The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've gone back to university taking classes for my degree and my sociology class has a group discussion at the end of term. My group is to discuss euthanasia (assisted suicide). One of the things we've decided to do is take a poll of people and find out what the general consensus or majority say about this. So, if you would, please post whether you're for it, against it, or just don't know.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
Oh, yes! Please state briefly why you're for or against it. Thanks in advance.
Page:
Lol I wasn't forcing any opinion onto you. Just saying how I feel. When a person is no more useful I see no need in them hanging around. Especially if they start leeching of society. Ever heard the phrase: Live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse? That's what I want. To go in my prime. Not as some shrivelled up old man like you see on buses and stuff. Urgh. I just think it's sad and never want it to happen to me.
You've no idea how much I wish I were standing behind you with a shotgun.
There are thousands of people who die every day.
Why can't you be one of them?
Why can't you be one of them?
WOW! Thanks, mates!! I haven't been here since posting this. Great responses! As soon as I have time, I'll pull most of this off and use it. (And I'll give you credit, too, Light.) Again, thanks,mates!!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Opinion
Light wrote:
> Insults
Light, an opinion is an opinion, no matter how uninformed and extreme it may be.
And you can make Sociology into a degree?!?
> Opinion
Light wrote:
> Insults
Light, an opinion is an opinion, no matter how uninformed and extreme it may be.
And you can make Sociology into a degree?!?
I'm for Euthanasia - if they want to get killed, it's there choice, but I'm against Cubists ideas of the weak getting killed.
mattributé wrote:
> There are thousands of people who die every day.
>
> Why can't you be one of them?
Lol aww have I said something that Azul and Mattribute don't like? Oops, I'm sorry. An equally valid question would be why don't you two just drop dead and do the world a favour? You'd be missed as much as a tumor I assure you.
> There are thousands of people who die every day.
>
> Why can't you be one of them?
Lol aww have I said something that Azul and Mattribute don't like? Oops, I'm sorry. An equally valid question would be why don't you two just drop dead and do the world a favour? You'd be missed as much as a tumor I assure you.
Ďcarus wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Opinion
>
> Light wrote:
> Insults
Heh. For this thread, you're absolutely right. That said, it seems most of my insults are true. Or are you saying that Mary ISN'T a coward?
>
>
> Light, an opinion is an opinion, no matter how uninformed and extreme
> it may be.
Well duh. However, when someone tries to say that opinion should be universal, and no-one should be allowed to have opinions that differ (as Mary does), I get ticked off. So I express my opinion; that Mary is a failed human being who needs some severe education. Extreme yes, but at least it has the benefit of being informed.
>
> And you can make Sociology into a degree?!?
Mate, you can make Klingon into a degree these days...
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Opinion
>
> Light wrote:
> Insults
Heh. For this thread, you're absolutely right. That said, it seems most of my insults are true. Or are you saying that Mary ISN'T a coward?
>
>
> Light, an opinion is an opinion, no matter how uninformed and extreme
> it may be.
Well duh. However, when someone tries to say that opinion should be universal, and no-one should be allowed to have opinions that differ (as Mary does), I get ticked off. So I express my opinion; that Mary is a failed human being who needs some severe education. Extreme yes, but at least it has the benefit of being informed.
>
> And you can make Sociology into a degree?!?
Mate, you can make Klingon into a degree these days...
Light wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
> Light, personal attacks are unnecessary. If you don't like what he
> writes, leave. There's no point flaming him about it.
>
> Umm...aren't you being just a tad of a hypocrite here? How about if I
> say "If you don't like me flaming him then leave. There's no
> point in getting annoyed about it". Is there any real
> difference?
I wrote that as a parody of your earlier comment to Forest Fan. Don't pretend you didn't notice that.
Light wrote:
"In summary: I'll say what I damn well like to you. If you don't like it, leave."
(just in case you needed to be reminded of that one)
> Scuse me, but who the HELL are you to tell me what I should and
> shouldn't be doing here? Christ, I thought Bell was prim but this
> reads like a Stephen Fry monologue given by my dad. Your distaste is
> duly noted.
So you're outraged that I've got the audacity to tell you not to insult people?
Fair enough. If it makes you feel any better I can rephrase it as an opinion instead.
> Personal attacks are unnecessary? Well, so it bigoted hatemongering.
> And to the best of my knowledge, I haven't behaved like a bigot.
> Showing maturity? Heh...well, I always like it when someone feels
> qualified to comment conclusively about something when they've
> clearly skim read maybe one thread out of the God-knows-how-many
> where Mary and I have been arguing. Really gives me faith that you
> know what you're talking about. Tell you what; read about a half
> dozen pages in a couple of other threads featuring Mary and his
> Magical Monging, then we'll talk. In the meantime, kudos for saying
> something that goes against the general grain about him, but it'd be
> much nicer if you actually checked your facts.
I've 'clealy' only skim-read at most one thread? That's a rather naive (not to mention incorrect) assumption to make. I deny it :)
I don't usually comment in threads like this because it rarely bothers me that much.
> VenomByte wrote:
> Light, personal attacks are unnecessary. If you don't like what he
> writes, leave. There's no point flaming him about it.
>
> Umm...aren't you being just a tad of a hypocrite here? How about if I
> say "If you don't like me flaming him then leave. There's no
> point in getting annoyed about it". Is there any real
> difference?
I wrote that as a parody of your earlier comment to Forest Fan. Don't pretend you didn't notice that.
Light wrote:
"In summary: I'll say what I damn well like to you. If you don't like it, leave."
(just in case you needed to be reminded of that one)
> Scuse me, but who the HELL are you to tell me what I should and
> shouldn't be doing here? Christ, I thought Bell was prim but this
> reads like a Stephen Fry monologue given by my dad. Your distaste is
> duly noted.
