Liverpool FC Forum

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:20 pm

GYBS wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:during a mission there is no time to discuss if the decision made is right or wrong. your enemy might kill you by then. there is always briefings held after it to discuss tactics.

its not films - there is plenty of run up time to make sure everything is correct and proper before any "mission" goes ahead. every soldier knows the boundaries and lines that arent to be crossed.

yes that is before the mission is executed. but imagine a scenario where you're a high ranking official and in the midst of battle, your calls are often questioned. it serves no purpose other than distract and delay. we were trained to just do as told, wrong or right. like the example you gave about the guy, i think he is from Hawaii? you risk getting thrown into detention barracks.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:11 pm

Sabre wrote:I don't care if threads are locked or wums are banned, that's up to the moderators. I find ok that everyone has a moderation standard. In fact I have mine, and I won't never consider others' a farce.

But just as this forum didn't tolerate terrorism because it kills lifes (and in the "tolerant" times of this forum people were banned because discussing it), I don't find acceptable to kill someone or remove a kidney against his will so that somebody has a better life.

The principle is simple, respect to life. If you only respect the life of your countrymates then you don't respect life, you respect your country and nothing else. If you respect life

There are millions of people dying of famine,disease etc all around the world, better they be put to some good use by providing extra life to people who can make a difference in the quality of life of future generations,

This is not acceptable. End of.

You can all be two faced about it but if it was a member of YOUR family dying because they needed a kidney or some other organ, you would WANT them hunting it down

Hunting someone down is not acceptable no matter if you hunt down for God, or for a Kidney. Sorry. The ones who hunt down people for religion also seek a better world, but the civilised people won't accept that.

The reason is power and money, we have it and the animals and 3rd world countries don't. So we may as well use that power and money to save people that can and do make a telling contribution rather than some of those that don't/can't.

So moderators (and ex moderators) around here must think if in newkit human life is respected. If it's not, then we can discuss terrorism and everything from any angle. But if life is respected, it shouldn't be accepted to level the 3rd world population to animal level because they don't have money.

That's my opinion about that topic, it was well locked. Everything else, is ok with me. You can choose the mods you want, you can be lazy about moderation, whatever. But some principles of respect to human life should be respected.

That thread was well locked, but for the wrong reason. The reason should not have been that it could provoke WWIII, the reason should be that some opinions cannot be acceptable, such as, posts defending terrorists, post defending pedophilia, or posts that advocate for removing human organs of poor people.

I don't understand why in this discussion it's relevant whether the one who wrote it is a "respectable" member. I won't find acceptable that Bob or Leon defend terrorism or organ removing just because I respect them. You could talk as well about how nice is to make sex with a 11 year older and see what comes from that, but it's simply wrong.

Spot on.

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:17 am

Sabre wrote:
Number 9 wrote:Fecking hell lads,its obvious Saint and Sabre,you are never gonna be lovers!
But Sabre raising Saints dead and buried issue then Saints retaliation with a paedo jibe??FFS lads come on,its all getting a little twisted!

You know its enough when me and even judge make a comment!lol
you'se are both better than that(well i thought)...just give eachother a wide berth for a while!

Best moderator in this thread by a mile ::D .

Sabre dont even joke about that . Barry being a mod :laugh:

hell could you imagine it :laugh:

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:25 am

NANNY RED wrote:
Sabre wrote:
Number 9 wrote:Fecking hell lads,its obvious Saint and Sabre,you are never gonna be lovers!
But Sabre raising Saints dead and buried issue then Saints retaliation with a paedo jibe??FFS lads come on,its all getting a little twisted!

You know its enough when me and even judge make a comment!lol
you'se are both better than that(well i thought)...just give eachother a wide berth for a while!

Best moderator in this thread by a mile ::D .

Sabre dont even joke about that . Barry being a mod hell could you imagine it

I think he meant in THIS THREAD Nan!
Just dont like seeing two fellas I like(well cyberlike) getting on like that to eachother..fecking organs getting ripped out and paedo tags is a bit extreme!

by **Sabre** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:27 am

Of course I can imagine Barry as a moderator.

With the change of attitude he has experienced in the last year, I
can even imagine him as Prime Minister

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:36 am

Sabre wrote:Of course I can imagine Barry as a moderator.

With the change of attitude he has experienced in the last year, I
can even imagine him as Prime Minister

Sabes im gonna sue you for the injury youve just nearly caused me to have by falling off my chair laughing.

