 | | Re: The Ogre
|
|
(...) Puh-Leeze.... he killed whatever that thing is on the ground and made butter our of it. Its the ogre way. Told. (19 years ago, 1-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) It's a self-portrait, so he has no one to blame but himself. (...) We are getting somewhere at last. :-) (...) Followed by immediate regression. Since you admit that you are biased, how do the claims you are making have any validity? Not to (...) (19 years ago, 8-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Heston should keep his mouth shut, then? (...) $40,000,000 to discover a non-crime seems a bit excessive. Other than such a criminal waste of money, I must admit I'm with you in saying I couldn't care less (the only time I care is when some (...) (19 years ago, 8-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Appropriate? Don't know if I use that word. Listen, most of the news churned out by the media is pure pulp. Think Hollywood. I couldn't care less about a star's private life; in fact, the less I know about it, the better for them, because I (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Hey, something just occurred to me. With your above statement in mind, would you say that it is appropriate or inappropriate to have a citizen's private extramarital affair dragged through the media for months on end? Just curious... As (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) Because he is neither the idiot nor the racist he's painted to be. (...) Fair enough. (...) Well, yes, because I know of him and know his politics, and so I know that the charges against him are baseless. As far as "defending Bennett to get at (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: s to say it. (...) I doubt it. He chose a racist example to make his point. (...) He didn't he have an inkling? Okay, he is an idiot then. Racist, idiot: I don't see why you would bother to defend either. (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) -snippity snip snip- (...) This is the part that is making everyone upset. Bennett is saying that blacks are a large source of crime, and is linking "criminality" to "blackness." He IS using reducio ad absurdum, but he is using it on the issue (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Can this guy get any more infuriating???
|
|
(URL) Bush, in a high-profile address on Thursday, said the global fight against terrorism must continue in Iraq because it is where terrorists are centering their war on humanity. "We're facing a radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) They won't say it because it is patently absurd, just as Bennett was arguing reductio ad absurdum. (...) ???!! I'm sleighed, -->Bruce<-- (...) Come on! You seriously can't think that Bennett had any inkling that this action was anything but (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Yes but in the context of this argument it is irrelevant whether or not the implicit support also applies to other things, in a debate on abortion it is the stance on abortion that is most important. That said, I somewhat agree with bringing (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Oh? I didn't think that was what was desired. I could believe that there are some out there who would be in favor of it, but I think in general, they're talking abortions within the first few months of pregnancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, of (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Prior to any late-term abortion legislation restricting it (not doubt opposed by NARAL), yes, in theory. (...) Yes. I'm not in the "every sperm is sacred" camp;-) (...) But they want the right to do it if they choose. (...) The right to choose (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Perhaps I am, now that you mention it. But then I would still phrase it this way: NARAL supports (def 7b at (URL) YourDictionary.com>) the right of reproductive choice. As a result, NARAL supports the right to have an abortion if one so (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) And LEGO won't say it. Why? They would find it morally reprehenisble. Just like they are not going to say that if all black babies were aborted and LEGO wouldn't have to make non-yellow minifigs. Maybe that would be true, but they wouldn't be (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Really? Is that because you have a moral-like sense towards them that you wouldn't deem "moral" or "ethical", or that you don't have such a sense for them? If the latter, I'd have to ask you whether it was moral to go around slaughtering mice, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) No problem. (...) If you want to be precise I would suggest looking up the dictionary definition of support. To support means precisely what you argue the NARAL does. You are confusing support with encourage. They are definitely not (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Um-- I wouldn't call them citizens, but yes, to protect the rights of people in general. (...) Are abortions legal 3 weeks prior to the due date? I didn't think that was allowed? You're right insofar as the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Oops—my bad. I misread you, and I see now that you were criticizing the choice to hold the "Screw Abstinence" event rather than condeming anyone. My apologies. (...) I beg your pardon, but the specific application of language is hardly using (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) For one thing I did not condemn them for supporting the choice of abortion. There is absolutely no condemnation there at all. As I stated I fully support legal abortion so I would be stupid to condemn someone who does so too. Your argument (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
