 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Some people think that parents discipline children out of spite coupled with ignorance. The idea is that since they were hurt by their parents, they can't bear to inspect the notion that it wasn't actually beneficial for them...that instead it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Is it OK if you're starving and stealing food from someone who has more than they need? (...) I should. I have made it a long-term life-philosophy. But not because of some notion of right and wrong. I have two reasons. The first is that I want (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) But the act of marking it as a gift might be a gift. So what then? Chris (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Why Do so many hate America"... or is it "Why does America hate US?"?
|
|
This is a quote from Kurt Vonnegut's 'Cats Craddle', written in 1963. I only read this recently, coincidentally enough around Sept11. "-People- are hated a lot of places. Claire pointed out in her letter that Americans, in being hated, were simply (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Personhood[1] (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) A (...) in (...) new (...) terms (...) body (...) adjustment (...) not (...) that? (...) swapped (...) Yep, exactly. How much of the "person" is in the "soul"? I say none, the soul doesn't really exist, but who knows? ROSCO [1] Lar, note (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) Tom, It's even easier than that. Just ask them to open up their Bibles to the page where it mentions 'dinosaurs'. (1) Regards, A.B. (1) Credit for this conundrum must go to the late great comedian Bill Hicks. (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) Do we have Peronistas here? Ack. Something about Ross we did not know! Don't cry for me, Argentina! (and no, I am not going to give up my day job...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood )
|
|
What is this? The ugly return of the Julian Jaynes part of the argument? See: (URL) is exactly the kind of stuff that Jaynes would have used to support his seemingly radical theory. What's worse is that if you follow it further it seems to justify a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) disproven. (...) Well, the similarity was insofar as by asking "How about this criterion? No that's not the *real* Christian God", one assumedly is receding the Christian beliefs, but only to a point. IE, accepting the answers as true results (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure where you read that. I'm not asserting any outcome, I'm saying that the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Your whole beef appears to be that if it isn't verfiable by empirical science it's inferior, and then you go (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to get an answer to ANY of these cases until they are actually tried (and make no mistake, they'll be tried sooner or later, we are too curious a lot to ignore them). (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) Richard, I've found the 2 fastest ways to get rid of them are: 1. Say "No thank you" and shut the door 2. Tell them I'm an atheist and watch their blank stares/shock/horror, as they turn around and leave. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I kinda agree-- I think I'd chew down all morals to "respect others" (justice), and "want best for others" (charity). And the one that people forget because it's generally so assumed: "want best for yourself" (selfishness). The rest is all (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood )
|
|
(...) There is a body of evidence--not really conclusive, but provocative--gleaned from the study of epileptics who have had the corpus callosum (the goop connecting the two hemispheres of the thinkbox) severed. Studies have shown that in some cases (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) An even hairier one: Person X's brain is cut in half, as is Person Y's. One pair of lobes is swapped between the two of them (Person X's right lobe is fused with Person Y's left lobe, etc.) What has become of their singular personhoods? Do the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) And from what I've seen, people's faith changes (sometimes markedly) over time, anyway - the well-publicised story of Cat Stevens / Yusouf Islam comes to mind - so what you preach to me today may become abominable to you tomorrow. ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) a (...) On initial inspection, I'd say the latter - those memories & neural functions are (IMO) based on the combination of body / brain in which they reside. Suddenly changing that would cause...well I don't really know what it would cause, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) This 5-response string of linear debate was so remarkably thorough and compicated in its exigesis, and so many Jameses were postulated, quoted, and deconstructed that I am frankly coming to doubt my own identity. A friend and i have recently (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Wow. On face value I can't find any reason why I disagree with your summation of my view. I would ammend, however, the idea that God doesn't care about our measure against the yardstick, if we remain consistent with the level of our own moral (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) If you're asserting that a universe in which more people are legitimately saved is less desirable than a universe in which fewer people are legimately saved, then I think we have another debate on our hands. Besides which, 'don't criticize (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
