 | | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I agree. How sad. Instead of choosing a book *worthy* of the award, let's choose a book that pushes our personal agenda. Merit really never entered into it. JOHN (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) I'm glad you put a winky there-- that is one of my hot buttons-- "artists" hiding behind the First Amendment while they purvey filth and obscenity-- and then *I* have to support it! (NEA in the US) (...) What about TLC's rights? You know, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Call it "art", and you can do what you like! ;) Is there a right to free speech in Legoland? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) ...and now it's UK "book of the year": Moore wins Book Of The Year (URL) bit of a worry really. Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Darn! You're doing this too? I thought I had an original... Back to the drawingboard, Chris (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) At what point do I agree to their "fair use" policy? When I purchase a product, as long as I am not violating any copyright, or patent issues where does TLC have any sway over how I use these products. I sign no agreement at time of purchase, (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Grumble. Well, your assessment is correct (based on precedent), but I still don't like it! Here's a more abstract question--if I buy a LEGO product, am I automatically entering into a "fair use" contract respecting TLG's ideas of propriety? (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) I think the issue is one of *propriety ownership*. The "minifig" image is intellectual property of TLC and a direct reflection of their brand, and we all know how protective TLC is about their brand (rightly and justifiably so). If they see (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where I'm posting. As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) First, your stance seems to assume that notions like 'competent,' 'fraudulent,' and 'fully informed' are binary in nature and that a person is on one side or another of a clearly demarked line. I don't think that's so. Second, It's still my (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Buying allegiance is not restricted to the "Muslim world". Right now I expect Bush is horse-trading all over. His case is that strong. (...) Part of the problem is that the USA did not pay what it said it would last time around. Bush should (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Paper Tigers [Re: What about the first?]
|
|
(...) I feared that quote may have been erroneous. I did some checking. It turns up only in one place on the web: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) But what does that mean? Humility is irrelevant. Your obfuscation is a dodge. JOHN (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) No, but if you do, then perhaps you should attend to yourself before lecturing others. (major snip) (...) I read where you were running on about someone hating Islam, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so I simply deleted it as (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I think he is simply asking for a little humility to be shown. Scott A (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) So what are you trying to argue here? That *nobody* is worthy to confront evil? That *nobody* has the moral authority to rise up against tyrants, depots, or dictators? That *nobody* has the right to judge anyone else? I don't understand your (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I love analogies... If I know someone who has an alcohol problem, do I have to have an alcohol problem? If I know someone who hates Islam and wants to kill anyone who believes in that religion, do I have to carry a gun and start shooting as (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) "Eh... All right. Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel." ;-) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I'd "venture" 99% of the terrorism the UK has suffered has been perpetrated people who'd call themselves "Christians". However, Christianity is not what drives them. – it’s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of political (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." Fredrik (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Belgium & Norway [Re: What about the first?]
|
|
(...) Who is "they"? The decision outlined above was taken by *Belgium's* "Supreme Court". As their name implies the "Norwegian Nobel Committee" is actually based in *NORWAY*. The prize was actually shared by Rabin, Arafat and Peres. Their work was (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) .... and now it appears not even the USA is 100% welcome: Turkey ups stakes on US troops (URL) Turkish president has said his country will allow US soldiers to be deployed on its territory only if the United Nations passes a second resolution (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis" [was Re: What about the first?]
|
|
(...) Really? Read this: US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis (URL) its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq. Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) One can point to individuals in both parties in letting Enron go wild, but it really was the baby of the Republicans. Bush loved 'em. As to the oft-repeated but inaccurate claims that the environmentalists had somehow blocked construction of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
[snip] (...) Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize too. [snip] (...) no (...) All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as a parting gift. (...) war. (...) Freeing the Iraqi (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You are correct, you did not say that at any time. I also did not say you did say it... :-) I just call your attention to the fact that it would be wrong *if* you had that in mind. Therefere I chose the words "as you said it" to be highlighted (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Wrong in the sense that I never said that U.S. companies do not benefit from Middle Eastern oil in any way. Dave is saying we want their oil because we are sucking up so much Middle Eastern oil (and specifically Iraqi oil) with our SUVs. My (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(sorry about the double-post... my bad) :-$ Pedro (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use* the oil to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use* the oil to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) "I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?" If you are going to castigate Americans for something that Canadians are doing (wasting oil through self-indulgence), you aren't going to garner a lot of respect for whatever point you are (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Arrgg. This kind of moral equivalency is probably the most aggravating characteristic of the Left. To be unable to distinguish between being morally good and evil is *basic*! Dave, you sound silly when you call Bush or Blair "bad", but call (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Again, I think it did--take a fine example of Cuba--name one spot where Canadians can go on vacations that Americans, by law, cannot? Guess which cigar Canadians can smoke that Americans, by law, cannot. Now I'll connect the dots-- We try to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Good for them, but that doesn't answer my question. :-) (...) But this was not the point you were making. How can you castigate the United States for its policy in regards to Iraq on the basis of the US trying to portray everyone as a bad man? (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Every single foreign power that has taken over the Middle Eastern countries has left without glory... ever since the Assyrians at least, ending in the British so far. So no, I don't think the US should do that. What would anyone gain? The (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Historical circumstance. In the past others undertook the majority of what can now be called terrorist actions; in the future, others (non-muslim, that is) will; it's a never ending and unavoidable cycle. More: it is not dependent on religions (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) The problem is what he will do in the mean time. If he just kept to himself the problem would be moot. JOHN (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> (...) Now this is a serious thought-- Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well, now (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) or 10 years and he'll die of natural causes--no war needed. <snip> (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Canadians aren't hell-bent on going to war, and we at least try to have a cohesive and responsible foreign policy, without the pretension that we do. (...) I have said elsewhere that Saddam is a bad man--a very very very bad man (waggles (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim fanatics. (...) The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) There ain't nothing you can say about Steinbrenner that can upset me. Unless of course, if you refer to this Dodger fan as a "Yankee". :-) (...) It shouldn't be too hard to guess where France's oil comes from, that's for sure. :-) (...) Which (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot be controlled! (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) But what about Israeli terrorism? See: (URL) Arafat is (...) ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges: (URL) are others in the Israeli “military”. (...) A number of countries have come under sustained terrorist attacks without resorting to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Well, if this is the motivation behind the war, then go beat up yourselves. That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it. Come up with a coherent foreign (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) SH does not have a nuke. If he did, do you think he'd trust OBL with it??? (...) Is Bush not a "religious fanatic". Does he not support terrorism? Why else would he have "pardoned" Orlando Bosch? See: (URL) to the justice department in George (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) would (...) you (...) peace (...) No but supporting Israeli defence against Palestinian Terrorism does. Arafat is just another dictator that needs to go. I highly doubt the US or most other "Western" countries would be as patient as Israel has (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
It has most likely been mentioned here before, but I'm too lazy to read thru all messages in this thread. NATO was made to stop Soviet Communism to take over the whole planet. That was a good thing, very easy to unite to. Now that the Soviet empire (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Relevance? [BTW: They’d have been right; he did not have nukes ;) ] (...) Don't make me laugh. Does supporting Israeli belligerence make the USA a safer place? (...) Can you justify that? (...) Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) That's what the members of the League of Nations thought about the German military in the 1930s. (...) & (...) Oh yeah, Israel is such a threat defending itself and all. (...) It would take about 20 years for Iraq's oil production pay for the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) The rally in London was the biggest gathering in the UK since VE [Victory in Europe] day: estimates range from 750,000 to 2,000,000. 500,000 were expected. (URL) counter attacked before it even got underway: (URL) A (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Right now he does not have the nukes, and he does not have a conventional delivery system. He is a long way from getting them... and he is getting weaker by the day. So, what risk does he pose? What risk does he pose to world peace & security (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) On a similar note, the American movie "Bowling for Columbine" screened in Oslo a couple of weeks ago, and received very good ratings. The reviewer were generally more happy about this movie than with "Two Towers"! While "Bowling..." is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq, which is largely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no location to destroy? Why let Iraq get them in the first place? I don't really want to find out what they may or may not do with them. (...) I heard on the local news radio (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I think that even with the rules of real estate essentially intact, if we called it and understood it as stewardship rather than ownership it would change the way we think about land-resources. For the better. But I think that several positive (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) There was a considerable number of non-democracies in the LoN... in part, perhaps that may have helped to prevent any concerted action at the time. But then again, the LoN had no real power to sanction intervention, unlike the UN has nowadays. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) we (...) Are you kidding me? The whole rest of that was completely irrelevant if you don't see this. (...) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations. (i.e. the democracies) (...) According to the polls: While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant threat, only 42 percent (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) I guess I was thinking something along the lines of Slavery was the reason for the reason. (as silly as that sounds.) (...) Well that was a much better explanation than mine. :-) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hm. I guess I have to question how different is this stewardship you're envisioning versus ownership? What does ownership entitle you to that stewardship doesn't; given that in our current system, the government can confiscate your land if it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them. (...) I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily decreases your ability to enjoy privacy. (...) You are in effect saying that the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I think I would call it just. (...) Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Doh! Well, my cool ontological musings remain in effect regardless... Dave! (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Uh oh...I was trimming too liberally and misrepresented DaveE's stance. Immediately before his "communistic ideal" comment, I had written "I think I think that land should be a commons, tragedy or not." Totally, my bad! Chris (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly *includes* a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. There are certain rights that virtually everyone wants for themselves, so we make a compact with the others in a given group to acknowledge that it is best for all concerned that we grant those rights to all within the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago. (...) That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just. (...) Convince me. (...) I'm not yet convinced. I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I have decided that it makes the most sense for me to stop talking about space in the universe and just talk about land. Bear in mind that I think the argument extrapolates out to all habitable space, but for now, talking about land might be easier. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Being properly servile
|
|
(...) (eager to please) How shall I "ef" off, oh lord? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) No, it is not. Or need I remind you that there were few democracies in Europe in the 1930s??? And that there was a war in Spain drawing attention and polarizing the oppinions? (...) That's news to me. Why do you have that perspective, if I may (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) Bruce, I thought I told you before--If you're going to reply to my posts, I'm going to have to require you to agree with me blindly and absolutely. Don't ask for clarification when I've already decided to say I understand, even if I don't (or (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) The issue quickly becomes conflict of rights. One expects that in Libertopia, it is believed that nobody has the right to kill another person. But by (in theory) buying up all space (air, land, sea, outer, inner, etc), one effectively is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) I would have to argue that Mike isn't quite understanding what he wrote. Slavery was central but a secondary issue? No, it is either not central, or it wasn't a secondary issue. The chain of events over the previous decade makes it fairly (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) They did not "occupy" the Rhineland - it was already part of Germany. (...) Would AH have violated the treaty if he thought he'd be repelled? Can SH get the same level of public support AH got? Did you read the text I quoted? See: ==+== (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) Interesting. I'm not sure I can reconcile that claim with Stephen's statements (which assert outright that the institution of slavery is of paramount importance), but at least I understand your view better now. Thanks for the clarification. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
