I think animal abuse is terrible. Let's do something about it.
"Human life is more important!"
Okay, let's stop starvation in Africa.
"We've got our own people to worry about!"
Okay, let's help the homeless in this country.
"They're all drunks and crackheads!"
Ergo- "Human life is more important" means I don't want to do anything about anything.
What a good reminder, especially with Thanksgiving upon us. There is so much we can do for others overseas and right next door. (I didn't know that fact about the steak. Very sobering.)
I agree there is very circular reasoning going on.
I'm vegetarian, though not vegan, and I am primarily for environmental reasons (I'm also against animal abuse and factory farming, though not morally opposed to eating meat per se). The fact of the matter is, raising livestock consumes significantly more resources than growing grains. If we, as a society, consumed less meat (and all Western countries, especially America, consume WAY too much meat for our own health), we could redistribute those resources into crops and ultimately get a lot more for the energy.
That being said, I don't necessarily demand that everyone become vegetarian. I would ask society to think about the over production/consumption of meat (the meat industry apparently accounts for one fifth of man-made carbon emissions), for their own health as well as the environment consider eating/buying a little less. Or participate in Meatless Mondays - once a week, skip the meat.
There would be even more starving people in the world.
Except, possibly the opposite. (read: original post)
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, that would include meat and fish as part of a balanced diet, take away either and there would be more starving.
It's not a question of producing more food it's a question of distribution.
Does that mean there are piles of food somewhere rotting away that hasn't been distributed to the starving? Where is all that food?
If you've ever seen the warehouse of a grocery store, there's cart fulls thrown away every week. Tons of it!
Pulled up the first article from a search:
"Retailers wouldn't deliberately overstock and deliberately throw food away. That would be a cost to their business and they're trying very hard to minimise those costs from the outset to remain competitive."
"Sainsbury's is the only one of the big four supermarkets to publish its food waste figures and told Channel 4 News it generated about 44,000 tonnes of food waste in 2011.
The supermarket said none of that ended in landfill with edible food going to charity, while the rest went to animal organisations or anaerobic digestion where waste is turned into electricity or fertiliser."
http://www.channel4.com/news/why-the-su … food-waste
I can tell you first hand that whats in those carts isn't going to charity. It's going in the giant garbage bin out back. Same with restaurants. No one wants to get sued.
Are you saying you work at Sainsbury's and have witnessed that they don't do what they claim?
You live in Britain?
Yes, Im right next door. (waves)
No, what does one store have to do with the whole world? I thought you were claiming that was the norm.
Your words: "I can tell you first hand that whats in those carts isn't going to charity."
Can we therefore conclude you don't actually have "first hand" knowledge of Sainsbury's and that too often you say things that simply aren't true?
It is the obvious conclusion based on your false claims. That's logic.
You want to play dumb? Aren't you afraid of how that makes you look?
I explained I thought you were using the Sainsbury ex. as an ex. of what is commonly done in all stores... other wise why would you post it? What does that specific store have to do with the subject?
On a side note, Im really proud of how you've been branching out to other threads. You're doing a decent job of chatting. Of course, you're just following Christians around and tossing obligatory insults at them, but still, you got out of your box and Im proud of you for that. I told you all that if you weren't nice you were going to run out of Christians to attack.
Again with the focusing on me? More insults? Is that all you can do here when you have nothing of value to say?
What is it with you? Why do you stalk people here and talk about them, telling them what they are as if you're some kind of forum policeman? Can't you ever just focus on the threads instead of the people? Sheesh.
Hey Beth. You are correct, imo. There are truckloads of waste generated from the average retail outlet. Economy would go a long way toward sharing the abundance experienced by first world countries.
Little known fact. Tons of product are destroyed simply to stabilize markets. What are we to do, though? Many times, the product one country has in abundance will not be accepted by starving nations. What is accepted can, often times, be distributed within the structure of a controlling army...never getting to the mouths we hoped to feed. There is enough to go around, yet getting it around is the obstacle. Forcing others to feel guilt about consuming meat serves little purpose.