So you're outraged that I've got the audacity to tell you not to insult people?
Fair enough. If it makes you feel any better I can rephrase it as an opinion instead.
> Personal attacks are unnecessary? Well, so it bigoted hatemongering.
> And to the best of my knowledge, I haven't behaved like a bigot.
> Showing maturity? Heh...well, I always like it when someone feels
> qualified to comment conclusively about something when they've
> clearly skim read maybe one thread out of the God-knows-how-many
> where Mary and I have been arguing. Really gives me faith that you
> know what you're talking about. Tell you what; read about a half
> dozen pages in a couple of other threads featuring Mary and his
> Magical Monging, then we'll talk. In the meantime, kudos for saying
> something that goes against the general grain about him, but it'd be
> much nicer if you actually checked your facts.
I've 'clealy' only skim-read at most one thread? That's a rather naive (not to mention incorrect) assumption to make. I deny it :)
I don't usually comment in threads like this because it rarely bothers me that much.
VenomByte wrote:
> Light wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
>
> I wrote that as a parody of your earlier comment to Forest Fan. Don't
> pretend you didn't notice that.
Well, yeah I noticed it. So are you going to address my question about your hypocrisy, or retreat into "Aha, but I've done THIS to you!!" type irrelevancies?
OR
Am I taking what you said too seriously?
> (just in case you needed to be reminded of that one)
So...what's your point? You copied a comment? Okay, cool. However, what annoyed me about your post wasn't the exhortation to leave (jesus, are you really that proud of being able to use the same words as I did?!), it was the simple hypocrisy of your statement; personal attacks are unnecessary? That hasn't stopped Mary attacking people's beliefs which are...well, pretty personal, don't you think?
> So you're outraged that I've got the audacity to tell you not to
> insult people?
> Fair enough. If it makes you feel any better I can rephrase it as an
> opinion instead.
Heh. So what you're saying is that you should be allowed to state an opinion, and no one is allowed to have a subsequent opinion on that? Wow...no wonder you stuck up for Mary; you and he have a lot in common.
No, I'm not outraged at your 'audactity'. I'm outraged at your choice of words; telling someone how they SHOULD behave suggests arrogance beyond even me.
Plus we have the inherent prissiness; "I don't mind the repeated bigotry and homophobia of Mary because hey, he doesn't use nasty language. But use a playground insult, and YOU'RE A BAD MAN!"
THAT is what set the outrage light off in my head. So your look-down-the-nose claims of martyrdom notwithstanding, you can be as audacious as you like.
>
>
>
> I've 'clealy' only skim-read at most one thread? That's a rather
> naive (not to mention incorrect) assumption to make. I deny it :)
> I don't usually comment in threads like this because it rarely
> bothers me that much.
Really? Heh. It bothered you so much that you felt the need to comment on someone's flaming when earlier in the same thread they'd already apologised for it? Nah, you CLEARLY haven't been skim reading...
So then; you're saying you have read Mary's hatemongering. Tell me, why is that excusable? Don't get me wrong; having apologised for flaming him in this thread (which CLEARLY you knew, cos you don't skim read and it would be naive and incorrect of me to think so on the evidence of the 2 posts of yours I've read...), I'm not saying all of my flaming is. But still, I'd like to hear you justify your tolerance of his bigotry.
> Light wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
>
> I wrote that as a parody of your earlier comment to Forest Fan. Don't
> pretend you didn't notice that.
Well, yeah I noticed it. So are you going to address my question about your hypocrisy, or retreat into "Aha, but I've done THIS to you!!" type irrelevancies?
OR
Am I taking what you said too seriously?
> (just in case you needed to be reminded of that one)
So...what's your point? You copied a comment? Okay, cool. However, what annoyed me about your post wasn't the exhortation to leave (jesus, are you really that proud of being able to use the same words as I did?!), it was the simple hypocrisy of your statement; personal attacks are unnecessary? That hasn't stopped Mary attacking people's beliefs which are...well, pretty personal, don't you think?
> So you're outraged that I've got the audacity to tell you not to
> insult people?
> Fair enough. If it makes you feel any better I can rephrase it as an
> opinion instead.
Heh. So what you're saying is that you should be allowed to state an opinion, and no one is allowed to have a subsequent opinion on that? Wow...no wonder you stuck up for Mary; you and he have a lot in common.
No, I'm not outraged at your 'audactity'. I'm outraged at your choice of words; telling someone how they SHOULD behave suggests arrogance beyond even me.
Plus we have the inherent prissiness; "I don't mind the repeated bigotry and homophobia of Mary because hey, he doesn't use nasty language. But use a playground insult, and YOU'RE A BAD MAN!"
THAT is what set the outrage light off in my head. So your look-down-the-nose claims of martyrdom notwithstanding, you can be as audacious as you like.
>
>
>
> I've 'clealy' only skim-read at most one thread? That's a rather
> naive (not to mention incorrect) assumption to make. I deny it :)
> I don't usually comment in threads like this because it rarely
> bothers me that much.
Really? Heh. It bothered you so much that you felt the need to comment on someone's flaming when earlier in the same thread they'd already apologised for it? Nah, you CLEARLY haven't been skim reading...
So then; you're saying you have read Mary's hatemongering. Tell me, why is that excusable? Don't get me wrong; having apologised for flaming him in this thread (which CLEARLY you knew, cos you don't skim read and it would be naive and incorrect of me to think so on the evidence of the 2 posts of yours I've read...), I'm not saying all of my flaming is. But still, I'd like to hear you justify your tolerance of his bigotry.
Page: