Fish Shall Not Be Eaten

[Galnius]

Your position stated their is that you do not believe children should be punished for eating fish, when you failed to even provide the degree of punishment

Let's go with summary execution.

Since he won't provide a punishment in his OP no matter how many times asked, I'll provide one on his behalf.

Well then no, that shouldnt happen, because murder. Nor should abuse happen, because abuse. However, I see no problem with being put in the timeout chair.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

not with the sentence he just uttered

also, that's not a productive statement nor does it help advance the inquiry

This presumes that there is actually a valid inquiry to advance in this thread. In point of fact, it's just like every Kefka thread ever.

"We should ban... hey, spin the wheel, that's how this works!!!... NOT serving pork!"

"Wait, you put a negative ban in there?"

"Shut up! I'm almost out of ideas!"

Seriously, this is no different than the threads where you wanted to ban dogs, ban suits, ban privacy, ban taxes, ban boxing... and now it's to ban NOT serving pork to your children because... oppression.

Worst of all, it's a copycat thread from the French removal of pork alternatives in school, where you decided to take that bit of insanity that was present in that thread, and make its OWN thread.

You're damn right I'm flippant. There's no valid inquiry to advance here - just like every single damn one of your threads ever.

Calling something that isn't secular, secular, yup. *nod* Despite the countless times he was told and explained why that wasn't the case.

And he wonders why people react to his threads the way they do. No one is misrepresenting him. He's doing that himself.

Someone disagrees with him, he won't even conceive of attempting to understand why. Either he ignores it, or goes on some rant about how his stance is perfect because X or Y.

[Galnius]

This presumes that there is actually a valid inquiry to advance in this thread. In point of fact, it's just like every Kefka thread ever.

"We should ban... hey, spin the wheel, that's how this works!!!... NOT serving pork!"

"Wait, you put a negative ban in there?"

"Shut up! I'm almost out of ideas!"

Seriously, this is no different than the threads where you wanted to ban dogs, ban suits, ban privacy, ban taxes, ban boxing... and now it's to ban NOT serving pork to your children because... oppression.

Worst of all, it's a copycat thread from the French removal of pork alternatives in school, where you decided to take that bit of insanity that was present in that thread, and make its OWN thread.

You're damn right I'm flippant. There's no valid inquiry to advance here - just like every single damn one of your threads ever.

Calling something that isn't secular, secular, yup. *nod* Despite the countless times he was told and explained why that wasn't the case.

And he wonders why people react to his threads the way they do. No one is misrepresenting him. He's doing that himself.

Someone disagrees with him, he won't even conceive of attempting to understand why. Either he ignores it, or goes on some rant about how his stance is perfect because X or Y.

How many fallacies does that shatter? I...I dont even want to know. Hell....he....he even shatters the fallacy fallacy on a regular basis. I mean, THATS not what make his arguments failures (no, thats just the arguments themselves), but I think IM is going for a record

[Gauthier]

This presumes that there is actually a valid inquiry to advance in this thread. In point of fact, it's just like every Kefka thread ever.

"We should ban... hey, spin the wheel, that's how this works!!!... NOT serving pork!"

"Wait, you put a negative ban in there?"

"Shut up! I'm almost out of ideas!"

Seriously, this is no different than the threads where you wanted to ban dogs, ban suits, ban privacy, ban taxes, ban boxing... and now it's to ban NOT serving pork to your children because... oppression.

Worst of all, it's a copycat thread from the French removal of pork alternatives in school, where you decided to take that bit of insanity that was present in that thread, and make its OWN thread.

You're damn right I'm flippant. There's no valid inquiry to advance here - just like every single damn one of your threads ever.

Calling something that isn't secular, secular, yup. *nod* Despite the countless times he was told and explained why that wasn't the case.

And he wonders why people react to his threads the way they do. No one is misrepresenting him. He's doing that himself.

Someone disagrees with him, he won't even conceive of attempting to understand why. Either he ignores it, or goes on some rant about how his stance is perfect because X or Y.

The only way Kefka ever understands anything is if someone goes to the bother of explaining it in Game of Thrones analogies and metaphors.

