's promoting. I don't think a hunger strike is the most effective of stunts, though, even for a good cause. Judy, usually the phrase *publicity stunt* is used pejoratively. Is that how you mean it? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:25 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Anyone who genuinely has the intention of starving themselves to death is likely mentally disturbed, i.e., suicidal. Typically, though, it's a publicity stunt meant to call attention to the cause. Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed for their protests were also likely mentally disturbed? Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life was considered less sacred than the lives of the shooter and his or her family. Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, (As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.) I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. Then you're saying you don't believe in the principle itself, because it doesn't allow for degrees of perceived sacredness. That would put conditions on it. Nothing wrong with that; I don't believe in it myself. But you've been beating around the bush--sliding off the road--instead of coming right out with it. Now tell us how your belief applies to the guy who claims he's going to starve himself to death if same-sex marriage isn't prohibited. Is his life less sacred than...whose? For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of family members are more sacred in those circumstances and the legal system would in essence be upholding that opinion. I think the guy starving himself to death is saying that his belief about gay marriage is more sacred than his life. I do believe in the principle that all life is sacred. I also see that in actual, day to day living, people make choices that express imo, their belief in degrees of sacredness. I do too. For example, as much as I hate to do it, I will kill certain bugs if I find them in my house. I say a little prayer for them. But dispatch them I do! On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:23 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life was considered less sacred than the lives of the shooter and his or her family. Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, (As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.) I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. Then you're saying you don't believe in the principle itself, because it doesn't allow for degrees of perceived sacredness. That would put conditions on it. Nothing wrong with that; I don't believe in it myself. But you've been beating around the bush--sliding off the road--instead of coming right out with it. Now tell us how your belief applies to the guy who claims he's going to starve himself to death if same-sex marriage isn't prohibited. Is his life less sacred than...whose? For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Non sequitur. But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a cause that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a strong, non violent stand against gay marriage. BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
No, now you're going way off the road and using sacred to mean whatever you want it to mean (in this case, more valuable to me is probably closer), not what it means in the context of the principle in question. The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of family members are more sacred in those circumstances and the legal system would in essence be upholding that opinion. I think the guy starving himself to death is saying that his belief about gay marriage is more sacred than his life. In which case he's saying he's a martyr. And as Susan pointed out to start with, martyring oneself is against the principles of Judaism. I do believe in the principle that all life is sacred. I also see that in actual, day to day living, people make choices that express imo, their belief in degrees of sacredness. Then they don't believe in the principle. You can't have it both ways. I do too. For example, as much as I hate to do it, I will kill certain bugs if I find them in my house. I say a little prayer for them. But dispatch them I do! The principle Susan was talking about is that human life is sacred, so this is another non sequitur, no matter how holy you think it makes you look. In any case, Susan's main point was that going on a hunger strike (or as Barry, the Writer, puts it, a hunger fast) is a terrible waste of effort given how much real suffering there is in the world that he could be doing something to prevent. I agree with Susan, there isn't a thing admirable about what he's doing. Either he's looking for publicity, or he's mentally disturbed. I find it interesting that you haven't addressed this at all. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:23 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life was considered less sacred than the lives of the shooter and his or her family. Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, (As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.) I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. Then you're saying you don't believe in the principle itself, because it doesn't allow for degrees of perceived sacredness. That would put conditions on it. Nothing wrong with that; I don't believe in it myself. But you've been beating around the bush--sliding off the road--instead of coming right out with it. Now tell us how your belief applies to the guy who claims he's going to starve himself to death if same-sex marriage isn't prohibited. Is his life less sacred than...whose? For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, you are about two steps away.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Check
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
and Mate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Steve, your posts don't contain the previous post so I'm not sure what you're replying to. For example, what did you mean when you said I was 2 steps away? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:47 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: Check
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
It doesn't even matter, Share. Stevie would declare you the winner whatever you or I said. And he ain't gonna quote because he doesn't want to look STOOOPID. Haven't you ever noticed how often he refuses to back up his claims? Steve, your posts don't contain the previous post so I'm not sure what you're replying to. For example, what did you mean when you said I was 2 steps away? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:47 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: Check
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, actually I think human life is always about having it both ways. Meaning that we humans are matter and spirit, each informing the other, and sometimes not jiving with each other. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 1:25 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: No, now you're going way off the road and using sacred to mean whatever you want it to mean (in this case, more valuable to me is probably closer), not what it means in the context of the principle in question. The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of family members are more sacred in those circumstances and the legal system would in essence be upholding that opinion. I think the guy starving himself to death is saying that his belief about gay marriage is more sacred than his life. In which case he's saying he's a martyr. And as Susan pointed out to start with, martyring oneself is against the principles of Judaism. I do believe in the principle that all life is sacred. I also see that in actual, day to day living, people make choices that express imo, their belief in degrees of sacredness. Then they don't believe in the principle. You can't have it both ways. I do too. For example, as much as I hate to do it, I will kill certain bugs if I find them in my house. I say a little prayer for them. But dispatch them I do! The principle Susan was talking about is that human life is sacred, so this is another non sequitur, no matter how holy you think it makes you look. In any case, Susan's main point was that going on a hunger strike (or as Barry, the Writer, puts it, a hunger fast) is a terrible waste of effort given how much real suffering there is in the world that he could be doing something to prevent. I agree with Susan, there isn't a thing admirable about what he's doing. Either he's looking for publicity, or he's mentally disturbed. I find it interesting that you haven't addressed this at all. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:23 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life was considered less sacred than the lives of the shooter and his or her family. Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, (As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.) I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. Then you're saying you don't believe in the principle itself, because it doesn't allow for degrees of perceived sacredness. That would put conditions on it. Nothing wrong with that; I don't believe in it myself. But you've been beating around the bush--sliding off the road--instead of coming right out with it. Now tell us how your belief applies to the guy who claims he's going to starve himself to death if same-sex marriage isn't prohibited. Is his life less sacred than...whose? For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You did this from the very first post Susan made. And poor Stevie doesn't know the difference. He thinks any response you come up with must be a killer because it's you who made it. (Especially when it's in a discussion with me, of course.) Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