Prime Minister :bowdown

Classic just classic

Them tablets hes on must be working wonders :laugh:

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:18 am

I'd like to take the opportunity to address several of the points raised by JBG, as I'm clearly in the middle of many of the incidents he's mentioned. I want to be clear that JBG was a moderator who I had a lot of respect for when he was in the post and so I don't take his criticisms lightly. I do think it's important to give my perspective on matters, however, and to disagree with a few of his views. I've highlighted a few of his points below and I'll address each in turn.

JBG wrote:I mean closing Saints thread last week (I was away and am only commenting in hindsight) was a bad call, IMO. While I certainly disagree with what Saint said the thread had not deteriorated into WWIII as Bob said and BOb didn't seem to appreciate that Saint is a long standing and respected member and while what he posted was certainly controversial the reaction to his post was mature and balanced and the thread should have been given a chance to see where it was going. OK, if it deteriorated into a slanging match then close it but the point was it hadn;t and if the moderators actually paid attention to what was being said in the thread they would have saw that the posters who posted in it, while disagreeing with what Saint was saying, respected Saint as a poster and there was no evidence that the thread was going to go downhill.

First, let me be clear that I fully appreciate that Saint is a long-standing and respected member of this forum and that the initial responses to his posts in the world philosophy thread were respectful. So, I resent the notion that I wasn't paying attention to the tone of the thread when I locked it. On the contrary, I doubt I've ever paid more attention to a thread on this board because the comments contained therein were some of the most objectionable remarks I have ever read during my time here. Please understand where I'm coming from. I teach students history and geography, which fundamentally involves teaching them about some of the more reprehensible things that powerful peoples have done to less powerful peoples in the course of human history. Slavery, genocide and other atrocities are an all too frequent blight on humanity's historical record and, in virtually every instance, there has been some specious moral or scientific argument deployed to justify the unjustifiable. From my perspective, then, there can be no reasonable, rational, respectful discussion concerning the morality of 3rd World organ harvesting. The idea is morally bankrupt and no amount of rationalizing will ever change that. So, I completely disagree with the suggestion that "the thread should have been given a chance to see where it was going" because it had already gone too far. Under the circumstances, locking the thread was the prudent option.

Furthermore Ciggy ended up leaving the forum over Stu and that was a blunder of the highest order from the moderating team. Stu was a problem back when I was a poster and the solution was to ban him completely unless he could guarantee that he would post without abusing people. So, when he comes back, what does he do? Abuse Ciggy personally about her child and its Ciggy who ends up going, not Stu.

Now that not right.

I'm not saying that to be popular or anything. I'm not great mates with Ciggy and she'll be the first to admit herself that occasionally she sails close to the wind but you have to back up a long standing member like her over a fool like Stu.

I'll refrain from commenting on this one in detail for the sake of the members mentioned but I will say that I don't think you have all the details of the various incidents between these two straight. I would add, though, that I too have regretted Ciggy's self-imposed hiatus from the board but feel that I was well justified to take the action I did when she and Stu last clashed.

As for this Dude Love character, maybe he's a windup, but I read his posts this morning and saw no evidence of any rule breaking and all of his posts were good natured and friendly in tone, so why does he get banned? If it was on the basis of some moderator thinking him to be a "windup merchant" then obviously plenty of other "comic" characters deserve to be banned as well. I mean, whats the difference between johnsnow and Dude Love?

In my day it was obvious that The Manhattan Project was a person prepared to take a comic slant on things but we had a sense of humour and thought nothing wrong with that. Yet, logically, if Dude Love is banned then Manhattan should be banned as well! Nonsense!

Anyway, was it not the thinking that windup merchants were people who were deliberately on here to cause trouble? In my day, by and large, comic posters where left alone provided they didn't cause trouble.

This is probably a fair point. It was a judgment call to ban Dude Love based on a pattern of behaviour that has been favoured by WUMs in the past. In all probability I was too hasty to pull the trigger. It happens but it should not be taken to mean that I prowl the board looking for any excuse to ban newbies.

But it needs to be said, the moderation here at times (not from all moderators mind) has been farcicial and one or two of the moderators need to get out more and live their lives, not patrolling these boards 24/7 closing threads and banning harmless idiots left right and centre.

Fair enough. Some have suggested I've been too quick to intervene in the last couple of months and I think there's something to that. So, apologies to those who feel I've treated them harshly...it was nothing personal and I'll try and strike a better balance between stepping in and hanging back.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:56 am

As everyone and his fkn brother has now given their opinion I think its only fair if I give mine. I hoped that we could have a discussion on the moral implications of what was initially raised by SOMEONE ELSE not me.

