| PeterB 2006-07-31, 4:29 pm |
|
0:-> wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Then why have you asked me to prove my position on the efficacy?
Read the above again. Have you not made the premise of your position
on Abraham's case your belief in chemo? You cannot expect that
position to have merit if you aren't willing to show how chemo is
proven under these circumstances. Can you, or can you not?
> Please...it's becoming so obvious you are just a trollish twit that
> wants and argument, as apposed to fact finding and debate.
Thanks for showing your true colors. I have not failed to answer any
of your questions. You, by contrast, are proving to be a slick willie
with an agenda.
>
> It is if you are asking me to prove mine over Hoxseys, sir.
When did I ask you to prove anything compared to Hoxeys? Perhaps if
you would clearly state your premise for believing the state should
require chemo for Abraham, we would get somewhere. Or, are you content
to merely post a thousand times without actually saying anything?
>
> That's a dodge, sir. Declaring irrelevance is a simple way to dodge what
> you cannot rebut.
I don't rebut it because it isn't the premise for my argument. Hoxey
has nothing to do with my view that the state should not interfere with
Abraham and his parents' decision regarding treatment.
>
> I have stayed to the topic. You have just tried two quick goal posts
> moving in succession in one post.
I have tried to understand exactly what it is you are saying.
> So, no, after YOU.
>
> 0:->
>
> I'm not going to respond to manipulation of the premise of the debate.
> Give it up. Everyone can see the premise.
What are you afraid of? My premise is that state-forced medical
treatment is a violation of Constitutional law, particularly when it
usurps parental authority over one's own child. When asked to tell us
*your* premise for believing otherwise, you procede to bounce around
like a jack rabbit. Just come out and say it, in so many words. It's
a perfectly fair request. What is the premise for your argument?
> You keep trying to drag it elsewhere but TO nowhere. Your claims about
> your intent are false.
A history of my posts shows I am not here to tell anyone what to think.
I take time to explain my own views, while you have made an effort not
to do so. Despite your lengthy dissertations, the premise of your own
argument remains unknown.
> Be at peace, child.
I see you had no time to devote to the remainder of my comments.
That's too bad.
PeterB
> Kane
>
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|