Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
You are a rude and vicious poster.
I’m shocked that anyone would say something like that.
Thanks for the ping. I can’t say I’m sorry.
****************************
I'm stunned at the level of cruelty La Lydia has shown on this thread. It's unacceptable.
La Lydia is a perpetual nasty poster. This isn’t a one time deal. I don’t call people names on here. It’s in the rules. Some follow them and some don’t. Ever.
That’s been noticed by more people than just you.
“Your problem is that I am honest. “
Finally, a post from you that doesn’t try to attribute ill-will towards this patient that was never expressed.
You are learning to be honest. Practice makes perfect.
“I haven’t changed my point. “
Perhaps, but I asked you haven’t answered the question, which was “Are there limits and should there be limits to charity?”
“My point is still the same as it was when you first asked.”
No, when I first asked, you had no point, other than to articulate a personal attack - that really was pointless because I was not the poster you thought I was.
“You can change the subject, throw in strawman arguments, and play childish games, but my point will remain the same, and it will continue to be true.”
I pointed out a moral quandary - one that is very relevant to this issue.
It is not a strawman argument, and the question “Are there limits to charity” is a relevant one which you either refuse or can’t answer.
It is a difficult question to be sure - because there is no good answer. It is still a relevant question that hospitals and society must answer.
I’ll bet it has.
No, you did not point out a moral quandary that actually exists. You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder. I answered your question. No, I don’t see it. Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. But then, it isn’t designed to, is it? If I answer your silly question, will you get back on topic? I doubt it, but what the heck, here goes. Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. Now, back to the topic at hand. I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt. And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.
I also wrote: "When immigrants sponsor in their relatives, as this woman's family did, they are required to sign an Affidavit of Support accepting legal responsibility for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant(s) until they become U.S. citizens or can be credited with 40 quarters of work. The hospital can and should sue the relatives for her costs. The Affidavit of Support usually requires the sponsor to pay medical bills out of pocket."
How is that vitriolic? My first comment was that I don't want her to die. The second comment is merely a statement of fact and law. Please explain to me how you interpreted those comments to mean that I think the woman should be starved and dehydrated to death?
Poor ol' Lastchance didn't bother to read what I wrote, either. He just immediately went into self-pity mode and then insinuated I wanted to kill HIM! Why would any of you just automatically assume that someone on a conservative forum would in any way ever advocate death, like Lastchance did, and like you did, without even bothering to read their comments? Why would you automatically assume the worst; who, after all, is vicious and nasty?
“You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder.”
I did not ask this.
“Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. “
This is not what I asked.
“Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. “
Not what I asked.
“I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt.”
With whom do you disagree about this? It is not me.
“And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.”
What approach did I advocate? I don’t recall advocating for anything.
Again, you need to be honest in your discussion, otherwise you are arguing with yourself.
Honesty....you had a fleeting brush with it last night, but I see a nights rest has you returning to your previous dishonesty on this discussion
If you wish to debate me, don’t debate yourself. If you just wish to debate yourself, have at it - but don’t include me - I can’t participate.
Courtesy ping to post 130, because the rude person posting about you doesn’t know enough to ping you. Or maybe it thinks you’re not worthy.
You two should pair off. Neither of you can stand by your own long held position against the right to life. You poke at it, drop your little turds in the punchbowl, then swear you didn’t mean anything by it. Until you can come out in the open and admit what you’re pushing, nobody will ever take you seriously. You deserve each other.
You are.
“Neither of you can stand by your own long held position against the right to life.”
Honesty......
You’re going nuts, now. You cannot justify the above statement. I never said anything akin to what you are saying. You cannot debate honestly, because you are not honest. You have your own “Commandment problem”.
But you knew this about yourself already.
I simply asked “Are there limits to charity” and you could not answer, which is fine - so you make something else up.
Yeah I know, you’re pro-life, but you have “concerns.”
I answered your strawman question already, and predicted that you still wouldn't get back on topic. Is this the time when I should pretend to be shocked that I guessed right?
“Yeah I know, you’re pro-life, but you have “concerns.””
I never said anything like that.
Why must you be so dishonest?
You aren’t even rational. If you are going to be so dishonest, at least try to twist something I actually said.
Are there limits to charity?
“I answered your strawman question already, and predicted that you still wouldn’t get back on topic”
No you did not. You turned it into a personal attack by fabricating your answer to a question I did not ask.
You cannot be honest, can you?
Are there limits to charity?
You are the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously, and being able to effectively advocate for this cause, when you go so far out of your way to alienate people like me who are already on your side. (Also, I guessed you would eventually descend to scatological insults and I was right.) Kindly refrain from repeating any more lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.