Reply With Quote
No there wasn't but considering your standards of what cons utes an argument I am not surprised you find it that way.
The question was about holding others responsible for their actions.
My scheme of personal responsibility is besides the point. We are talking about public policy.
Do I think that the governments role is to help those that are unable to help themselves? Yes, I do.
Do I think that it is the government's role to arbiter whose 'personal responsibility' warrants them deserving food aid? no.
You are talking about them having children that they should not have. In light of that how is discussion of eugenics inane? You are saying they should not have children. Do you know what eugenics is?
No there wasn't but considering your standards of what cons utes an argument I am not surprised you find it that way.
It helps me determine the fundamental accuracy of the things you post and the corresponding attention I should devote to your posts.
Most people don't.
Then again, most people know that harming children is wrong.
Well then it's a good thing I don't harm any children. Quite the contrary, actually.
I can see it all now...
"Your honor, the plaintiff has presented video evidence that my client's car crashed into his house three times. I say that it was zero times, and that we cannot truly even know the truth about whether my client crashed into the house."
"Furthermore, when I said that the plaintiff was clearly at fault because his house crashed into my clients car, it was because of this book, by a dead French guy, that is all the evidence I need, and that you should clearly assume it is true, because if my interpretation of this dead guys assertions. The plaintiff did not prove these assertions wrong, so therefore they are all true."
"Finally, I ask that the case be dismissed, simply because my client did nothing wrong. Harming others is clearly not wrong, and therefore the entire case against him should be thrown out, because if nothing wrong happened, there is no case."
sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.
I like that one too.
Of course you don't. We take care of the children you would harm. Lucky for them the rest of us know better than you do.
I started the Miami Children's Hospital truck for our company
There is plenty of "analysis" showing that 9-11 was an inside job. You should go hang out with them. They suck at putting together logically sound arguments too.
Sorry. You want to children harmed. You said it yourself.I started the Miami Children's Hospital truck for our company
Does withholding food for extended periods of time harm children or not?
Do you think if I told the people at the children's hospital what you said, they would think better of you?
RG, what is your job tbh? Do you save children and poor people like I do?
tbh fail.RG, what is your job tbh? Do you save children and poor people like I do?
I don't work at the hospital, I secured the contract for the ambulance company that handles all their UCC's. I was also the lead medic they chose to run said truck. I've since left since I work my flight job fulltime now (including many pediatric critical care flights).
What do you do for children and po folks, now that I just crushed your moral superiority soapbox?
What do you think paramedics do, dumbass?
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Does withholding food for an extended period of time, i.e. starvation, harm children?
It is a pretty simple question for a paramedic, I would hope.
Only a simpleton would fall for your loaded questions. Did you not say people should not have kids if they don't have the means to support them? Yet you're intellectually dishonest and willing to encourage said behavior with even more free nom-noms. You don't even understand your own agenda.
Also, what do do for a living, again?
How is it loaded.
Your words, exactly, with a link:
I stated that you wanted children to be harmed. You objected, as if I had said something incorrect.
I am merely trying to determine if a paramedic understands that starvation is harmful. Let's assume so.
Contributing to welfare should be an option one checks on a tax return.
I evaluate risks against benefits, read fine print, and seek original evidence to support assertions. I am very good at it.
Most economists would disagree.
Do you think allowing children to starve to death is moral?
Just admit it bro, there's a fat steak in your underoos when you learned what I've done (and continue to do) for kids.
Why did Bob Barker want people to spay and neuter their pets? Did he hate animals? Oh , I just compared people to cats and dogs--Nazi behavior, amirite?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions