🚀 go-pugleaf

Word Warrior wrote:
> >The way I figure, it's only a matter of time before statistics catch up
> >with a critical mass of the the folks on the side of free will and > >they become victims of the consequences of their free will.
> >So we don't know when life begins?  And even if we did, could someone
> >articulate it in a way that could be understood by EVERYONE?  Could
> >someone explain to a gang member the moral difference between blowing
> >away a rival gang member and terminating something that to them looks
> >like a duck, acts like a duck, etc. .... for other reasons of convenience?
> 
> You point out an important concept: that people with deficient
> emotional intelligence imagine enemies where there are none.

The above leap of logic is too much for my deficient emotional
intelligence to comprehend - or is that a nonsequitur I see?

> 
> >If it's animals we want society to behave like,that's exactly what we
> >will get - deservedly so. Like I tell my kids, life is full of
> >opportunities to express our free will.  Enjoy the fruits of the right
> >expressions and learn from the consequences of the bad expressions.
> 
> Animals actually function with admirable cooperation when they
> are not forced into conditions of deprivation.
> 

Carnivores kill for survival.  Judged within the context of their
existence, their actions are understandable.  I suspect their victims
have other thoughts, however.    

> >Can I prove there's a relationship between how we treat the unborn and
> >other abhorant events.
> 
> Do you claim that death is abhorrent?

When imposed by another person, yes.  What's your point?

> 
> >Of course not.  To some of us it doesn't need to
> >be proved.  It's kind of like what happens in fox holes.  There are some
> >who act on faith - blind as it may seem to others.  There are some for
> >whom the the situation seems to peel away the chaff - the inhibitions
> >perhaps.  Then there are some who never seem to get it no matter what
> >happens to them (by the way, where IS Madeline Murray O'Hare?)
> 
> Maybe she's dead and in heaven.

And maybe she's alive and well - and converted.  Age is one of those fox
holes, you know.

> 
> >At this point, let me make a prediction.  No one will challenge this
> >article on a continuing basis without resorting to expletives,
> >emotionalism and nonsequiturs.  That's okay.  I like to think these are
> >the folks who have never seen a fox hole, much less been in one.
> 
> Hey, you were just helpin' that fox over the fence, eh?

I was wrong.  In addition to expletives,emotionalism and
nonsequiturs,people will also respond in the form of sarcasm and puzzles
when they either don't have anything tangible to say or they're
incapable of articulating what they feel is tangible.  Can you simply
say what you mean and not resort to saying things that no one else
understands in the hope that readers will believe that you are the
holder of some deep, esoteric truth.  You haven't substantially
responded to a thing I said.  No surprise.
************************************************************************
Persistently, Terry
Been there (several times) done that (more times than I care to admit)
*
*
*
Life's too serious to take seriously.