 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
David: I think a lot of that shows a poor understanding of what is actually taking place in our good country. The reasons to keep drugs (currently illicit drugs) ILLEGAL are: 1. Increased government income (nondeclared, slips easily into one's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was trying to formulate a scenario in which the gov't could "allow" marijuana (or the like) but might place some dollar restriction on sales to make the legal purchase undesirable to the consumer. Not sure if it would work, except in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) No, it's too plausible not to be true. The government thinks heroin is some big bad thing (it is) that we need to be protected from because we're too stupid (we're not)... so we have wild gyrations in the street price as we either bribe the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
Replace marijuana with heroin and you have a successfully conceived scenario. I am not saying that this is the truth, I am saying it's a plausible reason for much of what we have seen of late. It could, of course, be totally false. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I think the argument being put forth is that 80,000% is so high as to not make it profitable or even feasible to actually carry out commerce. So I'm not sure your pros and cons apply. (but maybe they do... at one dollar an ounce (an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Did governments create the drug problem instead of prevent one? was Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Gn7J4q.Mt1@lugnet.com... (...) There is a new book published this week Richard Davenport-Hines - ''Pursuit of Oblivion: A Narcotic History of the World, 1500-2000.'' I haven't read (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | the LEGO corporation is a sinister arm of Western global hegemony?
|
|
From the National Review. I don't necessarily agree with all of Peter's reasoning but I found it an interesting read. You may as well, or not. (URL) found the last paragraph "And, in a roundabout way, the Maori have made their peace with (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Pros: 1. Increased government income from taxes made 2. More government jobs for overseeing drug trade 3. Increased commerce (theoretically) 4. Fewer crowded prisons 5. Less court time & police time used (IE more time for other crimes) 6. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Nope. Because you still had to make the decision to say "no" to them :) And certainly they have the power to make you not have to *make* a decision by never even beginning to buy your product, but that doesn't affect your moral valuation, IE (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I agree-- although I don't think I'd word it quite so :) But more or less, I think that's a fair assessment. (...) Well, given the above agreement that morality is aesthetic, who cares about what they think? We're talking about the person (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Why doesn't the Gov't legalize marijuana (et al) and simply tax it exorbitantly, like 80,000%, or something? I mean, the government *does* have the power to levy taxes, and that would seem to accomplish nominally the same thing. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. I guess my strongest notion about morality is that it's a bogus idea (like religion) designed to manipulate others into building a society that benefits certain people. (i.e. my sense of morality, had I one that I championed, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) I haven't heard that, actually. Do you know of a web cite? On the other hand, the more recent Airbus crash in Queens did involve several debris sites for the tail rudder, the engines, and the main body. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) That honestly doesn't sound suspicious to me, since, had the US Gov't *not* purchased the exclusive rights, then the Taliban could easily have watched US troop movements; there's no reasonable way to conclude (but *speculation* is fair game) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
|
|
(...) That's regrettable. It wasn't me though, you can be sure of that. You're close enough to my idea of a joke as it is without any external assistance required. (...) So you're too lazy or clueless to unsubscribe, then, but *not* too lazy to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Your question is not valid. Post a valid one, and I'll do my best to answer it. That's the kind of guy I am. That's the kind of guy you are not. I thought it was thanksgiving? Should you not be spending time with your family? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes. I think it is somebody’s idea of a joke. (...) No. (...) Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not. (...) Even if you are correct (I do not intend to check), your initial summary was misleading. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:Gn8F85.3rD@lugnet.com... (...) Chemically induced Lego Dark ages? Lawrence (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Poultron" <awood@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:Gn8H25.846@lugnet.com... (...) Or when you realise you can't change the real world lawrence (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) client's (...) But even if they don't have that much sway over you, and you choose to say "no", they may well choose to say "forget the deal" and you have no decision to make anyway (except what to put in the negative feedback comments). So (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Yep. If you value your future dealing above your "honesty" towards their government, as well as valuing their happiness above your "honesty", so be it. (...) Nope. It's only the client's decision if they have that much sway over you. If you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:Gn8F85.3rD@lugnet.com... (...) <snip stuff> (...) Dark (...) I think the Dark Age is caused by realising that there is a 'real world', seperate to the Lego world and that it may need (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) news:Gn7p66.D1y@lugnet.com... (...) Festival with a flower painted on my (...) Eeeeeew!! I was born in the 60s, and I happen to think flared jeans, wide lapels & greasy hair are much more civilised!! And when I was 15, I was going to see (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) "merchandise". (...) But it's *them* who requested it, it's *them* who benefits (or not, if customs disagrees with the declaration), and it's *them* who may think twice about dealing with you in future if you decline their request. As I've (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hemp (was: Medical Marijuana)
|
|
(...) We can just lament our own government's attitude towards hemp products - (URL) (those contact details are probably out of date now 8?). Heck, you still have to jump through 100 store-rooms full of red-tape to get a licence to grow hemp for (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) What junk mail is that? Are you getting mail from someone or some organization that you didn't sign up for, or have tried unsuccessfully to unsubscribe from? If not, it's not junk mail, since you are getting (whatever it is) at your request (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) "Them" in this context are the officers. *I* already repudiated it, so it's not "us", it's them. (...) Sent them (the officers) a note about it. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I haven't denied that I'm breaking a law. (...) But you haven't given a yes or no answer to this question. Repeating, is it your assertion that when you rationalise something for your convenience that you're fundamentally honest than someone (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) I guess, ultimately it's your decision, however if you go against the client's wishes (either lying without their consent *or* not lying after they ask you to), it may well be deterimental to any future dealing, so realistically, it's probably (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) So what is his association with the LP? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) Them? Surely you mean “us”, or have you resigned your membership? If you have not, what have you done to correct the situation? (...) I think it is not a huge issue. But according to my values it is a big deal. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Customs question...
|
|
(...) Their views/wants are irrelevant in this. It is *you* who are filling in the form. It is *you* who are deliberately committing fraud. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Ed "Boxer" Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:Gn7p66.D1y@lugnet.com... (...) Yes. I was "born in the 50's" too. I remember as a 15 year old going to see Jimi Hendrix at the Isle of Wight Pop Festival with a flower painted on my (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
|
(...) I *might* believe the former, but not the latter as much. I am willing to believe that the U.S. govt. supported a plan that they were not fully aware of ala "The Tailor of Panama." (...) Of course, I agree totally with this part. But what (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
Hmm. Your post is amazingly similar to junk mail I received today. Funny that. (...) I agree, I'm all for effective cannabis-based prescription drugs. But then many illegal drugs have a place in medicine. What is the big deal? (...) Paranoia. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) professionals and executives were the group most (...) yeah well, us folks from the 60s are getting on in years. (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Well, I wasn't (see my followup to His Royal Majesty the Frog Prince) but thanks for thinking of me just the same :-)... (...) I think most US pot is domestic "greenhouse" grown. Pot's too low value for the mass to smuggle. Cheech and Chong (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn7M3B.64z@lugnet.com... (...) most (...) Sorry. Northern Alliance! (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
