Oh sure.... NOW you post a million great ideas.I think I will stop for now.
AMR
Suggestions for the TOL Topic of the Day
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Since my statement was questioned by the libtards here, what is an acceptable punishment for bearing false witness? That means you knowingly accuse somebody of a crime they did not commit for the purpose of causing harm. I say punish them in the way they had ben punished if they were guilty. And so does God.
A certain personality here who shall not be named has suggested that the Golden Rule means that when someone takes a swipe at you, you should swipe back ten times as hard and get all your friends to take a swipe too.
Is that a proper interpretation of the Golden Rule?
Is that a proper interpretation of the Golden Rule?
He means me.
And he's lying, as usual. Just for the record. He said this elsewhere and I responded. I suppose it's hard to come up with nearly a hundred posts a day without repeating yourself...repeatedly. :idunno:If you missed it, Eeset made a phony overture about ending bad blood and I told her that all she had to do was refrain from personal insult and she wouldn't find herself the recipient of it.
She said that was heavy handed and one sided.
lain: Seriously, I can link you. I noted the Golden Rule appeared to be problematic for her. That is, you can reduce my answer to her to this: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If she does that then, assuming she isn't a masochist, she gets exactly what she said she wanted (but didn't really).
:e4e:
Your advice is false, because even if you never take a swipe at someone else that does not mean no one will ever take a swipe at you.He means me.
If you missed it, Eeset made a phony overture about ending bad blood and I told her that all she had to do was refrain from personal insult and she wouldn't find herself the recipient of it.
She said that was heavy handed and one sided.
I noted the Golden Rule appeared to be problematic for her. That is, you can reduce my answer to her to this: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If she does that then, assuming she isn't a masochist, she gets exactly what she said she wanted (but didn't really).
:e4e:
The golden rule dictates that you do the best you can to never instigate a problem, and that you are as honest with others as you wish others to be with you. And insofar as someone else attacks you you defends yourself, because all reasonable people would want others to defend themselves against any and all attackers [even if they, themselves, were the attacker].
Alate_One
Well-known member
In the province of Ontario Canada any heterosexual couple that has cohabited for 3 years or more (or having a child in common and having "cohabitated in a relationship of some permanence") are automatically considered as a common law marriage. This means the state can enforce spousal support and child support without an actual marriage contract. The Act for those interested.
Might this be a good way to deal with rampant cohabitation in the USA? Why or why not.
Might this be a good way to deal with rampant cohabitation in the USA? Why or why not.
No, it isn't because it wasn't advice. It was a response to her false inducement to cease personal comments between us. I told her that if she didn't use them she wouldn't get them, but the context was her offer to me, so the implied is FROM ME. It wasn't offered as general advice so you're mistaken. Notice I said mistaken instead of the more offensive false. I suspect your condition made you miss the inference.
When I refrained in spite of her odd rejection she lasted all of a post or two before she was right back at initiating it, which is why I do use false in describing her efforts.
Are you from Ontario? Whereabouts?
I'm moving soon to a stateside location closer to Cataraqui than Watertown.
closer to the Big Smoke and Mont Royal than the Big Apple
closer to Bytown than DC
closer to the Avalon Penisula than Mobile
closer to Manicouagan than Missouri
closer to Hub City than the Mile High City
Last edited:
Define abuser.riiight
she deserved it
She got better than what she gave.
You confuse that with abuse to get what you want.
lain:
Give it a rest Town. You know better than I or anyone else what is in your heart.She got better than what she gave.
You confuse that with abuse to get what you want.
I was answering two posts with one, not initiating. Give it a rest yourself.
I know. My problem is with people like you and res who try to project something that isn't in it to sate your trollish impulses.
Meh.
lain:and as a fellow human being, as a follower of Christ?
What did she deserve from one who claims to be a brother in Christ?
Like being lectured on table manners by a cannibal. You routinely deny the salvation of others for little more than the sating of a personal spite. Now you're going to reinvest it to interject a criticism with the momentary credit? Your idea of witness to the unsaved involves interjecting your joy at the prospect of their eternal suffering. You're a cancer, bearing false witness, defaming and dividing the Body and an impediment to the unsaved.
So thanks, but no thanks. I don't take character analysis from those without any demonstrable evidence of possessing it.
Well, that's about all you're demonstrably here or good for, isn't it...and with that a long overdue goodbye to you and your fellow. I think both of you want one thing and so long as you get it you won't care how.:mock
:e4e:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Nope but my in-laws are. My family makes a regular trip up to Toronto about twice a year.
The common law relationships in Canada came up when I mentioned some of my stepfamily here in the states. One pair had four kids together (never married) and then the lady skipped off and is now having another kid with the in-law of the first baby daddy. It's a regular Maury Povich show.
Thankfully, they're not blood relation.