scoreless tennis players usually do not jump over the net...
-Imp
You are using the "no harm" principle against itself. That's self-justificationSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:39 pmExactly! You are using the "no harm" principle against itself. That's self-justification.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm So can do no harm if you choose to do no harm to the guy rapin' your child in front of you.
It may be harm. If it was a lie, but the metaphor (and the context of the conversation) went over your head.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm And, btw, why you are lyin' to Gary? And isn't a lie a kind of harm?
Harry,henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:28 pm No, that's bullshit.Your principle (remember the good old days [yesterday] when you didn't have principles?) is manure.
Well, those are some pretty fucking ambiguous instructions!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:43 am One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Unlike your half-sentence picking tendencies, I can actually join the dots across multiple threads to point out your blatant double standard.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:10 am The question was which is the highest principle. It wasn't whether or not you would obey it, or violate it in the very next message.
Skepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.
Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.
A round of applause for Harry is required here!henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:23 amSkepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.![]()
So why are you lying about my lack of principles, Harry?
Where is the "surprise" exactly? Your options are laid out for you: Heaven or Hell.
I didn't dodge it...rather, I dismissed it for it's sheer absurdity. Sometimes something's just so "off" it's not worth a comment, and sometimes one should leave a comment alone just because pursuing it would expose the asker's mistake and cause public embarrassment. There's no need for that.
You sayin' you have no principles then defendin' a principle is just evidence that you have no principles.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:19 amA round of applause for Harry is required here!henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:23 amSkepdick wrote:I don't have principles. DO NO HARM is what I DO.Skepdick wrote:I am pretty sure the highest principle is "no harm". Morality.![]()
In his narrow-minded focus of winning the battle, he gives up the war.
By contradicting me saying "I don't have principles" he scores an own goal.
So why are you lying about my lack of principles, Harry?
![]()
So you didn't dodge it, rather - you dodged it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm I didn't dodge it...rather, I dismissed it for it's sheer absurdity.
Well, this is a new tactic for you. Cowering behind faux courtesy.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm Sometimes something's just so "off" it's not worth a comment, and sometimes one should leave a comment alone just because pursuing it would expose the asker's mistake and cause public embarrassment. There's no need for that.
The second commandment relativizes the first. It establishes a dualistic notion of "love".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm But to the point, the second commandment is an extension of the first, not in conflict with it.
Yeah... that's nonsense. Fulfilling the 2nd commandment is insufficient towards fulfilling the first - your God mandates that you love him more than you love your neighbour.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 pm Nor can one put the two in conflict, rationally speaking. For to fulfill the first commandment to one's neighbour is to fulfill the second as well.