 | | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
Sproaticus wrote: <snipped how Jeremy is so pleased with himself> Whatever. I thought about responding to this inane reply, but why bother? I certainly think you dodged around enough of my points, and threw in irrelevant items that had nothing to do (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
|
(...) Aha! I think some headway has been made... I can see one of two possible arguments you are making... maybe you can tell me which is more correct? #1: "An entity is judgeable morally as long as it has considered morality. Hence, those not (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) Hopefully (...) definition (...) actions (...) is (...) really (...) I (...) humans, (...) animals (...) he (...) years (...) or (...) you, (...) backwards (...) as in (...) idea (...) I'll (...) can (...) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonald's, LEGO and Ethics
|
|
My wife just fowarded this over to me. I skimmed over it briefly and it seems applicable to some of this discussion. LMKWYT. -Chris (URL) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
|
(...) I like my job :) (...) I'm gonna do the "remember this as you read my post" thing... "even if animals can reason to some extent... they aren't anywhere near humans" (...) Again, remember! (...) Hmmm.... "people are in a variety of stages of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
|
This message is huge again! I wish I had as much free time at work as you, David. I still have an unfinished reply to one of your previous posts in a draft folder. Hopefully I can finish this one in one sitting... David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
<37DF8CDA.DA847F05@aeieng.com> <37DFA51E.EF0A5623@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I agree. I'll bite. :-, (...) Well, sure, I mentioned the Nuremburg Defense, true, but! It was well (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37DFA51E.EF0A5623@v...er.net>... (...) That was a cheap trick on Sproat's part. Without actually coming out and saying it, he got Scott to say it. So its cheating, no doubt about it, and Sproat loses (anyway, I (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep
|
|
(...) And is that a good thing(Jags RULE, d00d!) or a bad thing (Lucas, prince of darkness.. motto of the Lucas electric works: "a good day's work and home before dark!") ? (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
OK, who "lost"(1) this debate? Scott because he officially said the word "Nazi" first, or Sproat, who mentioned "Nurenburg Defense" which, although it does not explicitly contain the word, is clearly related? If it wasn't Sproat (judges, do we have (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
