 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Why? Why, in particular is is 'wicked' to make the best deal you can for something. We're assuming that the person you're dealing with is competent and you are not being fraudulent, right? Is selling your body off for spare parts (and thus (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it. It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you write 99.5% of the people in (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I agree. You can count my PM in the list :-/ Pedro (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hmm, another thought... If "rights" are a legal construct, where does "good and just" come from. Clearly we seem to feel there is some absolute measure of goodness and justness. Without such, you can't judge anyone else's actions. We probably (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) I think we need to hold people to some standards. Let's assume that the right to exist does require us to provide minimal support to all. Now, take someone who takes their monthly check and spends it all on booze. Should we give them a bigger (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) If a right is just a legal construct, then why can't it be sold away or limited? (...) If a right arises simply from the people, then I'm not sure a right to exist is compatible. (...) I think we need to explore the foundations of rights. Why (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Oh my goodness--I actually agree with John! Eep! (1) Dave K (1) all except the attack on 9-11. Whereas I don't think that American foreign policy is the *only* reason for 9-11, the slip-shod American foreign policy has negatively impacted (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) When someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so much to be humble about." Ditto for some current European leaders (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) The difference is that 99.5% of *Christians* would condemn their actions. How many in the Arab world condemn Extremist Muslims' actions? The silence is deafening. (...) So why bring Christianity into the discussion in the first place? (...) (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) What I want you to realize is that writing off valid points as 'straw man arguments' and 'wiggling and changing the tune', and deleting examples that are completely valid and true (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