My Lord Judy, you didn't see it coming did you? You just got your clock cleaned! Just gracefully move off the stage and regroup. It's okay. Really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, you should share more of these tidbits on Batgap. Can you imagine how they would have said the same thing!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
As I told Share, Stevie-poo, you can't tell the difference between good arguments and bad ones. The only distinction you're capable of making is whose argument it is: If it's Share's, it's Good; if it's Judy's, it's Bad. If you had any clue other than that, you'd be able to actually participate in the discussion, or at least provide some analysis. But you can't do that. All you can do is throw spitballs from the sidelines. My Lord Judy, you didn't see it coming did you? You just got your clock cleaned! Just gracefully move off the stage and regroup. It's okay. Really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, and by the way, I've been defending wayback's position. That may put you and Stevie in a little bit of a bind, because, I suspect, she is one of the Good Guys in your alleged minds. Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Leave go Judy, leave go. It's all good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrLAgi_mBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrLAgi_mBY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Is that worse than being a lying jackass, auth, because that's what you were calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you happy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Feste, all I can say is I hope your fantasies keep you warm at night. Not even Share believes what you just said. Or, I don't know, maybe she does. I just don't think she could possibly be that out of it. Is that worse than being a lying jackass, auth, because that's what you were calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you happy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, in any post, I engage with the parts that I'm interested in or knowledgeable about or just opinionated about. I don't try to cover all the points, especially when I'm replying to a long post. And it's my opinion that in a discussion, the actual points and issues it raises are determined by ALL the participants, not just one of them. Actually that is, I think, part and parcel of the discussion, determining which are the salient points. IMO you and I simply have very different ways of thinking about topics. Which is fine. And this time we got pretty far before the train went off the rails. That was enjoyable for me. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:15 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You did this from the very first post Susan made. And poor Stevie doesn't know the difference. He thinks any response you come up with must be a killer because it's you who made it. (Especially when it's in a discussion with me, of course.) Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, you should share more of these tidbits on Batgap. Can you imagine how they would have said the same thing!! Yep, we put on a good peep-show, over there, Steve!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Judy, imo this is one of the strategies you use in an argument that creates a barrier to finding the truth. To say what I don't believe and then to negate your statement may be a clever debating tactic. But it brings to my mind the idea of forked tongues! On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:12 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Feste, all I can say is I hope your fantasies keep you warm at night. Not even Share believes what you just said. Or, I don't know, maybe she does. I just don't think she could possibly be that out of it. Is that worse than being a lying jackass, auth, because that's what you were calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you happy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
There were two participants who were raising points, Share, not just one. Isn't that funny, you forgot all about Susan, whose views I was defending. That's OK, Stevie and Feste did as well. How convenient. Just for giggles, let's have a look at Susan's point (her first of two), which you had no interest in or opinion about: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. To me, it's astonishing that you would prefer to ignore this and instead argue about the principle of Judaism that Susan elucidated (at least once I'd gotten you back on the road after your non sequitur). Both points are important, but that one is secondary if one has an interest in relieving suffering. Seraphita made another good point, BTW, that threatening to starve oneself is an attempt at emotional blackmail. But perhaps that's why you didn't want to address it--a little too close to home. Judy, in any post, I engage with the parts that I'm interested in or knowledgeable about or just opinionated about. I don't try to cover all the points, especially when I'm replying to a long post. Susan's post was a single shortish paragraph, Share. And it's my opinion that in a discussion, the actual points and issues it raises are determined by ALL the participants, not just one of them. Actually that is, I think, part and parcel of the discussion, determining which are the salient points. IMO you and I simply have very different ways of thinking about topics. Which is fine. And this time we got pretty far before the train went off the rails. That was enjoyable for me. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:15 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You did this from the very first post Susan made. And poor Stevie doesn't know the difference. He thinks any response you come up with must be a killer because it's you who made it. (Especially when it's in a discussion with me, of course.) Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I think you checkmated Judy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Peep show?! I think you've got full exhibition going on there sometimes. (-:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, I thought Share had already done that, according to you and Feste. Ooopsie... Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
And if I'd simply declared that you didn't believe Feste, you'd have expressed even more faux outrage about that. At least I allowed for two possibilities. (Interesting that you haven't said which is the case.) No, it doesn't create a barrier to finding the truth, nor is it a matter of a debating tactic or forked tongues. Don't be ridiculous. As far as tongues are concerned, though, yours is more like a whole tree with the branches all tangled up. That does create a barrier to finding the truth. Judy, imo this is one of the strategies you use in an argument that creates a barrier to finding the truth. To say what I don't believe and then to negate your statement may be a clever debating tactic. But it brings to my mind the idea of forked tongues! On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:12 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Feste, all I can say is I hope your fantasies keep you warm at night. Not even Share believes what you just said. Or, I don't know, maybe she does. I just don't think she could possibly be that out of it. Is that worse than being a lying jackass, auth, because that's what you were calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you happy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
well, she did, but...you are nothing... if not persistent! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Oh, I thought Share had already done that, according to you and Feste. Ooopsie... Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
As far as tongues are concerned, though, yours is more like a whole tree with the branches all tangled up. That does create a barrier to finding the truth. oh yea? Well yours is like a whole tree with all the branches tangled up, which just got some fertilizer dumped on it, and then, then, then, the tangler monster came and tangled it up double. So there!