[Galloism]

Calling something that isn't secular, secular, yup. *nod* Despite the countless times he was told and explained why that wasn't the case.

And he wonders why people react to his threads the way they do. No one is misrepresenting him. He's doing that himself.

Someone disagrees with him, he won't even conceive of attempting to understand why. Either he ignores it, or goes on some rant about how his stance is perfect because X or Y.

The only way Kefka ever understands anything is if someone goes to the bother of explaining it in Game of Thrones analogies and metaphors.

Ok, I understand. In order to argue with Kefka, I'm going to have to pick up where I left off watching Game of Thrones when it became boring.

/sigh

Ok. I guess I can do that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Calling something that isn't secular, secular, yup. *nod* Despite the countless times he was told and explained why that wasn't the case.

And he wonders why people react to his threads the way they do. No one is misrepresenting him. He's doing that himself.

Someone disagrees with him, he won't even conceive of attempting to understand why. Either he ignores it, or goes on some rant about how his stance is perfect because X or Y.

How many fallacies does that shatter? I...I dont even want to know. Hell....he....he even shatters the fallacy fallacy on a regular basis. I mean, THATS not what make his arguments failures (no, thats just the arguments themselves), but I think IM is going for a record

And honestly, if it were just a few people getting it wrong, then ok, I could say that sure, maybe he was being misrepresented. However, on average, most people on NS react the same way after reading one of his threads. The great majority, I would dare say. That, it seems to me, is not a coincidence. That is not misrepresenting. That's just a fact.

[Galnius]

The only way Kefka ever understands anything is if someone goes to the bother of explaining it in Game of Thrones analogies and metaphors.

Ok, I understand. In order to argue with Kefka, I'm going to have to pick up where I left off watching Game of Thrones when it became boring.

/sigh

Ok. I guess I can do that.

Ah just make it up. Game of Thrones is oddball enough as it is, and he will just make it fit anyway

[The Alexanderians]

The only way Kefka ever understands anything is if someone goes to the bother of explaining it in Game of Thrones analogies and metaphors.

Ok, I understand. In order to argue with Kefka, I'm going to have to pick up where I left off watching Game of Thrones when it became boring.

/sigh

Ok. I guess I can do that.

You mean episode 2?

[Galnius]

How many fallacies does that shatter? I...I dont even want to know. Hell....he....he even shatters the fallacy fallacy on a regular basis. I mean, THATS not what make his arguments failures (no, thats just the arguments themselves), but I think IM is going for a record

And honestly, if it were just a few people getting it wrong, then ok, I could say that sure, maybe he was being misrepresented. However, on average, most people on NS react the same way after reading one of his threads. The great majority, I would dare say. That, it seems to me, is not a coincidence. That is not misrepresenting. That's just a fact.

Im talking about HIS fallacies xD

[Republic of the Cristo]

Yes. Let me explain.

The Author is operating on the old, " Parents should not teach their children religion because they are to young to comprehend it" argument. However, we must look at two things:

1. The role of the parent

The role of the parent is as follows: To provide necessary material comforts for their children, to provide safe sanctuary for their children, to provide moral support for their children, to teach their children the difference between right and wrong ( morality), and to teach them valuable life skills.

It is the job of the parent to teach their children morality. If this is the morality that the parents hold then they are completely entitled to teach their kid this.

2. Kids grow up

The author speaks as if though the teaching of religion at a young age will permanently and forever change the child. This is wrong. The child will grow and at one point will question authority and his or her own knowledge. This will happen at some point in their life. Meaning, that the child will upon their own free will either reject or embrace a set of teachings.

Childhood thinking does not last forever.

[The Alexanderians]

Yes. Let me explain.

The Author is operating on the old, " Parents should not teach their children religion because they are to young to comprehend it" argument. However, we must look at two things:

1. The role of the parent

The role of the parent is as follows: To provide necessary material comforts for their children, to provide safe sanctuary for their children, to provide moral support for their children, to teach their children the difference between right and wrong ( morality), and to teach them valuable life skills.

