 | | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) If they actually knew what freedom was, would they still not want it? Until everyone is free, peace will never exist. I think it would be worth the cost of both money and lives if we (everyone on Earth) could teach our grandchildren's children (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Hard to argue with that. Yet I call you attention to the fact that the Algerian dicatorship is on the anti-islamist side, making it a whole more complicated matter. (...) If you were getting paid, wouldn't it be "tribute" to the ruling empire? (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apologies to Bruce, et al.
|
|
(...) I don't know if I'd count this as supporting your position or not, since the details indicate special status, but here's a peace bone I can throw ya that I found on the web: (URL)Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Apologies to Bruce, et al.
|
|
I was getting a little shrill and I apologize. He made very valid points both here and off-line and now that there was a cool-down time for me, I see that. Again, I'm sorry. Go about the business of fine debate. Dave K (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot of a detail and not the panoramic view. (...) And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's? they went to the stake. The modern day (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I don't see how obliterating everything helps those under dictatorships. I also don't see the point in risking what freedom we have to help people who don't want it or can't maintain it. I think you statement goes way beyond Patrick Henry's. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) And Bush! ;-) -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Why bring Islam? (...) Problem is, you're not going to. Not saying there aren't lots of repressive regimes in the non Muslim world, mind you, but there sure aren't very many NON repressive ones in the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I'll make my point below. (...) I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you correctly point out, they are agenda-driven. (...) I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT against (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I think you misunderstood me. By "doing nothing" I don't mean about just Saddam. I mean every dictator, even the ones the US is friendly toward. Untill all of the people of the world are free from tyranny, (including but not limited to US and (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
