LordReed:


Then you don't have a right to life in the sight of a hungry predator.

But humans have a complex or/and sophisticated brain.
The lions don't think like humans do.
So,if they don't kill something,it doesn't mean that thing has a right to life to them.
They don't debate.

HellVictorinho:

But humans have a complex or/and sophisticated brain.
The lions don't think like humans do.
So,if they don't kill something,it doesn't mean that thing has a right to life to them.
They don't debate.

What has the complexity of brain got to do with it? They are alive despite their brain type or are you denying that?

LordReed:


What has the complexity of brain got to do with it? They are alive despite their brain type or are you denying that?

They don't debate rights like we do.

LordReed:


What has the complexity of brain got to do with it? They are alive despite their brain type or are you denying that?

Lions don't kill in the name of depriving you of your right.
They just kill to eat.
They don't THINK it has anything to do with your rights.

HellVictorinho:

They don't debate rights like we do.

So by your logic if an alien race that has an even more complex brain than us, finds us and decides that due to their higher order brain functions, we are good for food or extermination, you'd accept it?

HellVictorinho:

Lions don't kill in the name of depriving you of your right.
They just kill to eat.
They don't THINK it has anything to do with your rights.

You assume because you have a complex language and communicate with symbols that other species cannot communicate or have thoughts? Besides how does being unable to think about rights deprive one of rights? Do mentally handicapped people and babies have no rights because they cannot debate those rights?

LordReed:


So by your logic if an alien race that has an even more complex brain than us, finds us and decides that due to their higher order brain functions, we are good for food or extermination, you'd accept it?

If they exist and we are good for food,then we will have to defend ourselves instead of debating whether they should be themselves or not.
Besides,there is a chance we will win since they may not be united.

HellVictorinho:

If they exist and we are good for food,then we will have to defend ourselves instead of debating whether they should be themselves or not.
Besides,there is a chance we will win since they may not be united.

Then you in the sight of any being that sees you have food have no rights, its that simple. Your brain function is a cop out to your own argument.

LordReed:


You assume because you have a complex language and communicate with symbols that other species cannot communicate or have thoughts? Besides how does being unable to think about rights deprive one of rights? Do mentally handicapped people and babies have no rights because they cannot debate those rights?

The inability to think about rights doesn't deprive one of rights.
It only means nothing/nobody has rights according to such animal.
In other words,rights don't exist according to such animal.

LordReed:


Then you in the sight of any being that sees you have food have no rights, its that simple. Your brain function is a cop out to your own argument.

If I don't need a right to life,then I don't need a right to kill.
It's war.

HellVictorinho:

The inability to think about rights doesn't deprive one of rights.
It only means nothing/nobody has rights according to such animal.
In other words,rights don't exist according to such animal.

HellVictorinho:

If I don't need a right to life,then I don't need a right to kill.
It's war.

Thus defeating your own argument.

LordReed:

Nope. Look at my definition of evil again, it encapsulates all of life and our environment. Evil is not only that which is done against humans.

Ok! And yes, you captured the whole world by your definition, but it is too large to study the whole world at once. Therefore, it is preferable to study the parts that make up the whole just as we first studied A,B,C before we could write speeches!

LordReed:

I am not denying that humans deserve relief from evil,

But you are not clearly saying whether a person who suffered harm or pain caused by the actions or inactions of another is entitled to Relief.

Also, even though you have now implied that such a sufferer may get relief, but there is also another implication which I would like you to clear up, which is, that you also think that a sufferer should not be relieved, which is in direct conflict with your first implied answer.

So, what is your True Clear Answer to the question

"Do you think that the sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?"

LordReed:

I just wanted you to understand that the question is broad and complex.

I can further illustrate it this way, soliders in Sambisa right now are suffering hardship and death to attempt to root out the scourge of Boko Haram. Would you rather their suffering and death stop thereby giving Boko Haram a free hand?

These are not yes or no questions, once again underlining my point that life is too complex to put everything into neat little boxes. We are going to have to strive to find solutions and answers out of the box.

If you had this in mind then you have left the A,B,C Class, where I am to Primary 1 Class where I am not.

So let's find the A,B,C place of Relief, then we could proceed to further areas of coverage.

So please could you clear up the Problem of your Implied Answer by putting down a clearer one?

Dtruthspeaker:


Ok! And yes, you captured the whole world by your definition, but it is too large to study the whole world at once. Therefore, it is preferable to study the parts that make up the whole just as we first studied A,B,C before we could write speeches!



But you are not clearly saying whether a person who suffered harm or pain caused by the actions or inactions of another is entitled to Relief.

Also, even though you have now implied that such a sufferer may get relief, but there is also another implication which I would like you to clear up, which is, that you also think that a sufferer should not be relieved, which is in direct conflict with your first implied answer.

