 | | t7po autopick
|
|
<37E1178D.C32F22F5@aeieng.com> <37E11F18.DD7E06BF@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) c /unaswered/unanswered/ do NOT c/unaswered/unassward/ although my t7po does phonetically sounds like (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
|
(...) Ok, so basically the main difference is in the exemption of animals from morality that I suggested. You're saying they have their own morality, still ultimate, but a different ultimate morality than our own? Ok. I guess one of the points that (...) (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?)
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) you (...) to (...) cause (...) it (...) can (...) act (...) our (...) I didn't really mean either of your definitions. I think every creature has the same morality - to survive by whatever means necessary, but (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
(...) Larry, I don't think you could ever really annoy me, I have been saying go Larry to much on your responses, even with the pink elephants. :) (...) Oh, it does go around. I get frustrated with unnecessary tangents, ones in which Jeremy seems to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
|
(...) Just trying to inject a little levity, Scott, which Sproat riffed on. I wouldn't interpret that post as anything other than as a response to me, so if you want to be annoyed, be annoyed at me. As to the more substantive issues, hey I like to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
