 | | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) From the Lugnet Terms Of Use: "LUGNET and its owners and/or operators do not control or censor content in discussion groups. The LUGNET discussion group server is provided as a “store and forward” mechanism “as is” without filters, which means (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) Are you saying that trying to understand things is a bad idea? At one point schizophrenics were considered "evil" and "possessed" and even if they had done no harm to anyone they would be persecuted and worse. Fortunately people have (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) No, it is not. The description of the Bar is "General stuff about anything you like! Smack encouraged. Don't forget to tip the barman. You must log in to enter the Bar, and don't upset Bruno the Bouncer.". I fail to see where "adults only" is (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) I apologize Rosco, I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent JLUG. Since I am not a member, I am not too familiar with it, but I did notice "the bar" which is "adults only" and it is that particular section to which I was referring. That is what (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) That brings to my mind another discussion that I would love to have in this forum. It involves the penchant Liberals have for trying to understand evil. It is a very dangerous and foolish notion, as exemplified by this movie (I assume, as I (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Please don't make JLUG something it isn't. From the user agreement: "This forum is for discussing any facet of creating with bricks but is intended for a mature audience." There is NOTHING about being an adult board, or needing to be an adult (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Not at all. Germans have a very keen sense of humor. I mean that making light of something very disturbing to someone else is not a very civil thing to do, no matter how keen their sense of humor is. And it is uncomfortable for me to watch (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) You: "My interest has less to do with nazism itself than the reaction displaying it’s symbols still generates even today" That sounds provocative, even if you aren't trying to be. (...) Patronizing? To whom? Children who might read this public (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you'll find the considered merit of ideas have quite distinct nationalities. For example most of the developed world considers the idea of capital punishment abhorrent and barbaric whilst the USA considers it to be in (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Ideas don't have nationalities. They either have merit or not. Yours didn't for the reasons I gave. You obviously thought it did. So the arguments are laid out. As if it weren't ever safe to ignore my blathering. JOHN (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Good. I can now safely ignore the rest of your blathering. a (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Controversy? You're the only one making a fuss here, John. (...) Very prissy. Maybe even prudish. How about patronising? But hey, it's your life. Yes, lego is a child's toy. But, I am not a child, and neither are you, which makes it also an (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) So you mean to say Germans can't take a joke, and need defending. Alright then, good enough for me. (...) So what does that mean? That Germans are made more uncomfortable by it than Jews? (...) I'm glad to hear you don't have anything against (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Good, let it go ya'll. e (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) No, you don't understand me correctly. (...) Which part? And what is "a bit racist" as opposed to simply "racist"? Sorry, I just think that that term is getting a little overused these days... (...) I can't, because it doesn't. Never said it (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Okay, I take it from your facetious tone that you are finished with any serious discussion. That's fine. j (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) I mention Germans because there are a lot of German AFOLs. I know some personally. They are great guys. And I would rather not have them believe that English speaking people are a bunch of jerks who joke about things which are uncomfortable (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Holy crap! Now only WWII veterans can make jokes about Nazis? You've really got your work cut out for you now. (...) Only Australians are allowed to use it. From USAians it's deeply offensive. a (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Ironically, I'd bet more women would find your statement more offensive than mine. (...) I used the indefinite article, meaning that in a free democratic state, there is draconian intolerance on this issue, so one should conclude that they (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Ha, nice try, but no. Hence the quotes around "see". What I was talking about was our perception of the humor is different than someone who is object of the humor. I think I already stated somewhere that I didn't find it humorous at all, but (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Menstruating women may find the use of 'Period' in a one word sentence offensive. Whatever happened to the 'German Democratic Republic' ? (...) Available on cable/satellite channel TV1 at 3pm this arvo (in Australia). (...) Israel seems to (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Gentleman, you both make compelling arguments. I take Allister at his word on his motivations. He was pretty clear about that. I also trust that John is speaking his mind on the subject. He was pretty clear about that. Let's just not fault (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Ah, so you did think it was funny. Cheers. a (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) I think I need to make my original question more explicit. Of all the many reasons to object to a swastika spaceship, I'd like to know why you chose "because it offends Germans". Why didn't you once mention the feelings of Jews? Is it because (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) So, if I understand you correctly, only innoffensive and legal things are appropriate subjects for humour? News to me, and almost every comedian on the planet. (...) Maybe for you. (...) The war was even longer ago than that. I'm not sure (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) The net's a funny thing. Sometimes it hard to tell one way or the other. "Fuss" in American English can carry a negative connotation. I'll bet if you had chosen a different word, Lar might have taken it differently. But you did include a (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Tel me John, did you perceive (URL) this post> as mocking? Just asking, because it's a similar situation - lar condemning my post because he thought I was mocking you. My point is, I don't see any point in a third person weighing in on a (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) It's not as clear-cut as that. I agree that humour can and should push the boundaries of taste and I'm deeply concerned when people imply that humour can be derived from certain subjects only by certain groups. We laugh often because we are (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Oops that link didn't work very well, try (URL) this link to the details> jt (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Huh, not really wanting to step into this debate, but being a fan of Hogan's Heroes as a child I have to point out that Hogan's Heroes was WWII. You can read more about it at: (URL) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) So, you're saying that Mel Brooks can send up the Nazi's since he is a "genious" and fought in the war. Is that your own special version of an appeal to authority? As for Hogan's Hero's I have no idea as I've never watched it. (...) Wow! This (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Of course. But some Jews have dealt with the Nazis by mocking them (Mel) and even some Jews find those Jews offensive... (...) <shrug> There is nothing new under the sun. Are we sure that "they" invented it, or did "they" "steal" it from some (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Ok, so Hogans Heros was WWII, I lose... I still want to know if you go happy slapping with your friends? (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Hogans Heros was WWI you dolt! And as far as Mel Brooks, he is a comic genious who earned respect first. He also saw the results of Hitler's handiwork firsthand, while serving in the Army in Europe in World War II. Do you go happy slapping (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
Hello! (...) You are right. Many Germans are offended by this topis. Either because they think it's inappropriate to make fun about, or because they constantly assume they are supposed to feel guilty. I'm not offended, though, I'm just curious. (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Activist Judges (was Re: Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!)
