 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) They may thank us for getting rid of Hussein, but they don't all want us to stay. The best analogy I've heard of this is shortly after the fall of Baghdad when an Iraqi citizen walked up to a US soldier and said something to the effect of, (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) We'd lose any remaining credibility if we just annexed them into the US (not to mention the added drawback of being permanently stuck with them until either we or they are all dead, which is really a greater cost than the oil is worth), and we (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This begs the question - with over 6 BILLION humans on this earth, do we REALLY need to make it easier for Breeders to spit out more humans than they should be? The earth would be far better off if we'd figure a *humane* way to scale the world (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Seriously, whom do you suppose we are fighting in Iraq? You are simply clueless. (...) Again, you have no idea what is going on in Iraq. The Iraqis want us to stay, not as a conqueror, but as a protector. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Why don't you leave the exogesis of the Bible to those who know what they are talking about (as you obviously don't). (...) The point is moot, to Christians at least. Jesus' teaching on the subject is clear, as He quotes from Genesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) True, the Iraqi situation doesn't directly have anything to do with global terrorism, but here's an analogy-- You're a police officer Your duty is to protect the innocent civilians. You and your fellow citizens see a bully acting against the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) "Seems"? Is that like saying that water "seems" wet? (...) This is exactly the reason why many powerful nations have laws specifically prohibiting themselves from negotiating with terrorists. It gives the politicians a legal and quasi-moral (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) It is forbidden, but not very strongly. It's basically under optional enforcement, so the US can revoke your citizenship whenever it's convenient as long as it can be proven that you've done something that warrants such action. Technically the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The term "polygamy" has the advantage of covering both polygyny and polyandry (and being a term that most people have actually heard of). Yes, the bible really only deals with polygyny, but it can be politically advantageous to lump them (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Would a quick victory after (say) 2 months of conflict have emboldened Bush? Scott A (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