WE SHOULD KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

MORE THAN 30,000 CHILDREN WILL DIE TODAY IN AFRICA
poverty in Africa : diseases and starvation: facts
"Twenty percent of Africa's children will die before the age of five" a recently released report stated. The statement was part of a series of reports that demonstrate the horrible conditions currently facing children throughout Africa.
"Every day 30,000 children die from a combination of disease- infested water and malnutrition," the report continued. "Water-borne diseases are claiming one child every three seconds. These diseases are the major killers of small children in Africa."
LINK

Those children have no hope and no future. No one is willing to put the money in that is required to not only save them for today but to ensure that they and their children will have a future. Save a million African kids from hunger today, and you will be back saving 10million African kids tomorrow. Either you put the money in to educate, feed and develop sustainable food sources, clean water, medicine, health care and employment, or you may as well use their organs to save other lives...... they are dead either way.

Doctors are making decisions every day on which patient to save because of a shortage of organs. This decision is based on a number of factors such as age, whether the patient has close relatives, career, MONEY etc. etc. So to say :-

Human life cannot be measured by the level of technological contribution or improvements one is able to make toward future generations, or current generations. Aside from the fundamental point that it goes against basic principles of human rights, it's a totally flawed and unworkable concept. There can be no universal definition as to what constitutes a 'contribution to society', and to imply that those in the Western world have the moral authority to define the term, is utterly ridiculous.

is wrong because Doctors are already making these decisions on a daily basis, although it is worth noting that as far as distribution goes, everyone has to be able to pay in order to receive a transplant - and that is why many poor people never undergo the process. Overall, transplants are a procedure for people with lots of money or lots of insurance. (Or in our case whether you are private or NHS)

In the United States, 18 people die every day waiting for an organ donation that never comes. In 2007 alone, 9,600 patients died or became too ill to undergo surgery while waiting. Of course, this is not just an American tragedy. The organ shortage is a global crisis. Almost 90% of these people were in need of organs that could have been donated by living donors with relative safety.

Moral and morality changes with the ages, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable (not to mention illegal) to use abortion as a method of birth control, today its practised in this country almost without protest. The only real discussion being about whether 28 weeks is too late, and whether the morning after pill should be freely available without prescription.

Homosexuality, once abhorent and illegal, is now almost compulsory under a Labour Government.

Experiments on the human embryonic stem cell research is still a controversial undertaking but goes on all the same.

So any moral argument must also consider the changing face of humanity, and what was once abhorent and unthinkable can become over time freely accepted.

As I said in my other post, millions of 3rd world people will die long and slow lingering deaths from starvation etc etc, with NONE of the worlds richer nations willing to do anything but pay lipservice to finding an answer. My view was that if they are going to die anyway better that they save the life of someone who can make a difference in the quality of life for future generations than just rotting in some mass grave, while the money received might also be enough to ensure that future generations don't have to sell their organs or die before their time.

Controversial..... yes, unpleasant and distasteful no doubt, but unfit to be discussed because it might upset some Politically Correct individual, I don't think so. People get their knickers in a twist because others wish to discuss something that could be relevant to all our futures. Not that we have the power to make that decision, but simply to discuss it and the options.

If you don't like a topic...... DON'T FKN READ IT, JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. Others may like to discuss the unthinkable, because one day it may just happen. We have wars over oil today, over water tomorrow?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:17 am

Children 'risking liver disease'
Louise Rhymes describes how she lost her daughter to alcohol abuse
Excessive drinking by children and teenagers is storing up a time bomb of health problems, a charity has warned.

The British Liver Trust says it fears the amount children are drinking is rising, despite a slight dip in the numbers who are actually drinking.

This is putting them at risk of liver disease and liver cancer as they enter their 20s and 30s, the trust says.

The Department of Health said tackling harmful and binge drinking was a priority for the government.

The latest figures show 49 people in their 20s died in 2006 from alcohol-related liver failure - the highest number on record.

Jaundice

The figures, released by the Office of National Statistics, also showed 40% more young people aged between 25 and 29 died from liver disease in 2006 than in the previous year.

Doctors and health campaigners fear these figures could rise over the coming years as children drink more.

Until recently, cirrhosis of the liver, a condition brought on by long-term alcohol abuse, mainly affected older men.

But now doctors are seeing it in men and women in their 20s brought on by excessive drinking.

