 | | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) That's the theory, but in practice it has turned out that regulations are HIGHLY relevant... they are a min-max. In other industries the defense that "we were in conformance with standards" has been an accepted defense. This has been discussed (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) I don't think Jack Chick intentionally makes fun of Christians but he certainly makes some Christians (or ANY other uncritical thinkers that operate the way he and his writers do, for that matter) look ridiculous. I doubt that was his desired (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) I thought the author was making fun of Christians. I didn't go looking around, but from your cites, it sounds like it supports that. Or am I all wet? Chris (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Heynowwaitaminnit! I resemble that remark. Actually, that describes me well enough. But your implication is that the logic therein is circular. Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see it. Could you spell it out slowly for me? thanks, Chris (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Children and Violence
|
|
(...) I don't think that it is. The more controls in place on children, the less practice they have at operating without controls. (...) I agree with him (though probably go farther). When I get into these discussions, a few of which have been here, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) The regulations are largely irrelevant. Generally they set a minimum standard, not a maximum one. It is my understanding that UA and AA are open to litigation for their "failure" on the 11th - is that not the case? (...) I'm not clear on what (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'm talking about where the government own the airport. (...) Larry, whenever you start to squirm we either get this "it is not an ideal world yet so we have to compromise for now" answer or we get the "LP dreamland is an ideal world which can (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Meet me after school in the parking lot, unless you're yella'. ;`) A bit more seriously, although still in jest, what if I were? (...) Agreed. I just couldn't resist. (...) Whole-heartedly agree. Utter rubbish - the entire site and those like (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: <snip> If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to pick a fight. Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who advances it, or what it is used to knock down or raise up... That's all I'm (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Yeah, for the majority of the article I felt like running a few perl regexps on it: s/islam/christianity/gi; s/muhammed/jesus/gi; s/koran/bible/gi; Though my favorite by far was number 1: The Bible is older, so it's right! Never mind the fact (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Kinda like a guy who rejects "traditional" views of morality, invents his own (!) and then declares himself righteous?!! Honestly, how bizarre is that?! Ruminate on that one for a while and then criticize all you want. I don't believe in God (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
I just read some other sections of the site. I was particularly amused by a couple of stuff: - Singapore government forbids religious critics => incentives equalness between religions => is wrong ('cause we are better!). - Can almost 1 bn Catholics (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) AMEN! ;-) Pedro (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Agree. It starts with the wrong argument, and goes all the way down. I'd say the writer was probably abducted by aliens, who implanted him a probe... ;-) Pedro (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
Hmm, I'm not sure whether this article really disproves Islam or simply all religions. The author seems to be drawing on his own broad assumptions and bias about Islam, which I think falsely characterizes the religion itself and what it stands for (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: just funny
|
|
rlogin horstl, (...) rm -rf /bin/laden ^ :wq horstl (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) be used against christianity like #2 2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing. (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
This was far too funny not to post. (URL) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What we can do... (my 2 cents)
|
|
(...) Thnx. (...) *We* did not run west... the *queen* did - that marked the beggining of tourism in Brazil. The rest of the population had to stay and withstand the fight, with some help from the Brits (ah, Wellington... fascinating character) we (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| |
| | Children and Violence
|
|
Hey Y'all: I was just sitting here contemplating my navel when I began to think about violence and its causes. We have certainly been given a few jolts these past years and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. We have children shooting (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