Filling up landfill and being incinerated.
In the UK alone we waste about 14 million tonnes of food a year, 50% from households.
Excellent, so since believers populate the majority of the planet, what is your plan to stop wasting so much food and begin distributing it to the starving?
A reduction in population wouldn't go a miss.
Now I am not advocating death camps or anything so drastic but the ever increasing population of the earth has to be addressed first before anything else can be attacked.
Is it common sense for someone who cant feed their 8 children (who then starve to death) to have a few more?
The main tool for any program should be education.
Yes, believers, which are the vast majority of people on the planet. It is they who have built our societies and systems of food distribution, hence have created the food waste problem.
The Bible does say to go forth and multiply. I don't see anything in there regarding responsible family planning.
Don't believers shun education? Doesn't that lead to knowledge?
Why is that believers deny one form of education but promote another, especially when the denied education has something to do with their beliefs?
So, if the Bible says go forth and multiply and that men have complete dominion over every other living thing, why should they be responsible about educating themselves about food distribution?
Oh I see where you are coming from now.
Taking it from your point of view doesn't the bible say that man will be incapable of ruling himself, pretty obvious he is. man seems to take no responsibility for the mess he has made, instead he always uses the excuse that it was gods fault, a sort of where is god now.
If we understood and lived by the rules and laws in the bible maybe there would be no staving people, however there would be many who would dispute that.
Why should they educate about food distribution, why not educate about the farming of foods, the use of foods, the fact that if you can only grow enough food to feed 5 humans why should you expect everyone else to feed the other 3 you decide to have?
Its not just about distribution, there are many factors that are wrong with the whole production of food stuffs, governments, trade associations, retailers and even consumers all add to the problem.
A case in point is the European common agricultural policy, take a look at it some time and see what stupidity the burghers of Brussels have created, I bet they are not on their own throughout the governments of the world either.
Where in the Bible are there rules and laws about how to distribute food? How does the Bible teach us to make sure there are no starving people?
Fair enough, what does the Bible have to say about making all of that work so food gets distributed correctly?
If the Bible doesn't teach us about those things, where can we look but to our own brains for reasoned solutions? Maybe we don't need the Bible to figure out how to make that all work?
I find myself at a loss as to why you are asking questions as to how the bible can help in food distribution. The simple answer would be to love your neighbour as yourself, but then everyone would have to follow this teaching and we know this doesn't happen.
Why should the bible make anything work if people don't wish to follow it anyway?
Its not me you have to convince about reasoned solutions, however you turned one of my suggestions into a religious objection.
Restricted market involvement.
Loving your neighbor is nowhere near the same thing as how to distribute food the masses.
That would be an excellent reason to scrap the Bible, it doesn't work.
There are many attempts to convince the many believers on the planet about reasoned solutions, but they ignore them in favor of their religious solutions, so the problems of the world keep escalating.
Do any of those things appear in the Bible as solutions?
With all the advances made in science, with all the influence scientists have within politics and governments, they still cant ensure that we don't have starving people on the planet.
Billions of $ on a space program, on finding a particle, on measuring the universe and still they cant feed the starving children in Africa.
Maybe you are looking in the wrong direction Encephaliodead?
I think you're looking in the wrong direction. Science is a way for us to understand our universe. Why would you put the responsibility of feeding the starving on the shoulders of science? That makes no sense. Religions are the ones telling us they have all the answers, telling us what to believe and how to behave.
I thought science had all the answers, well that's what they keep telling us anyway. Science has huge budgets funded by governments, it could help produce pest resistant crops, plants and animals with higher yields. science could help produce crops out of their natural environments, science could help with distribution problems. And still science stands by the side-lines of starvation blaming religion for everything.
God hasn't let anybody starve but your fellow man has.
Science makes no such claims. Who is they, exactly?
Scientists don't have huge budgets funded by governments, they must get their financing anyway they can, some of it comes from government, when they can get it.
It could, if it were given the funding to do such things and didn't have to worry about the religious mindset that rules much of the world.