The week that she passed away, she had liver disease, kidney failure, a hole in her stomach... they told us there was nothing else they could do

Professor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physicians said: "We are sadly seeing young people in their 20s coming in with jaundice, with swollen bellies because their liver won't process liquids.

"These people didn't make a conscious decision to kill themselves."

Louise Rhymes, who lost her 24-year-old daughter to long-term alcohol abuse earlier this year, said Stacey had been drinking heavily since her teens.

"By the time she was 18, she was drinking every night, probably five litres. She would drink until she'd got none left.

"The week that she passed away, she had liver disease, kidney failure, a hole in her stomach where the alcohol had rotted her stomach. They told us there was nothing else they could do."

Imogen Shillito, the British Liver Trust's director of information and education, said she was worried about the amounts children were drinking.

"The burden on their developing bodies is even greater," she said.

"It means we are storing up a ticking time bomb for the future. As they grow up in their 20s and 30s they could be putting themselves at risk of really serious liver disease and liver cancer.

"This is the progression of the epidemic we and the medical profession have been predicting for several years.

"We continue to ignore the signs of developing liver disease in younger and younger people and earlier deaths are now reality."

She said the latest figures reinforced the charity's call for urgent work to improve early diagnosis and encourage prevention and a national framework to support the NHS.

The Department of Health said it was working to implement a comprehensive strategy to tackle harmful and binge drinking.

"Among other things, the strategy commits £10m for a new public information campaign, tougher enforcement for underage sales and more help for people who want to drink less," said a spokesman

BBC ONLINE

by **Ciggy** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:28 am

Not sure about using peoples organs maybe sterilization is the way forward, to stop people giving birth who cannot feed or afford to look after children.

Not just in 3rd world countries either, them fuckin lay abouts, who are on Jeremy Kyle, who dont know whos the father of their children and that evil witch that killed baby P.

5 kids shes given birth to
:no

by **Bam** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:32 am

s@int wrote:As everyone and his fkn brother has now given their opinion I think its only fair if I give mine. I hoped that we could have a discussion on the moral implications of what was initially raised by SOMEONE ELSE not me.

WE SHOULD KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

MORE THAN 30,000 CHILDREN WILL DIE TODAY IN AFRICA
poverty in Africa : diseases and starvation: facts
"Twenty percent of Africa's children will die before the age of five" a recently released report stated. The statement was part of a series of reports that demonstrate the horrible conditions currently facing children throughout Africa.
"Every day 30,000 children die from a combination of disease- infested water and malnutrition," the report continued. "Water-borne diseases are claiming one child every three seconds. These diseases are the major killers of small children in Africa."
LINK

Those children have no hope and no future. No one is willing to put the money in that is required to not only save them for today but to ensure that they and their children will have a future. Save a million African kids from hunger today, and you will be back saving 10million African kids tomorrow. Either you put the money in to educate, feed and develop sustainable food sources, clean water, medicine, health care and employment, or you may as well use their organs to save other lives...... they are dead either way.

Doctors are making decisions every day on which patient to save because of a shortage of organs. This decision is based on a number of factors such as age, whether the patient has close relatives, career, MONEY etc. etc. So to say :-

Human life cannot be measured by the level of technological contribution or improvements one is able to make toward future generations, or current generations. Aside from the fundamental point that it goes against basic principles of human rights, it's a totally flawed and unworkable concept. There can be no universal definition as to what constitutes a 'contribution to society', and to imply that those in the Western world have the moral authority to define the term, is utterly ridiculous.

is wrong because Doctors are already making these decisions on a daily basis, although it is worth noting that as far as distribution goes, everyone has to be able to pay in order to receive a transplant - and that is why many poor people never undergo the process. Overall, transplants are a procedure for people with lots of money or lots of insurance. (Or in our case whether you are private or NHS)

In the United States, 18 people die every day waiting for an organ donation that never comes. In 2007 alone, 9,600 patients died or became too ill to undergo surgery while waiting. Of course, this is not just an American tragedy. The organ shortage is a global crisis. Almost 90% of these people were in need of organs that could have been donated by living donors with relative safety.

Moral and morality changes with the ages, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable (not to mention illegal) to use abortion as a method of birth control, today its practised in this country almost without protest. The only real discussion being about whether 28 weeks is too late, and whether the morning after pill should be freely available without prescription.

Homosexuality, once abhorent and illegal, is now almost compulsory under a Labour Government.

Experiments on the human embryonic stem cell research is still a controversial undertaking but goes on all the same.

