 | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) Pot? Kettle. JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Which? IBMJARG or the NHD? the NHD is already there... Twice. Which confuses me. Did I do that??? (...) Oh Dave... you've got curator now, remember? FIX IT! (...) Thanks! ++Lar (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: snip (...) Humble people don't go around telling other people that they have to start taking the 'specks out of their eyes', especially via legislation. And honest people realize that we're all flawed, (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Really? I only know about the single factorial variety Dave! JOHN (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)
|
|
(...) You anti-Semitic troll! The fact that Sharon is a wanted war criminal should reassure us all that Israel has the moral authority to hold nukes (1) any intimidate its neighbours! Scott A 1As a belligerent nation which has no respect of (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Do we have that on .geek? That is so cool! This is one of the huge list o' reasons why Larry is good for this communiity--a wealth of knowledge (some would say useless, but I like it! (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But you can't just play in your little room of Science and have no opinions about concrete things that Science cannot address. I am speaking about Creation. (...) We have been given intellects, and some revelation along the way. Heck, we may (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) You was talking to me, and then there was an interjection from Dave! Eh, too many Daves!!! Dave K (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) IBM Jargon... (1) Citing without intent to infringe, from an online version of same located (URL) here> among (URL) other> places: mark of Kloomok n. Official indication that a product has been released from PID. After one M. Kloomok, the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Thought I was talking to Dave K... my bad... sorry about that, Dave! You're a closet (small L) libertarian already anyway, so never mind, Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That just may be my new favorite word. What the heck is its etymology? Heck, I still get a giggle from (URL) Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Maybe, if it weren't for that whole pesky "faith" thing... (...) But that construction breaks from the "absolute" as soon as human faith comes into it. An actual revelation for you is just hearsay for me, so that's where "absolute" falls (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Cool. But I have my doubts. (...) Uh, don't be so sure. Theocratic dictatorships are nasty brutish places. I prefer some government to none, but I prefer none to overarching. (...) I prefer the least practically possible amount of (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) YOu guys don't have 'socialized health care' but the last time I checked, there are seatbelt laws in the US. And not once during my (almost) 38 years has the gov't told mw what I can (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Huh? Which Dave are we talking about here? Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, I like Macbeth quite a bit, so I guess that part affects me. But most of the sonnets don't affect me at all. Ditto Romeo & Juliet. Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Geez, I don't know if I can delineate them concisely, but they entail non-aggression, a respect for fact, and an acceptance that, lacking evidence to the contrary, this is all we have so let's all make the best of it. (...) I believe you. (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, I will be by your side to see that it doesn't happen. (...) Uh, I don't think that you've fully considered the ramifications of such a silly statement. (...) What is that, exactly? (...) Touché! JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But the upside here is that Howard moved. He's now on Sirius and free of FCC "control" of what's appropriate. That's a good thing. It means the market will decide whether his speech is wanted or not, rather than some kloomonk in FCC (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) :-0 Not in the least! That understanding comes directly from Jesus Himself: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." (...) Yeah, that you are closer to being a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) and I honestly think that the envelope-pushing, rights-disdaining Religious Right will lead us to a theocratic dictatorship. Me, I'll take anarchy over that any day. ... but then, I'm a minarchist after all.. (...) Um, ya??? What was it you (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) And that's a way of looking at it. But again, to make the case--how is a texas high school cheerleader affecting you directly? And how is 'some' Shakespeare affecting you? I choose not to read things I'm not interested in reading. I choose to (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Perhaps. But in all honesty, what are those values? (...) Look, I don't wish a "Theocracy" any more than you do. But I do wish a society where its citizens respect each others' rights. I believe that only a society that has a respect for a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) John, at last you're speaking like an atheist! Is there anything you want to tell me? 8^) By the way, Absolute Morality in this construction exists just fine without appeals to a higher, supernatural power. (...) Ideally, sure; the elected (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) To be honest, the culture war has been going on since before the first human saw another human from outside his family. The culture war continues to this day and will continue until we're all assimilated: it's called society. I accept that (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) I know we've all discussed this before, and I confess that I don't have a clear concept of what's appropriate for whom to possess, but I have I have question about the history of this interpretation. How did the founding fathers feel about (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) More to the point is the guys doing the legislation want to lock things down but doin't know where that line is--"banning 'some' Shakespeare"--which parts? Banning some cheerleader moves--which moves. So it's not that people aren't accepting (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Everyone wants freedom, but no one is willing to take responsibility for their actions, and so the GP is forced to control irresponsible people's behavior through their representatives, their elected government officials. We live in a free (...) (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)
|
|
(...) You snipped the more important stuff I think. (...) Why aren't you sure???? I said it here before, wasn't kidding then, wasn't this time either. (...) To each his own. I won't say that there might be wags on this side of the line saying the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | From the "they can't be serious" department
|
|
Al Gore to get a lifetime achievement award: (URL) "inventing the internet"? not quite, but almost... (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote: <snip> (...) I hope the 'better minds' will prevail in Texas, where legislation is being passed in which cheerleaders aren't allowed to 'shake their booty' anymore-- (URL) both these (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) The thing is I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that's irrelevant--I know 'Mericans that are serious about that statement and for that, I thank God every day that I'm Canadian. (...) (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)
|
|
(...) Richard is right as far as he goes, where he falls down is in his prescription for how to change countries to be free... (...) You mean like the US??? (...) You mean like Dubya ??? (...) I agree! (...) That too. I think the second admendment (...) (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)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> My take is simply this: nukes cannot be trusted to countries under the leadership of despots, dictators, and other illegitate rulers. Democracy is the key-- when people are free (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The case for compensation
|
|
(...) Well SH did say Q8 was part of Iraq. ;) Scott A (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