Then, let the religious get out of the way and let science rule the world.
Your fellow "religious" man.
"They" in this case would be some atheists who, even if they never explicitly claim it, are so certain that religion cannot truly explain anything that they may not even realize how heavily they imply that science can (and does) explain everything. Right now.
Yes. Some people who are anti religious act that way. Not all. Probably not you. But there are some.
So, just some people act that way? They aren't the scientists, though?
I'm sorry, are you realllllllly sneering at me for not knowing every single person on earth and their attitudes? Because that's how you come off with that one.
I've been talking about here on the forums.
Sorry I thought science could explain, well that's what they profess, obviously you haven't heard that.
"They" are the scientists.
One project (LHC) has cost $2.6billion, all funded by governments, how many people will benefit from this? How many mouths would it have helped feed?
There is no religious objection to giving people the means to feed themselves, there never has been, however I think some scientist would call it natural selection.
Maybe if everyone, regardless of religious or scientific conviction, got behind the problem then it could be solved.
The problem has existed for so long and appears to be so difficult to solve it is easier to lay blame. I think of the statement, 'the poor will always be among us'. We will someday have to face the fact that there is no fix. We will have to support those who cannot. The problem is we look at those who will not and use that to turn a blind eye to those in need.
When electricity was invented someone asked Faraday why he waste time on useless stuff? But now you know how electricity can feed millions.
Last year Tax exemptions for Church ran at $71 billion.
Televangelist Pat Robertson is worth about $100 million.
Televangelist Joel Osteen "church" brings in about $73 million.
Televangelist Billy Graham is worth about $25 million.
Televangelist Rick Warren is worth about $25 million.
These are just a few examples...
You would post their income, but not what those churches spend the money on? The larger the church, the greater the need, the more income offered... it's simple math, more ppl means more incoming funds.
Not Churches...The Person...Net worth of Person...That means assets THEY have on hand...
But since you bring up an interesting point...Why would a church require that much money? For building costs? For helping the needy? To cover overhead?
There is a church in my area that cost $5 million to buy. It costs $46,000 a week to cover the cost of bills. Pays the pastor annual salary of $96,000 a year, plus house, car and expenses. Brings in on average about $70,000 a week. Spends a total of $1000 on "helping those in need" per week. The remaining money goes to paying for upkeep of the Church and to pay the "employees".
(Amounts are averages and vary slightly week to week)
You are correct in a few things...The more people (bigger the church) the more money it can bring in. And yes the greater the need...to pay for the bigger building, upkeep of building, the equipment, the "employees", the grounds, insurance, utilities, and various other "needs" of the Church. Very little of that goes to help anyone or anything that isn't a part of said church.
The church *is the ministry. If they don't pay their bills, the doors are shut and the ppl have to find a different church. The churches you mentioned are "mega churches" with often more than 25, 000 and in excess of 40,000 ppl. Do you have any idea what it takes to minister to the needs of 40,000 ppl? Jesus could do it with a few loaves of bread and some fish, but now a days we have parking, child care, ministries for: youth, divorce care, single moms, the hungry, hospitalized/sick, addiction recovery... as many needs as you can think of for man today, churches are trying to reach out to meet the needs. This doesn't even cover the needs of those outside of their own community, like hurricane victims, or those in Darfur. Let alone the great commission, to share the good news to every corner of the earth so that all men might know that their creator loves and knows them.
Do you question the CEO of McDonalds if he receives a paycheck for his work? If a man or woman spends 40 plus hours pouring into a ministry, do they not need to pay their bills and feed their children and send them to college like the rest of us? I'm not saying there are not those who might be corrupt. It happens in every single line of work, I'm just saying... what is your point? Churches have bills to pay like every single undertaking.
Jesus didn't require that...So why is it required now? They had the same problems in his day as we have now. And if one was following the bible correctly then we wouldn't need money for divorce, single moms, addiction things of that nature...
And yes I think one should get paid for doing a "job"...
And What does the CEO of Mcdonalds have to do with religion? He receives a paycheck by selling a product...What product is the church selling...??
