Once again, you asked for an example and I provided one. Next time, ask for more examples and I'll provide those, too.
Spitting out a completely generic statement, receiving a correct, generic answer, backpeddling and asking for a more detailed answer doesn't prove that I was wrong. It just shows that you're trying desperately to look like you're winning this little back and forth we're having. It's really sweet. Keep trying.
Its reception was "generic" to you because you can't read well, so I'll afford you the favour of breaking it down.
I never said no one benefited from it, so giving me one example adds nothing to your point nor takes away anything from mine.
A. I specifically asked for you to establish merit to your point. Your point wasn't "people adopting religion can conquer demons". I would not have even retorted to that.
B. You suggested they usually do, which if true, would empower religion as a tool to use.
What's a difference in the core of it?
A doesn't leave us deciding which intervention would prove most successful, out of the many.
B, because you asserted it
usually works, would leave us prioritizing it over the other possible ones.
I shouldn't have to explain this; you're a big boy. Even if you eliminate the underlying differences, I asked for merit, which isn't generic. It requires someone adding base to their stock.
I'm so sorry you're too feeble-minded to arrive without me. Who's kidding, though? You're probably still far.
I did both. So does it really matter?
If you've read the above and actually comprehended it and STILL think I was only asking for an example, you're infantile in more ways than one.
Well I'm basing this off one initial premise which is that you consume resources. I could be wrong, might be a robot which would make sense but I'll run with human for now.
Right you are, as we all do. I was suggesting some do more so than others. In the landscape of what people do to "drain" resources, whether human or nature, I'd wager to say that Scott for example is more inhibitory to taxpayer funds being used prudently than I am. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Taking that to be true my other piece of information is your opinions. Nobody ought to have the right to decide when, why, how, all the W's of when somebody else should die other than that individual themselves. When essentially what you are electing is to put down and sick person, but being sick by it's very nature leaves open the possibility for getting better. Neither you or I can judge whether this'll be the case, and we certainly can't assume one or the other to be true. God forbid you were a doctor.
I never said I have the right. Do you know what the meaning of "elect" is? It actually takes away the autonomous element. Too bad women-beaters like Scott still have it.