So, what is your True Clear Answer to the question

"Do you think that the sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?"



If you had this in mind then you have left the A,B,C Class, where I am to Primary 1 Class where I am not.

So let's find the A,B,C place of Relief, then we could proceed to further areas of coverage.

So please could you clear up the Problem of your Implied Answer by putting down a clearer one?

Ok then the short answer is yes humans suffering deserve relief.

LordReed:



Thus defeating your own argument.

What was my argument?
I said anything that I have to eat or/and anything that can or/and wants to hurt me doesn't have a right to life.
If anyone or anything wants to kill me,I shouldn't care whether it's because it/she/he thinks other humans have rights except me.
I shouldn't even care whether it/she/he has a philosophy or not.
I should be ready to die if I can't save myself or ready to kill if I can save myself.

HellVictorinho:

What was my argument?
I said anything that I have to eat or/and anything that can or/and wants to hurt me doesn't have a right to life.
If anyone or anything wants to kill me,I shouldn't care whether it's because it/she/he thinks other humans have rights except me.
I shouldn't even care whether it/she/he has a philosophy or not.
I should be ready die if I can't save myself or ready to kill if I can save myself.

You argued that right to life is because of brain function did you not?

LordReed:


You argued that right to life is because of brain function did you not?

Off course.
Since you are not harming yourself physically, you think you have a right to life.
Since Hell Victorinho doesn't sound like someone that wants to kill you now, you think he has a right to life.
But you don't think the coronavirus has a right to life because it can or/and it wants to kill you.
Ultimately,rights exist in minds or they don't exist at all.

HellVictorinho:

Off course.
Since you are not harming yourself physically, you think you have a right to life.
Since Hell Victorinho doesn't sound like someone that wants to kill you now, you think he has a right to life.
But you don't think the coronavirus has a right to life because it can or/and it wants to kill you.
Ultimately,rights exist in minds or they don't exist at all.

A virus is not alive so can't have a right to life. Anything that lives can have rights to life even if those rights are granted by minds.

LordReed:


A virus is not alive so can't have a right to life. Anything that lives can have rights to life even if those rights are granted by minds.

A virus has some characteristics of living things.
So, when I say "life" in that instance,I am referring to those characteristics.

LordReed:


Ok then the short answer is yes humans suffering deserve relief.

Ehen, thank you!

But, it is still not complete for you stopped at "suffering" which is wide but the question is specific to suffering caused by the harmful conduct of another person.

So, please could you capture your answer in the light of sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person?

Christmas's is never a Pagan Origin. It is a celebration of love and the birth of our Dear Lord.

We as Christians dont know the day/month/year that Christ was born, but we know that he was born on Christmas's day. We decided to celebrate him this day 25th/Dec

Just imagine a world were there is no Celebration?

Even the false Jehovah witness who hated Christmas's so much have their day of celebration and yet condemn ours.


For those of you who dont celebrate christmass and yet condemn our Christmas. GET THE Bleep OUTA HERE.

LordReed:


Thanks for that compliment. I think you are too.

Thank you too

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you too

A little ego massage....lol

Dtruthspeaker:


Ehen, thank you!

But, it is still not complete for you stopped at "suffering" which is wide but the question is specific to suffering caused by the harmful conduct of another person.

So, please could you capture your answer in the light of sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person?

Yes relief is deserved.

LordReed:


Yes relief is deserved.

Please, Pardon me, Relief from what?

Dtruthspeaker:


Please, Pardon me, Relief from what?

From sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person.

LordReed:


From sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person.

Thank you!

But, please, could you give me the full answer as a complete whole, instead of having me put together your severed answers?

The "who", who suffers from the harmful conduct caused by another, is missing in this statement. It has to be a complete statement for it to have True Good Value!

The celebration doesn't belong to Christians to start with. The atheist and Pagan are the original owner.

Do some research to unbundle the package sold to you as religion.

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you!

But, please, could you give me the full answer as a complete whole, instead of having me put together your severed answers?

The "who", who suffers from the harmful conduct caused by another, is missing in this statement. It has to be a complete statement for it to have True Good Value!

All humans who suffer harmful conduct caused by another deserve relief.

LordReed:


All humans who suffer harmful conduct caused by another deserve relief.

Most grateful!

Quite an unusual choice of word "human"!

Is there a reason why you used "humans" instead of persons or people?

Dtruthspeaker:


Most grateful!

Quite an unusual choice of word "human"!

Is there a reason why you used "humans" instead of persons or people?

Not really.

Because Christmas is not really a religious practice, but an occasion for merry-making, traveling and spending time with family and friends.

LordReed:


Not really.

At least could i take that your use of the word "humans" also means people, persons, individuals, personalities?