Bills have to be paid whether you are selling a product or providing a service. Buildings cost money, so does electricity.
And I believe you are right... if we were all living out the Bible, some of these ministries, might not be in as high demand. But the difference is, Christ was at the beginning of a ministry. They did not yet know who the Messiah was. He walked the streets looking for the hurting. Today churches are a mixture of pew sitters, those who go to church b/c they think it's the right thing to do/tradition etc. and the sick. I don't go to church b/c Im a good person. I go to church b/c I'm a sick person. When my life is void of God's presence, due to my own selfish desires, when my life is void of good teaching and fellowship/encouragement from those who are sick like me and need a savior, I begin to fail. Could I make it thru this life without God? Maybe, I don't know. I like alcohol, and have certain tendencies that are in opposition to the life God desires for me. But no matter if I could make it thru this life, I know b/c of the Bible, that I could not make it thru the next. I do not need salvation, like I need encouragement. I need salvation like I need my heart. If there were no other life than this, I might struggle thru on my own, sinning at will, maybe trying to make up for my mistakes, if I was a "good person". But without salvation, I am doomed. I need Jesus... and millions like me see a need for a savior, so we go to the church, and if we find the right fit, we will become mature and though we wont be perfect, we will become a part of those who offer healing, instead of those in constant need of help. That is what a good church does. It matures the sick, raising them up to heal who then in turn, aide the sick.
You shouldn't then conclude the rest of us are sick and need healing, nor do we need Jesus because we are not doomed. Perhaps, we are already mature enough to see way past that need.
You know for all of those "issues" you stated...There are plenty of programs outside of a Church that offer assistance...Most are Government funded as well...
And what Product or service does the Church offer??
Sure I did.
Everything that can be "found" in a church... Can and is offered elsewhere...
Personally I don't care one way or the other...But if someone is going to point out that the Government funds science and what does science offer to help humanity...then I will point out that the government also funds programs that do the same thing as "church" and the "church" brings in more money than they put out in helping humanity.
Which is where this whole conversation started...
Personally I like the religious believers types...They pay well for empty words and actions...I just so happen to speak at quite a few religious events each year (which I do free of charge), And I won't speak as to the amounts I get offered to speak...(which my "Believer" counterparts willingly take). As all they do is religion... I work for a living and do my religious speaking because it is something I enjoy and don't get paid for that part...As for me, it shouldn't be a paid job...
Did you know that a Pastor can be fired if he doesn't "preach" what the board of directors wishes to be "preached"...Now how is this in keeping with the Word of God...The word of God is coming from a board of Directors...Not the Pastor...He/She is just the recording....
This comment kind of touches on something I'm working on. That you speak for free is cool because I'm reminded of a saying my pastor uses "a ministry is doing something you enjoy so much that you would do it for free to help others and bring glory to God. Evangelism is just talking and taking. Fear mongering is scaring and controlling".
You need to introduce me to this pastor someday.
Get the heck up here and we can all go together.
Because I'm brilliant or because I'm an apostate who actually knows what they're talking about? Or because I'm just cute?
Seriously though, I think that even you would like it there.
Yep even you. What that means is that I understand (a little) of what you feel regarding religion in general and people in church in particular as well as the bible. The church I go to isn't what I've understood that you are used to. The church doesn't shy away from those difficult things in the bible, but the application of how to treat others is definitely felt.
You know how sensitive she gets when she thinks a snarky comment is made
Oh whatever. I'm not the one that pitches a hissy fit with name calling, finger pointing and outrage and then turn around and whine that I'm being attacked, persecuted, ganged up on and treated unfairly while simultaneity not having a problem doing the same thing to others.
I actually ask for clarification before jumping down people's throats over a misunderstanding.
Too soon? My bad.
Yeah.. don't do that. Not good. We do need to stay focused and not bring others into our joking banter that don't share our brand of humor.
What others? I didn't say anything about others.
Anyone that might think that post was about them. There may be people that feel that your statement was a backhand slight on them
It wasn't about anyone. At all. If anyone thinks it is, I would say that they have some perception issues and possibly some guilt. I was responding to the assertion that I was sensitive to snark. Unless you mean drawn to it and love it, sensitive isn't accurate.
Is sleeping frowned upon? A friend of my was looking into a church that serves beer, but on further thought we realized we have a local watering hole that does the same thing and we get to participate in the conversation there. In the end we decided the local watering hole was the best choice for our souls at the moment.
First I am not hating on God or his people (Just the ones pretending to be) I never said the government teaches salvation (but it is taught other places besides a church...think missionary)...
If one is doing God's work...it can be done full time as well as work a normal Job fulltime...I know more than a few pastors who do this...
And yes I have studied the accounting practices of Churches...With the exception of a very few...What I said is accurate...
There is a reason Jesus said to sell all you have and follow me...So no..I do not think pastors should be paid for doing God's work...They are working for God, let God pay them what he sees fit compensation. Choosing a profession is a choice a person makes...Choosing to be a minister as a paid job...is not doing God's work...it is just working and using God as a means to make a paycheck. Oh...and I am not casting stones...It is how I do it...And if I can do it then others can as well...
If you are doing God's work and have it better than others around you...then you have to much...What does the bible say about helping those in need and without...
As for Calvary Chapels...if a church government is required...well...
Neither of the passages you listed is not talking about being paid for services...Read it again...Try a Greek translation as well...It is refering to the respect to be given them. That is the "Price" or "honor" that it is talking about.
A lot of what you said is good and I agree with most of what was said. There is one thing I disagree with mostly. The church is not the ministry. A church is merely the distribution center where ministry takes place and the structure in which people congregate. Even if the doors to the building close ministry can still continue. The true ministry is in the outreach work being done from within the structure. Christ did not have a church but still had a ministry in which he helped multitudes of people. One issue we face today,IMO, is that more focus is being placed on the church than the ministry
Im not talking about the building, Im talking about the ppl of the church.
Okay, I get it. Different terminology, same concept. The way I grew up, church was the building term. Congregation is the term for the people. Ministry is the term for the work that is being done. So we're on the same page(more or less). I understand that some use the same word for it all. But I agree
Yes I heard religion is big business in the US, doesn't make it right though does it?
The Catholic church is the richest organisation on the face of the earth, it doesn't mean its right though and it doesn't mean that all followers of god are money grabbing, self centred, loathsome, uncaring, egotistical maniacs either. Just like all scientists aren't mad loonies that want to invent weapons of mass destruction.
Why is it that some attempt to blame others for a collective problem? Your arguments lack credibility. Believers didn't create the problems in the world any more than atheists did. We are the problem. You are a part of that group. Throwing stones serves no purpose, but to keep yourself from being part of the solution.
I'm just saying that the religious have built our societies using magical thinking. That is why non-belief and secularism is gaining momentum, the reasonable and rational mind is now required to undo the damage caused by magical thinking.
Ego driven and incredibly dangerous thinking. Religion is not responsible for those woes of the world. Laying the blame on their front porch is pointless. Please explain how policy of first world nations has been magical (and directly tied to religion above any other factor). First world only since we are the only with the financial means and political pull to make a difference. Let's choose specific damages caused. Nuclear power and weapons. Worldwide famine. The rape of the environment. Slavery driven by the worldwide economy. And, either of the two world wars.
Greed is the problem, imo. It has no religious barriers that i am currently aware of. I await enlightenment.
That's incredibly silly.
Why not? Religion teaches people everything about their lives, what to believe, how to behave, everything. There isn't much of anything religion hasn't influenced throughout time. The foundations of pretty much all societies have been built influenced by religions.
Greed does not divide the world into tribes, creating walls of mistrust, hatred and bigotry, that would be religions.
Greed did not start the vast majority of wars throughout history, some that continue to rage on today, that would be religions.
Greed did not wipe out many cultures in the world, that would be religions.
Greed does not teach us we are all worthless, evil sinners, that would be religions.
