 | | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) Agreed. It would be more of a reasonable PR move than a necessary statement of party purity. Harry Browne, for that matter, isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, but that absolutely does *not* invalidate even a single tenet of the Libertarian (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) I agree with that and would fault them for not doing so. But it's not nearly the big deal that some make of it. (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) is a Libertarian only in name, and his shenanigans are more directed toward his own quest for social martyrdom and sensationalism than about furthering or even disseminating the Libertarian Party's goals or beliefs. It must by now be plainly (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) So if you make enough money, you're a commercial organisation? What if I sell you my car? Is that enough? What if I sell cookies that I make every weekend? How about if I just sell cookies for one weekend? Problem I have is that defining (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Lets make this crystal clear... suppose you and I both lived in the US and we had the same level of yearly sales (say 5 things a year, well below what you and I do in actuality) and we had identical lots to buyers in the same country (say OZ). (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I don't agree. In your situation you are knowingly and deliberately lying, breaking the law and trying to make some clumsy political point whilst doing so. I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the word “merchandise". Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) And that is not just my view: Racist rhetoric creates negative environment (URL) his claim that his intentions were innocent, I can't understand how he thought his message would be conveyed as appropriate rather than cruel. If his objectives (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I'm am talking about the intent of the form. If I as an individual am selling you goods as an individual I do not view that as "merchandise" when I fill in the form. If I as an entrepreneur were selling goods to you and others for profit then (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Darn you! Now I wanna go reply to that oh-so-old-post... again. :) DaveE (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I agree with David. A sale is a sale. If you received any payment for it, it's merchandise. Even if you only paid for shipping. Anything else is lying, at least to yourself, and possibly to the world at large when you make such a specious (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) The way I define things (similar to Richard, but not quite the same), you would be expressing morals - that is, a system of conduct in accordance with right and wrong as you understand them. IMHO, morals are not universal. Ethics are much like (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Not unless you define merchandise as necessarily above a certain cost or from a certain source. I'd say merchandise in this case is when you've paid for the contents of the package. If you only paid shipping, then, sure, mark it as a gift. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But if I sell you an old 3055 (say) for $3 & postage is "Merchandise" more appropriate than "gift"? Merchandise is more for describing buying from a commercial organisation. If anyone is selling several thousand dollars worth pa then perhaps (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) You are probably expressing neither morals nor ethics, but rather your own will. Knowing these things are "right" for you, doesn't make them "right" for everyone else. Moral and ethical acts are expressed in relation to agreed upon standards (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) For the record, I also think of this as a deeply romanticized notion of what I'm experiencing...not some literal description. (...) I certainly agree with this and your further characterization of our social nature and how that leads to an (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) Wow, and I didn't even have to pay him (much) to ask me that :) Phase I: Desire Humans have emotions about their state. Very basic. "Happy", "sad". (Normally I might say "good" or "bad", but that's easily equatable with morality, so I'll (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Well, considering that the "gift" denotes the contents of the package (or so I would assume the "law" dictates), then no, not really... DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) Let's start by trying to distinguish between two slippery terms... I am uncomfortable with even the idea of "morality" (i.e. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct) because it suggests something beyond the conduct (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I don't understand the goal in seperating this from the question of asking how believers know God to be. If you accept that they know that God exists at all, why not accept that they know God to be good as just part of the definition of God? (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) It was high poetry for the modern age. If you want a neat story, Cryptonomicon holds together better. Chris (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
