If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Kane (Donald L. Fisher, retired CPS Caseworker and LOBBYIST for laws
against all forms of parental spanking) wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. That puts it all in perspective. In Lies Miraculously you and your hyena pack always assert that each other do not LIE, even when caught "dead to rights" at it. Why should mutual "personal references" among the hyena pack mean any more? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless OfCultural Norm
Greegor wrote:
Kane -- yer lying again...snip..... against all forms of parental spanking) wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that. You had to snip to misrepresent what I said to make that claim. Don't you have even the dregs (a pun on your name) of a conscience, Gregs? That puts it all in perspective. Oh, I see. It's not about what I really said then, but about the delusions you have that you must keep going by lying through change of my posted comments by attribution abortion. Can you restore my comments in full on the subject I was discussing and still support that I admitted something? In Lies Miraculously you and your hyena pack always assert that each other do not LIE, even when caught "dead to rights" at it. To what instance currently, preferable in a recent post in this thread, are you referring? Why should mutual "personal references" among the hyena pack mean any more? Because a lie in these particular circumstances would be immoral. Unethical. Now were one of us at risk of our lives I think any lie by commission or omission to protect the person being targeted would be morally defensible. You know, that reminds me. I've asked your view on this, and for some odd reason you won't respond. Is this too difficult a moral dilemma for you to work out? Would you tell the absolute truth to a questioner if it meant that the person they ask about would be at risk of harm to life or limb? And barring you running yet again, let me ask this more clearly: Why haven't you answered this question before? You don't really want to get in another 'use of lethal force by parents' question, now do you? There IS such a thing as lying by omission. For instance, if I asked you what Sock Michael might be wearing at the moment, would it be a lie to evade and not answer me? Or would you say that his life or limb would be at risk and you have a moral obligation not to answer, or to answer incorrectly? 0:-] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless OfCultural Norm
Greegor wrote:
Kane (Donald L. Fisher, retired CPS Caseworker and LOBBYIST for laws against all forms of parental spanking) wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. That puts it all in perspective. .........snip.....another subject from to the one above..... Just to show anyone curious what a lying little cowardly sot you are, here is what I actually said, and it had nothing to do with your inference. You are addressing Ron, and I'm interjecting my comments before Ron responds, which he hasn't bothered to do, since he could easily see you are lying again: .... You, Greg, to Ron: All Ken has to do is look through the archives to see your disagreement with Kane and your "pact" with him. I, Kane, to you: Well, he could, but since Ron already has told him, why would he? Even funnier is that your old arguments with Kane about spanking would to some extent AGREE with what Ken has said! Of course. The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. I have no reason, no evidence, not even a hint, that Ron has ever lied to me, or about me, or about the subject. He has expressed his opinion. He has offered reasonable logical argument. He has referred to research...very ancient research as I recall, that I cannot disagree with. He simply hasn't convinced my MY evidence has been overturned thereby. That is where it stood when we agreed that we had reached the end of reasoned debate, and neither of us would descend to Donation, or Greegorishness. Sometimes debate simply ends with no winner or loser. ............. As you and anyone that cares to read it, the subject is not the issue in this instance, but simply the issue of why Ron is not present in the debate by his own choice, and why and how I support him in this decision. Have you no conscience at all, Greg? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Kane wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Greg wrote Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. Kane wrote No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that. What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless OfCultural Norm
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Greg wrote Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. Kane wrote No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that. What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post? What part of the rest of the post that you've removed by not quoting fully do you not understand? The issue at hand, a response to your comments to Ron, was not about the spanking subject, but about why he would not join in the debate. Nothing at all to do with the subject. My explanation had nothing to do with the subject of the debate, but with why he wasn't joining in. In addition to your cowardice, and propensity to lie, are you also language disabled? There is no admission of anything from me that conforms to your comment, Greg. You said, "Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself." I was not addressing the dispute between them havingto do with the subject, but simply why Ron would not join in. I consider Ron to have excellent character, and Ken to not have. And it's plain that since I said I would not debate the subject with anyone but Ken at this point, I'm not debating it now, or in the prior post you partially quoted. Am I making myself clear? While they may have been having an ad hom encounter I do not refer to that as debate. Never have. It's flaming, or clarification, according to how one wishes to take it. Ron would not debate with he, or I. That simple. Now what have I admitted to, Greg? That one should not be addressing the other at all, if he truly wishes to debate the issue with me. Because even if Ron wanted to join in, my conditions for MY being a party to it are violated and I wouldn't participate. Ken alone. Who we see is very absent, after being caught at a series of lies and subterfuges. Not you. Not Ron, just Ken, alone. Got that yet? Or were you just pitching one of your little attention garnering fits? Are you going to say, "gotcha" now and prove my point? 0:-] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Kane (Donald L. Fisher in reference to Ken) wrote
Who we see is very absent, after being caught at a series of lies and subterfuges. You try this stupid crap every time somebody is away from the net for a day. Kane wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Greg wrote Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. Kane wrote No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that. Greg wrote What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post? Would you please answer THE QUESTION? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Greegor wrote: Kane (Donald L. Fisher in reference to Ken) wrote Who we see is very absent, after being caught at a series of lies and subterfuges. You try this stupid crap Now now, watch yer language there, accuser of other's useing obscenity. every time somebody is away from the net for a day. I have this deja vu thing going on. I seem to remember a couple of posters running a number here when Dan was gone for awhile...let me see if I can remember who.........nope, slipped my mind. R R R R R R R R R Kane wrote The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the two you are discussing. Greg wrote Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself. Kane wrote No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that. Greg wrote What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post? Would you please answer THE QUESTION? I can't since it presumes a condition that does not exist. That IS my final answer. I made no claim that the debate was about character, but only about spanking research. The comment I made, that you aborted the context of, consisted of say WHY Ron didn't wish to post. And it really had nothing to do with your question that presume Ad Hom being "the debate." It never was. Not in THIS thread, by me. I'm still awaiting my honorable mmmmphhhhh opponent's pleasure, and his answer to my challenge rather than pretending it's his turn to challenge. Next question. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |