*sigh* The trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished and suppressed by the Royal Navy, who were as far as i am aware 99.9% Christians.... followed by ...In 1787 William Wilberforce dedicated his life to the abolishing of slavery in the British Empire Your ...
(shrug)
Stop the whole it’s a “lie” thing it’s a really disingenuous way to argue. No, no, no . That won't do. You wrote that "You can do that now." [kill myself]. By omitting to state that to do so under the proposed scenario is illegal for several parties ...
Hmm.
Abbreviation for christians. I type with only two fingers, so I use what I can.
Well, what do you know, we're in agreement.
You could say which you think are, and which you think are not? I'm OK with the first. I'm not informed enough on the detail of the Bill to comment on the second. The third is subjective if regarded as an absolute, as it is arguable it is not a truth. The ...
... carry on doing a Gosman, Richard Christie? Go back to 4.1...
So you support the state deciding? No. And nothing I've written would remotely suggest that.
And it was Christians that ended slavery, just in case you need a history lesson Well, I'm not interested in your revisionist or fantasy history. I do know that trans-Atlantic slavery was abolished due to efforts of non xstians and xstians alike. It was ...
Yes I could. It's not about sanctioning at all. It's about respecting a choice. You are comfortable with my scenario then? I simply choose to replace the gun with properly administered drugs. (Not wanting to put someone else through the trauma of scraping ...
Agreed, and all the greater reason to take the responsibility out of the hands of "lifelong partners" etc.
Well, most faithists of the xstian flavour base their morals and ethical decisions on that thoroughly immoral book, the bible. You know,the one that sanctions slavery. If you don't base your ethics on that book I apologise and withdraw.
You can do that now. Not legally, to which you must agree or tell another lie.
... gun and do yourself in Richard Christie, just don’t ask anyone...
I don't know what a "truism" is but those are certainly not all truths.
Behold, the inhumanity that is religion.
consulting with it’s bishops, philosophers and ethicists in a wide ranging public discourse on this law I don't see that first group on that list as having any special authority on ethical matters. Furthermore, pain has not the importance you appear to ...
Groan, now get bible quotations thrown at us. Bill is at perfect liberty to decline to "understand" the internal mindsets of the hand-wavers and the magical thinkers, he probably doesn't bother "understanding" of chem trail believers etc as well.
+1 one man's seriously considered heresy is another's dearly held delusion, and vice versa.
For a truly mind blowing look.... also watch this CNN interview and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtyLvKNNhbM The interview with Roy Moore's spokeswoman begins at 13.40
Yes, obviously Soper's too thick to comprehend the implications of the statistic, that 43% of the population already understand that climate change will hurt them personally. That is a huge figure, and it will only grow as the rest of the population catch ...
.No, I have not defended war criminals in Rwanda .... (facepalm) You've included that as the first of a short list of unethical practices. Why?
National members were granted a conscience vote on the anti-smacking bill, wasn't a case of parties hopping into bed with each other.
There are plenty of additional reasons to keep O'Connor a stick's length away from oneself.
It will only cause the coalition trouble if Labour fall in with National and vote against both their C&S partner and coalition partner. Labour's support will then implode and National will have a field day in opposition, which is why the rw trolls are ...
it would also demonstrate to NZF and the Greens that Labour can simply sideline them both by going with National on a vote-by-vote basis. Principles don’t keep you warm at night. And it would spell the end of Labour as a political force, as the ...
If NZF come out with a similar reiteration of position (in particular over their stated allergy toward ISDS) where would that leave Labour? So early in the term Labour would be suicidal to lie down with National in opposition to the views of their ...
I’m also disappointed in Labour on this. I'm sorry to say that I completely expected it.
According to J Kelsey, some of the most toxic ISDS provisions haven't been removed, only suspended. I.e. our cup of ISDS poison has merely been postponed.
Nonsese, you can certainly fold by signing up to clauses you have publicly expressed serious concern over.
Recent Comments