 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn7L6H.412@lugnet.com... (...) And if you are looking for consipacy stories Larry, we could ponder on the fact that only earlier this year the government refused to do this - (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Gn7J4q.Mt1@lugnet.com... (...) The UK is apparently going to licence the use of Medical Marijuana Also, it has been reclassified so they the police can effectively ignore possession (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Because I thought it was an interesting link and that it would spark some interesting discussion. And it was, and it did. You all know that I'm mostly in the "can't trust government" camp. And I have no doubt whatever that (to pick one facet) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Medical Marijuana
|
|
There is substantial evidence that marijuana has significant medical uses. Several states have recognised this and authorised doctors to prescribe it (for uses such as an anti nausea drug for chemotherapy and AIDS patience) and have authorised the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Very True. I do think it was dealt with in the most unfortunate means though (shot down)- of course i have no proof, but lack of evidence rarely stops the big media, so why should i worry? ;-P (...) Good point. I guess the conspiracy stuff can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) Was there not a news item reporting that debris from that plane had landed same way before the actual impact site? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) You're right that such thinking is predicated on a logical fallacy, but that doesn't make assertions on either side true or false on that basis alone. And I found your "snopes" site to be no more reliable (plenty of asserted *truth* there, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) This bit in particular: (...) Seems, for the conspiracy-minded, too good to be false. However, another website at (URL) offers a nicely straightforward counter viewpoint: (...) I know, I know. "Of course they're going to deny it--that's how (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) That's one of the million dollar questions, and we may have to content ourselves with "the passengers appear to have disrupted the hijackers' plan which then resulted in the crash of the plane." It doesn't seem likely that we'll ever have a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
What i would like to know is: 1- what really happened to the flight over pennsylvania 2- what happened to the 5th plane that was initially reported to have been highjacked 3- what happened with the car bomb that was reported to have exploded outside (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) So why post the link here? I actually found some of the stuff at the website pretty good. Most of it seems in keeping with what Bill Moyers and the Christic Institute announced on PBS TV about 14 years ago -- stuff I found more than pursuasive (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate morality. The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean". One might also say "you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Conspiracy theories
|
|
Sometimes I find the strangest links in the strangest places... (URL) link was in someone's sig on a www.megatokyo.com discussion forum. I'm dubious at best about the veracity of this particular theory. (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) even (...) was (...) Well, your three categories of morality isn't my baby, and I'm not even sure I agree with it as morality-o-meter, but let's look at it this way: (...) You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) anyway, (...) Whether or not they know the declaration was untruthful, they have failed to pay duty on goods which require it by law. If you're importing goods, it's your responsibility to pay the appropriate duty (at least in Australia). The (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Agreed I spose-- I was more or less implying my own morality for myself (or was trying), but yes, if you find it to be moral, yeah. However, the more I think about it, the less I can concieve of it being actual "moral", so much as "justified". (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Or the principle says that it's a particularly moral act because you're standing up, willing to deny funding (in a small way) to a corrupt bureaucracy. If you think that's so. Those of us who think that governance is bad have it particularly (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bruce Willis is a 'Gutless Coward'
|
|
(...) Actually, Willis' character is afraid of flying in the Die Hard movies. He's just keeping in character. :-) (I'll call myself...) Bruce (...to avoid confusion) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not in Public (Re: Bruce Willis is a 'Gutless Coward')
|
|
(...) You read the Guardian and you have the audacity to tell someone else their reading the wrong newspaper! Steve The Daily mail is great. (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not in Public (Re: Bruce Willis is a 'Gutless Coward')
|
|
(...) You read the wrong papers (I though you were a Telegraph reader?), this caught my eye in the Guardian: (URL) had ML Bush has... a Turkey? :) Scott A "Most turkeys taste better the day after; my mother's tasted better the day before." (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bruce Willis is a 'Gutless Coward'
|
|
The following from the UK Daily Mail caught my eye as chief executives aren't normally so undiplomatic background: Bruce Willis and Demi Moore had cancelled a trip to London to attend the premiere of his latest film Bandits. Instead he sent a video (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Nope. It doesn't. At least, not in a legal sense Legally, you don't have a say. *Especially* if it's in another country :) Does it matter what you think in terms of how moral you are? Sure. How honest you are? Sure. (...) Ah-- debatably (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) <snip description of legal mumbo-jumbo> (...) Personally I don't give a wet noodle how you mark your customs forms, unless you happen to be sending them to me, in which case I'd prefer honesty in the declaration. I'm not vehemently opposed to (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) How can someone be held accountable for something they did not do? Customs would have to prove that the recipient falsely asked me to mark the package as a gift. Failing that, the recipient has done no wrong -- committed no positive act in the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) However, your "act of kindness" may result in a lot of extra trouble for the recipient, if it's proved false. At best, they'll have to pay the duty anyway, but there may well be other penalties. If they *ask* you to mark it as a gift, then I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) US D of I ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Whereas I would call it a lie but not necessarily dishonest. I go back to my example I gave earlier. Are inflatable tanks lies? Yes. Are they morally wrong? Not necessarily. (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Yeah, its gets attenuated pretty fast. In the U.S. such a thing has it's origins in congressionally generated legislations, is duplicated by administrative law (sometimes with errors, additions, and omissions), and implemented by people that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) Yes, both received something of value (to them) in exchange for their goods. (...) Again, you're receiving something of value for your goods, so it's not a gift. Generally, in working out a trade, both parties agree on some kind of monetary (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) I think we're getting way off here-- the question is "Is it honest to mark packages as 'gift'?" Is the PBJ merchandise? Eh, I dunno. I'd hesitate to call it such. But I certainly wouldn't call it a gift. If you're trading Lego for Lego? Eh, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) The form, at least in the US is very terse. There is essentially no explanatory text. It seems to me that they leave it up to my discretion to use the form how I see fit. What do you check if the package contains gifts and merchandise? Both? (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
|
(...) If my seven year old son trades his PBJ at the lunch table in school for the next kid's swiss on rye, was it merchandise? If not, is it because of your profit clause above, or because it wasn't a cash transaction? He thought it was a (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Nope, that's pretty close. I would say that ethics are not a combined morality, but rather are a suggested morality, but that's only because it has a different implication of the derivation.(1) Further, something as broad as a societal ethic (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
That's more or less what *I* mean (agreeing with James' further tweaking of these words), but those are not the accepted definitions of the word, not exactly. Generally, the definitions for the words "moral(s)" and "ethics" are very similar, except (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) So-- ok, I've heard several times now that there's a distinction between ethics and morality. Personally I never was aware of the distinction, but what exactly is it for those who distinguish? At a guess, I'd say you're defining it as: - (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Me too! (and considering a post or two as well) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) You forgot to point out that you have (to your satisfaction, if not to mine) invalidated some of them through other means, Dave! GRIN. (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Heh. I know what you mean... in hunting down the reference, I found myself rereading the entire thread. :) James (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) That's REALLY good James! The lexicographers should be talking to us, Baby! "YOUR morals are not OUR ethics." I will always remember this point of distinction. Damned slippery words... -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Bottom line is that *you* don't get to define merchandise, the people who wrote the form (and made the law) do. Doesn't matter what you think. thanks, James (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
