|
|
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts immorally. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender by the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) We both have. (...) Lead me to water, then, and I'll drink. The well is dry if all your going to do is argue that Communism will always fail, no matter what, though you cannot possibly prove it in a million lifetimes. You're keen on telling (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gasohol?
|
| (...) I had the same problem with the UK press too when Bush came to power. But, so far, he has demonstrated the ability to prove his critics correct. On a basic level, he does make great entertainment. I loved the shots of him the other day playing (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Sum of total happiness will be higher, per capita. There may be individual excursions from the mean. In fact there better be! (...) Communism can't be democratic, freemarket systems can't be dictatorial. (...) Unless it is moral to dispose of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
