Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
In this case it seems oddly appropriate.
“Unbelievable, I never thought I would see someone who claimed to be a conservative, or even a libertarian, suggesting that CHARITY should be limited.”
What in my post suggested it should be limited? I asked the question. I’m fascinated that nobody wants to answer it.
” Devil’s advocate? How many times have we seen this method used to advance an agenda?”
I don’t know what method to which you refer? I asked a question that nobody will answer directly.
“Maybe 0h0m0 should appoint a Limits to Charity Czar, sounds like you’re the man for the job.”
Fascinating group. I posited no answer to the question to lead you to this conclusion, yet you and others can only attack me personally without attempting to answer the question.
I never want to be a devil’s advocate, people often say it proudly as though it’s a good thing, I don’t get it!
*********************************
Why don't you answer it? It's your question. Don't you have a point of view?
“I see you have a new ally. An admirer actually. It shares your appreciation for honesty and your priorities on the value of life. “
Again, you attack me personally without answering the question - yet you have absolutely no basis for claiming I value life less than you do, only some mistaken memory from years ago......
I don’t think you should be smack-talking about honesty, given your record on this thread.
I don’t mind your surly attacks, but your intellectual dishonesty has transcended annoying and plunged into amusing.
You could simply answer the question, rather than repeatedly claiming that you did, which seems to take a lot more effort.
Fascinating that nobody will provide an answer - preferring to attack me for asking it - which again, seems a lot more effort than just answering a simple question.
********************************
Devil's advocate
From Wikipedia:
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer (less commonly) to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a more conventional stance.
*********************************
It's not uncommon for those who are antagonistic to assume the role of "Devil's Advocate". This allows them to appear to be merely interested in debate, while in fact they are attempting to advance their agenda. In this case, the pro-death agenda.
No, you are not merely *asking a question*. You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.
Conservatives on FR have had plenty of experience dealing with trolls who push an agenda by simply *asking questions*. It's a common tactic.
Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they're appointed to.
Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other's throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.
It's just a red herring set up by someone to get the attention off themselves and their agenda.
Been there, seen that. Not buying it again.
Well said, metmom.
“Why don’t you answer it? It’s your question. Don’t you have a point of view?”
Of course I do. I’d be happy to provide my answer but at the moment I’m rather amused that nobody seems to want to answer - and instead attack me for asking!
I think I know why nobody wants to answer, but I suppose that doesn’t matter at this point.
None of you who criticize me for asking a reasonable question should assume that I have one position or another on this specific case, other than the one I’ve already expressed.
“You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.”
What is my supposed agenda? I assure you that I am not “trolling”. I posited the question seriously, intending to discuss the very real issues around this case.
My question makes you uncomfortable. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?
Amused?
Why should there ever be any limits to anyone’s personal charity? Anyone who wants to give to any cause should never have external limits imposed by others.
Up to each person, family or private charity what they want to do with their own money or funds.
Until you post otherwise, it certainly sounds as though you don’t share this POV.
The fact that anyone would even THINK to ask such a question tells us all that we need to know about the questioner.
I can't imagine that it would even cross the mind of someone with a shred of humanity or decency to even think to ask the question in the first place.
If it occurred to you to ask it, then I'd have to say, yes, BB is morally superior to you.
What makes me uncomfortable is:
1. Your dishonesty
2. Your attempts to insinuate (something) and manipulate others
3. Your offensive and fetid stench of “I’m the smartest person in the room” sense of superiority
4. Your complete lack of any compassion for suffering people
5. Your attitude that this whole discussion is some kind of intellectual debate and your aim is to “win” it by being intellectually superior, all the while hiding and obfuscating your real points of view.
Perhaps if I read more of your comments I’ll come up with some other reasons why your word jugglery makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable meaning disgusted.
In a word.
No.
Projecting is also revealing of a person's character.
I am a Christian. I believe God is still God. I do not think we should do things that keep people ARTIFICIALLY alive, and have a "living will" that agrees with that sentiment.I wonder at thoseon this board who so viciously attack those who disagree (and they do get VICIOUS!). They're reacting with emotion and intellect, not a belief in the supernatural power of His Spirit to provide life. It is a reflection of a profound lack of faith, in my mind. It especially makes little sense whether Charity is or is not an issue. In my Bible, Charity is another term for love. In Jesus name, anything can happen, but God must be allowed to do it HIS way!!!
Lazarus was DEAD when Jesus called him out of the TOMB! I see a bunch of people who love their loved ones (+ strangers who they think need those thoughts) and want to fight against the WILL OF GOD, and rely on medical science instead of faith! That is not a sign of faith in GOD, but in man (or woman, if the shoe fits).
Just my two pennies worth!
Luke 7:2-9 (New International Version, ©2011)
2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them.
He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. ...
“Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they’re appointed to.”
Who said I wanted to be anyone’s conscience. I expressed an opinion on the woman’s situation - which I’m guessing you never read (we probably agree), and then asked a question that is relevant to the case.
I acknowledged the question contains a moral quandary from the beginning did I not?
It was no set up. It was a question that I expected someone to have an answer to, or perhaps a philosophical twist to. However, I received personal vitriol rather than any attempt at reason.
That is of interest to me.
“Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other’s throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.”
So I’m not conservative for asking a question? What does that make you for not answering it - and instead of ignoring it - attacking me just for asking?
**********************************
Your post is a classic trolling technique.
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.