 | | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
(...) Okay, I've watched it now. Thanks for the link, BTW. It's actually quite an amusing little ad. Now, Even though the Nike version moves in a less jerky manner, pulls all kinds of weird body stunts that the xiaoxiao version doesn't, interacts (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How is allowing or not allowing same-sex marriages going to affect this? I mean, it's a valid concern and all, but forbidding two guys to get married with each other won't make them want to get married to women and have kids, and allowing two (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) At least, that's how you _hope_ it'll look when you choose not to get involved. It seems that half of the Middle East hates us because we did get involved in one situation, and half of the Middle east hates us because we didn't in another, so (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) But there IS a humane way. Help societies to move away from subsistence agriculture (and the modern sweatshop equivalent) by introducing the rule of law, property rights, and fostering the growth of free enterprise. This reduces the incentive (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) No, it's saying I have an opinion about it and that's what it is, and despite it being *my* opinion, I'm not claiming infallability about it merely because I stated it. Sorry if that phrasing caused confusion. Hope that helps. (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipped a bunch of rehash of why John's confused about what right of free association means) (...) You give the Left too much credit here. Insofar as there is any validity in the Right/Left labels (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) I liked Dave K's response here, so this is just embellishment. As long as we bill ourselves as the world's policeman it is. As soon as cops can't enforce, they lose their power. That's where we are now. But that's the wrong reason. We should (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Are you feeling ok, John? This is precisely what I've been arguing all along. Let the parties to the contract (or the private contracting/sanctioning organization) define who can participate. Keep the state out of interfering with the right of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
