 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
As Chris alluded to, homosexuality falls under the realm of behavioral genetics and is probably an epigenetic process (e.g. acting above the level of the genes). Epigenetic processes are incredibally difficult to tease apart and complex ones such as (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) website. 'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-) (...) How can a question be logical or not? (...) I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty evenhanded treatment to me. (...) You and this hound (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I would not necessarily assume you were anti-gay, although I might assume your stance is based primarily on belief rather than logic. (...) Well, here's the thing that gets me. I've never seen anyone give a convincing reason why anyone would (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
the following is a question and answer excerpt from a debate on another website. The questions seem to me very clear and logical. The answers, however, do not; sometimes they seem rather desperate. I find it very interesting that the person (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Some people were already agitating for the freeing of slaves. The southern states would not accept such a change to their economy. I am pretty sure slaves were understood to be individuals with rights, denied them or not, what was asserted (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) I disagree. Two hundred years ago, as now, the rights of the individual *were* paramount, but the definition of individual was very different and was suited to the demands of the time. Would slave-dependent states have signed the Constitution (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Ob. Lego: Yes, you should rush out and read Louis Sullivan's essay "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered"! and then go build! Also interesting: his _Autobiography of an Idea_ and _System of Ornament_. (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Speaking of reading, I suggest the anthology _An American Primer_ (Daniel J. Boorstin) for basic readings. Want Washington's Inaugral Address (to Congress) and Farewell Address? Jefferson's? John Adams' "What do we mean by the American Revolution?" (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ack, I deleted the subject line without having a good replacement.
|
|
(...) Sorry, but this made me arrrrggh: "more omnipresent". "Omni-" means "all," making it redundant. Of course, *I* knew what you meant, but I'm just an omnidork. (...) Unfortunately we're still in the mindset of "with enough safeguards we can (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Well, if they were alive today -- I'd kiss Thomas Jefferson, shake hands with guys like Madison and Jay, and kick Hamilton in the pain zone (::sigh:: if only Burr had killed him sooner =oP). No arguments over the value of the Declaration, it (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
