Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
You said you were of two minds over an issue, and I tried to describe that I think your position is self-contradictory there. There is no reason and argument supporting to be indifferent. So I described how crystal-clear the moral/legal situation imo really is: nobody can ever own somebody else and demand that the other must be up to his service (if he has not accepted payment in advance). It leaves no room for indifference, that profound I see my argument on that nobody has claim for somebody else's existence and that nobody has to live for the sake of somebody else.
|
Being of two minds is not indifference; it just means I have yet to make a definitive decision owing, for the most part, on not having what I consider all the related data on an issue; when I feel I can render a definitive, in my view, opinion on an issue I will; I just choose not to make a 'knee-jerk', unthinking reaction...
Not indifference, just considered, fairly thought-out, reflection on an issue...
...and, again for the last time, I never made or intended to make any assertion of a claim of someone 'owning' some one else, and, again, you have not provided evidence of your assertion of my intent; funny thing about intent: the only person who really knows some one else's intent is the person having an intent; external impression is just opinion and is often wrong...
<O>