It is the job of the parent to teach their children morality. If this is the morality that the parents hold then they are completely entitled to teach their kid this.

2. Kids grow up

The author speaks as if though the teaching of religion at a young age will permanently and forever change the child. This is wrong. The child will grow and at one point will question authority and his or her own knowledge. This will happen at some point in their life. Meaning, that the child will upon their own free will either reject or embrace a set of teachings.

Childhood thinking does not last forever.

Shhh don't use logic you might anger someone

[Republic of the Cristo]

Yes. Let me explain.

The Author is operating on the old, " Parents should not teach their children religion because they are to young to comprehend it" argument. However, we must look at two things:

1. The role of the parent

The role of the parent is as follows: To provide necessary material comforts for their children, to provide safe sanctuary for their children, to provide moral support for their children, to teach their children the difference between right and wrong ( morality), and to teach them valuable life skills.

It is the job of the parent to teach their children morality. If this is the morality that the parents hold then they are completely entitled to teach their kid this.

2. Kids grow up

The author speaks as if though the teaching of religion at a young age will permanently and forever change the child. This is wrong. The child will grow and at one point will question authority and his or her own knowledge. This will happen at some point in their life. Meaning, that the child will upon their own free will either reject or embrace a set of teachings.

Childhood thinking does not last forever.

Shhh don't use logic you might anger someone

http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-content/uplo ... cDdmCV.jpg

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I find it funny on how IM is in law school (or so he claims), a school where common sense is supposedly a priority, IM's posts are nothing less than the epitome of nonsense and lunacy.

Shhh don't use logic you might anger someone

This is NationStates. Applying logic anywhere will get you a three day ban.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I find it funny on how IM is in law school (or so he claims), a school where common sense is supposedly a priority, IM's posts are nothing less than the epitome of nonsense and lunacy.

Shhh don't use logic you might anger someone

This is NationStates. Applying logic anywhere will get you a three day ban.

I have serious doubts about IM being in law school. In fact, I have serious doubts that he's even out of secondary school to begin with.

[Gauthier]

I find it funny on how IM is in law school (or so he claims), a school where common sense is supposedly a priority, IM's posts are nothing less than the epitome of nonsense and lunacy.




This is NationStates. Applying logic anywhere will get you a three day ban.

I have serious doubts about IM being in law school. In fact, I have serious doubts that he's even out of secondary school to begin with.

Or he has yet to realize that a degree in Seven Kingdoms Law has no actual application in the real world.

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I find it funny on how IM is in law school (or so he claims), a school where common sense is supposedly a priority, IM's posts are nothing less than the epitome of nonsense and lunacy.




This is NationStates. Applying logic anywhere will get you a three day ban.

I have serious doubts about IM being in law school. In fact, I have serious doubts that he's even out of secondary school to begin with.

Tbh, I doubt IM has a single clue on half of the things he says.

I have serious doubts about IM being in law school. In fact, I have serious doubts that he's even out of secondary school to begin with.

Or he has yet to realize that a degree in Seven Kingdoms Law has no actual application in the real world.

Shh. Don't break the poor boy's dreams. It's all he has.

[The Alexanderians]

I have serious doubts about IM being in law school. In fact, I have serious doubts that he's even out of secondary school to begin with.

Or he has yet to realize that a degree in Seven Kingdoms Law has no actual application in the real world.

I picked a bad time to take a drink of water...nicely done

[Noraika]

To the extent that the punishment does not go over its boundaries, I see nothing ethically improper in this regard.

The parents of a child provide everything for that child's existence, and therefore they have the authority over what is an is not acceptable behaviours for that child so long as they are providing fully for it. There are of course limitations, and expectations of proper conduct, on the part of the parents, but they are ultimately the authority over the child within this context, and it is not a problem if they forbid certain behaviours, practices, or even foods. Nor is it ethically improper to raise a child within a moral, religious, cultural, et cetera perspective, and to educate a child in it. If these are based in the teachings of a particular religious dogma, or cultural tradition, that is of no consequence.

Now, if you'll excuse me
*hids in protective pillow fort for the inevitable retaliation*