 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Absolute Morality boils down to how we treat each other. This is directly related to issues of respect and responsibility. A breakdown on either side of the equation (you verses me) creates societal rifts. (...) Eeeeuuu. Both are equally (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But don't you see-- there is no definitive line! The line is where ever the sensibilities of a society is at any given point in time. Right now the current sensibilities of our society are being offended by certain individuals and society is (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) Interesting (and, I note, consistent with your previously stated views). I wonder if they might have considered relative firepower/destructive potential if they'd known what would eventually be man-portable. That's wonder-if question, as (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) I'd refer you to the Federalist Papers for something a bit more authoriative, but my guess would be no, their cutoff seemed to be "man portable" rather than "portable if you have a whole team of horses". Before you ask, that DOES rule out (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That's key, IMO. If we're all so fond of Absolute Morality, why are our Duly Elected Representatives so reluctant to address these society-damning issues in absolutely clear terms? Especially if, as we're endlessly told by Dobson, Falwell, and (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
