|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of acceptable behaviour here. (...) It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) :-) That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one. (...) They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails, but heck, (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
| (...) Yeah, it was intended as more tongue in cheek than it came across--I was in part alluding to my recent calls for other additions to the Godwin list. "Petty and annoying" was a poor word choice... Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) I think that should be ammended to government can't be any smarter than the dumbest person (or sheep if you prefer) you let participate (vote) in it, but that doesn't sound very supportive of democracy, does it? However, it does explain a lot. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