Greed does not keep education, reason and rational oppressed, that would be religions.
Greed does not keep people praying for miracles rather than doing things for themselves, that would be religions.
The list goes on and on.
Wow. I'm not sure I've run across such naivete in quite a while. No point in arguing. Enjoy the delusion.
Is that the best you can do? Obviously, you had nothing to say in the first place. No point in arguing when you aren't able.
No. There is simply no reason to argue against a line in the sand. You are embedded in an opinion which I find no logic in being held. Why bang one's head against what one perceives as ignorance? In the end your opinion (as mine) has no effect on how the world plays out.
All you have to do is admit you have nothing of value to say, don't beat around the bush.
I'm so glad we had this moment ATM. I've missed the repartee.
Now Emile, isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume, just because two hubbers espouse virtually indistinguishable views, opinions and perspectives in nearly identical manners, have no hubs, frequent the same forums and both have chosen names which could be used pejoratively against them, (one making clear they have done so just to see who will stoop to the low hanging fruit by using it, while the second has not yet declared their motivation for such a choice), are the same individual?
You forgot they use the same laughing face. You wouldn't think someone could come up with an emoticon for mocking, but it works.
I'm pretty sure I've seen you use emoticons too. Does that mean that you're the same person as ATM? Or that everyone without published hubs (like Bberean) is ATM?
If, as a joke, I say I am him, he will get angry and call me a liar, so I will state the obvious and say I am not him, to answer your question.
even as a joke I think it's slightly silly to discuss people not present behind their backs when they are not around to defend themselves. EncephaloiDead may be AtM or he may not be - but until someone has some kind of proof to the contrary, I think labeling him under the name of another person is uncalled for.
Actually I did tell him I thought he was ATM on the CS Lewis thread. He did not deny it. The funny thing is both Emile and bBerean mentioned it and you didn't address them at all. I was under the impression you had stopped communicating with me? If not, hello to you... if so... Im not sure why this was the issue that forced your hand. Either way... sleep well.
Beth, my response could have just as easily been addressed to numerous people, but I responded to the last post on the thread. I didn't single you out. Many people here don't react well when confronted face to face online, and even fewer like to be spoken about behind their backs. Since you are so against being ganged up on, I would assume that you dislike it when it is done to others as well, so why are you participating? He doesn't answer to you. If you accused me of being atm, I'd laugh and find a more worthy conversation. I wouldn't waste time responding to something so blatantly false. Would you feel the need to try and prove that you're not someone else?
It seems to most of us, that he is ATM... if he is not... it's of little consequence. Try to get passed it if you can. (Which actually brings us back on topic, doesn't it?)
Im glad you caught that... I was testing you.
Past – (adj.) gone in time, done with, over; (n.) time that has gone by, a period of time, before the present; (prep.) beyond an age or time of, after a particular hour; beyond in place, further than a place; (adv.) to pass or go by
If it is of little consequence, why are you making such a big deal about it on various threads? Obviously, YOU can't get passed it.
Do you use these forums to stalk people, talk about them behind their backs, gossiping? It sure looks that way, especially when you can't even answer simple questions or explain your own words.
You remind me so much of someone, but I can't place him. You can wonder aloud if Im someone else if it will make you feel better.
More stalking and gossiping? You can do that all day here but you can't actually answer any questions posed to you.
I did. At length. You didn't get it. I then posted verses that describe why you can't get it. You said I was smug. I told you we're all the same. Im no better or worse than you. You said I was being dishonest and that I hadn't answered your questions... so here we are back at the beginning of the circle.
You did not answer my questions, you did not explain the terms and only posted verse that had similar terms, that you didn't explain in the first place, anyone can see that.
No, I didn't. I said you were acting superior. Stop making false accusations.
I never said you were dishonest, don't make false accusations. You can go back and read the posts again to see that you answered no questions and did not explain yourself.
Oh ATM... you try so hard. What do you gain from this? "Smug... superior"... so different in your mind?
