Replies

"I didn't intend that the specific examples given in the article, which was written to address a different topic, were directly applicable to this discussion.

Try to keep on track and pay attention as you are having your posts fed back to you so you can understand what is actually going on. The following quote is from your original post to me.

"Here is a good definition of your version of compassion."

Seems as if you did "intend that the specific examples given in the article" ..."were directly applicable to this discussion." Maybe you are confused again.

"Most of your comments were directed at them not your "compassion" for his parents."

You need to slow down again, I was having a discussion about posts made by other members, not a discussion about where my compassion was directed.

You are the one confused about the expression of compassion for the parents and loved ones. See, the boy died (please reread the article) so it is of no value to have compassion for him. He will not make that or any other mistake again, only you are confused about that fact.

"It is no surprise then that you are one of those parading around your false face of caring for others while lashing out in vicious angry self-righteousness."

Does it make me 'vicious' and self-righteous to point out the fact that people make stupid remarks in public forums? You seem to be making more than your share.

I notice that you did not respond to the fact that you could not even understand that abortion was part of the original article you posted. Trying to gloss over another stupid post?

"Your self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiority leaves me unimpressed."

Oh, and I was trying so hard to impress you, that just breaks my heart. I may not be able to sleep tonight.

Actually, I never posted anything about moral superiority or indicated that the original poster should have compassion for anyone. The original posts addressed the inability of someone to "have enough intelligence to keep their stupid remarks to themselves."