So any moral argument must also consider the changing face of humanity, and what was once abhorent and unthinkable can become over time freely accepted.

As I said in my other post, millions of 3rd world people will die long and slow lingering deaths from starvation etc etc, with NONE of the worlds richer nations willing to do anything but pay lipservice to finding an answer. My view was that if they are going to die anyway better that they save the life of someone who can make a difference in the quality of life for future generations than just rotting in some mass grave, while the money received might also be enough to ensure that future generations don't have to sell their organs or die before their time.

Controversial..... yes, unpleasant and distasteful no doubt, but unfit to be discussed because it might upset some Politically Correct individual, I don't think so. People get their knickers in a twist because others wish to discuss something that could be relevant to all our futures. Not that we have the power to make that decision, but simply to discuss it and the options.

If you don't like a topic...... DON'T FKN READ IT, JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. Others may like to discuss the unthinkable, because one day it may just happen. We have wars over oil today, over water tomorrow?

I think thats a good post S@int, especially compairing abortion which was illegal all those years ago. Nobody in their right mind back then would of ever heard of such an idea.

Its a reasoned debate that S@int, I still dont know if I agree with it entirely. Does an organ donor have to be alive, to donate an organ or can it be removed within say 12 hrs of death to still be useful ?

Whatever the question, no doubt you'll get a certain individual complaining about this post. Boo f.ucking hoo. :glare:

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:32 am

I dont think its right.
Just because someone is unfortunate enough to be born in say Sudan with nothing and is likely to die before being 12 months old,or is born in London to a rich family means nothing to me!
Human life is human life,you cant put value on it by using wealth or social status as a gauge.
Theres no doubt that people in 3rd world countries are having children they cannot feed,but they have feelings too.A starving man and wife can love eachother as much as a rich man and woman with everything.in fact its possible even more so because all they have in some cases is eachother!
They have kids they love just as much as anyone else.
I dont think taking their organs because they have no chance of a good life is fair or will ever happen.
What these people need is education about disesase,especially HIV.They also need contraception and educated on it.Bring the birth rate down= less mouths to feed.
It would be a start!

by **Bam** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:36 am

Number 9 wrote:I dont think its right.
Just because someone is unfortunate enough to be born in say Sudan with nothing and is likely to die before being 12 months old,or is born in London to a rich family means nothing to me!
Human life is human life,you cant put value on it by using wealth or social status as a gauge.
Theres no doubt that people in 3rd world countries are having children they cannot feed,but they have feelings too.A starving man and wife can love eachother as much as a rich man and woman with everything.in fact its possible even more so because all they have in some cases is eachother!
They have kids they love just as much as anyone else.
I dont think taking their organs because they have no chance of a good life is fair or will ever happen.
What these people need is education about disesase,especially HIV.They also need contraception and educated on it.Bring the birth rate down= less mouths to feed.
It would be a start!

I think thats the point you're missing Barry, Doctors can and do put a value on life. whether you like it or not Saint is right about one thing ..... It does come down to money at the end of the day.

by **Judge** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:44 am

Number 9 wrote:
Ciggy wrote:Have you actually shot people dead Judge

The only thing Judge has ever shot is his load!!

Im joking Judge before ya go off on one,know the way you have your serious head on today!

cheers baz

to answer ciggy - ive had that conversation before, have you forgot

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:46 am

Bam wrote:
Number 9 wrote:I dont think its right.
Just because someone is unfortunate enough to be born in say Sudan with nothing and is likely to die before being 12 months old,or is born in London to a rich family means nothing to me!
Human life is human life,you cant put value on it by using wealth or social status as a gauge.
Theres no doubt that people in 3rd world countries are having children they cannot feed,but they have feelings too.A starving man and wife can love eachother as much as a rich man and woman with everything.in fact its possible even more so because all they have in some cases is eachother!
They have kids they love just as much as anyone else.
I dont think taking their organs because they have no chance of a good life is fair or will ever happen.
What these people need is education about disesase,especially HIV.They also need contraception and educated on it.Bring the birth rate down= less mouths to feed.
It would be a start!

I think thats the point you're missing Barry, Doctors can and do put a value on life. whether you like it or not Saint is right about one thing ..... It does come down to money at the end of the day.

Probably right mate,the docs probably do!
Does'nt mean I have to agree with it.
Have'nt people been given organs from pigs before..and its worked?
I remember reading something about that...sounds funny but Im sure I did'nt dream it!

Liverpool FC Forum

The dude is in the building! - Peace n love y'all

Who is online