I say I did something, you say I didn't... so you push and push and push... for what? We simply don't agree. What do you do when ppl don't agree with you in real life?
You didn't say I was dishonest in that thread? Im sorry... must have been someone else. You've said I was dishonest in a dozen other threads... why does it matter? Either you think I am or you don't. If you don't think I am, I can imagine why it would bother you, but if you do think Im dishonest, does it really matter if I said out loud what you believe? You're very legalistic. You need to be freed from this. It's like a prison. I don't know how you can breathe in there. I wish I could help you, I say that in all truth. I'd be your friend if you needed one, though I doubt you'd accept my friendship, but I do wish for something greater for you.
Does the religious always have to shy away from questions put forward to them and blather to mask the fact that they have no answers? I called you smug not him and why are you calling him ATM? Isn't he EncephaloiDead?
And what is your name? My name is Beth. Nice to meet you.
That is certainly not the topic of discussion, so if I tell you my name is Tom will it add anything to the discussion? Will you start answering to the questions?
Hello Tom. I have answered all your questions. Read back maybe.
It was not my questions I was asking about, but EncephaloiDead's. Do I have to go back and restate them? Isn't it better to avoid repetitions?
Is this an additional account for ATM? Am I allowed to ask that since you're actually addressing me at the moment? Did you ever notice it's impossible to use the abbreviation for at the moment (atm) on this forum?
My question was about the questions raised by EncephaloiDead, wasn't it? Rest of our discussion was not in this thread. Do you see ATM in anybody who question you?
I guessed that you didn't understand.
EncephaloiDead asked you some questions. I came along and asked you why you are shying away from his questions and also why you are calling him/her ATM? I also said it was not EncephaloiDead but me who accused you of being smug, [in another thread where we were discussing] and you were falsely accusing him of calling you a smug..
I am also asking you why you are calling me ATM, as neither my name nor my user name is ATM.
Have you heard the saying, "beating a dead horse"?
1) I am finding myself in the position of defending myself, for a conversation I had with a different person, on a different thread. I have answered him... and now you... numerous times, saying that I answered his questions, but he failed to understand. Do I belong to him? Do I owe him or you more? If I believe I have answered his questions accordingly, how much more time do I need to spend telling you that you aren't getting it?
2) Yes, it was you who called me smug... we could chalk it up to a misunderstanding, but he insinuates that quite often and calls me a liar, then calls me a liar for saying he calls me a liar. So this line of questioning is as annoying as the first.
3) I obviously wondered if you might be ATM, and that would be why I would have asked you that. That one's kind of easy. If you're not, then the answer would be, "I'm not him." if you are then the answer would be, "I am him." and then that would be that. Hopefully you see how much I had to write here, in order to answer questions that I didn't really feel I needed to answer. Maybe the next time I give you the short answer, you could allow the horse to die with dignity. Everybody loves horses.
That is exactly what I see Beth doing, she doesn't answer questions, but instead stalks and gossips about others incessantly. I have no idea why she's even here.
I have never been angry at you or called you a liar. Do you resort to making false accusations when you can't support your arguments or explain yourself?
When you have something of value to say, come back with it. Until then.
I suppose if you had anything of value to say you would have done it by now.
This is true for some people but not all who think human life more important than animal life.
I ate a crocodile steak and a zebra burger last week. Yum.
by Claire Evans18 months ago
Ashers Baking Company in Ireland was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a local gay activist. It was to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir. They...
by Vandana2 years ago
Suddenly this question strike in my mind today ... " Which is more important LOVE OR MONEY" to live a happy life ?? If any one have to select her partner which criteria one should follow for choosing her life...
by sarahsherlock6 years ago
This is a long debate that I have been having with somebody I work with - I would be interested to hear your views!
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
Yes, emotional intelligence is an important component to success in the business world. However, technical intelligence is more important than emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence only...
by arpitme4 years ago
I believe yes, because killing is itself a violent act and if it is involved in the process of making food, it will definitely makes them more violent.
by alhaji bayoh7 years ago
i would like to know what u think of the above topic
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.