 | | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was quite clearly a sign from God that Scientology is in fact stupid. DaveE (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Interestingly (or maybe not--you tell me), something analogous happened to me a few years ago during a one-on-one meeting with a Scientology "Advocate" (or whatever their brainwashers are called). Eventually I got sick of the crazy rhetoric (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Ok, I noticed something odd while mulling over the topic on my way home last night... While I admitted elsewhere that I agree to a certain degree of immorality for eating meat, but that it was negligible, I'm actually not sure that's the case-- at (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Very disappointing. You guys never insulted each other either. :-) Try to do better next time Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: : (...) To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess! The difference in our view seems to come down to this: I support a "transitional range" within which distinction is made between one state and another (be it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah- I would are *similarly*. I.E. that a line *does* exist yet is next to impossible to find accurately. (...) Neither do I really-- that's why I said it only works if you define it differently. I really rather like the hot/cold example better (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see. That's what I get for jumping in mid-stride. I was approaching the issue as if you were espousing your own view, rather than pointing out the implications of an opposing view. Oops. (...) I would sum up by saying that it is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) My intent is to spark interesting discussion, nothing more. I am not the only person who posts cites or excerpts from various places, although my frequency may be a bit higher than some. I would welcome others posting interesting discussion (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
Larry, I really would like to know what your intent is of continiously posting material from the Libertarian party? Are you hoping to "convert" people into Libertarians? That seems to be the general impression I am getting. Offhand, I cannot think (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes: <snip> (...) You've got a point, but it's not directed at the right group. *All* the off-topic groups are meant to discuss *non*-lego things, which is why (well... sorta (1)) they are on the default (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