|
|
(...) John, As a scientist I feel the need to be brutally honest here. You don't appear to understand the concept of science and theories. Evolution is a theory (a proposed 'model' of 'behaviour' which has not been disproved). So is all science. (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) What about the Jewish community? One might think they'd be offended, too. But points for looking out for people's feelings. Let's see, who else could be offended? I imagine Asians might be offended, because it reminds them of how the symbol (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) I disagree with that Period you've got there. The recent film The Downfall seemed to be fairly well received (URL) (...) He didn't experience the Nazis as far as I know so I disagree that his racial background justifies his right to (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Dude. Nazism and Nazi symbols are offensive to Germans. Period. What is so hard to understand about that? Your little science project is doomed from the beginning. I mean, shesh-- imagery like that is illegal in a Democratic State, for crying (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Rückkehr der Raumnazin
|
|
(...) Thanks, but it was pasted directly from babblefish, which also explains the slightly mangled translation. (...) Cheers (...) My interest has less to do with nazism itself than the reaction displaying it's symbols still generates even today. (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Activist Judges (was Re: Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!)
|
|
(...) I bet that caused you physical pain to admit that, Dave! :-) You know, I have no problem with evolution being taught as a theory (not fact) in school, as long as the issue is handled honestly: Evolution is a theory, filled with questions and (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Activist Judges (was Re: Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!)
|
|
(...) (URL) Here's> the latest. Just who appointed this shameless activist Judge John Jones (not to be confused with the Martian Manhunter) who sees fit to subvert the will of the people and to legislate from the bench? Why, none other than our (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Roberts-Sophie Mech-off
|
|
I'm just slinging smack, little girl. Just slinging smack. You don't like it, don't play the game. Soren (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Mecha: The Cub
|
|
Stop the pair of you or I'll bang your 'eds together! Blimey.. Back to the bricks please... Eric - you got any ideas on what you might do for toe coverings then? Danny (...) -- Danny Staple MBCS OrionRobots (URL) contact details available through (...) (19 years ago, 24-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Mecha: The Cub
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Whateva... (...) e (19 years ago, 23-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
|
(...) And (URL) this guy> was executed, so the point is served again. Dave! (19 years ago, 21-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We just never seem to learn, do we?
|
|
(...) I agree that the argument is not logically complete, but it is still not an example of the fallacy. The fallacy applies when it is used to link activities which were not a major part of the 'evil' Nazi activities to 'evil'. In this case he is (...) (19 years ago, 20-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We just never seem to learn, do we?
|
|
(...) However, the quote given doesn't logically link up. He mentions something historical about Hitler, but doesn't link it to his argument. Further, his argument is made without using the Hitler reference - his only note is that we need to (...) (19 years ago, 20-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We just never seem to learn, do we?
|
|
(...) Except that the argument there is not an example of the fallacy. He is comparing right-wing organisations who propose the banning of gay groups to a rather famous right-wing organisation which banned gay groups which is a perfectly valid (...) (19 years ago, 20-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | We just never seem to learn, do we?
|
|
First of all, the article: (URL) and now, to put it into some perspective: (URL) Perspective> -Avery (19 years ago, 20-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Chemical weapons used in Iraq - sadder and sadder
|
|
(...) Even if folks think the Italian thingie is a bit thin, there's still no doubt the US used chemical weapons in Iraq ((URL) this with the sad image of senior administration officials arguing with the senate that the US should be allowed to (...) (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!
|
|
It's the END of the WORLD! Ghod's Dee-VINE Re-tri-BUE-shun is coming, Sinners! Those that bee-LEAVE in E-vo-LU-shun will be SHUNNED! SCI-ence is a SIN! You WILLLLLL be PUNISHED if you can ADD too-plus-to! -Pat Robertson (Well, okay, there was some (...) (19 years ago, 11-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!
|
|
(...) I especially enjoyed the comment from Kansas BoE member John Bacon, about their new standard: "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today." (from AP story as posted on LiveScience at (URL)). <insert pithy comment, (...) (19 years ago, 10-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Woo-hoo! Dover gets it right!
|
|
I'm pleased to see that some spark of hope (URL) persists> in Pennsylvania. Regardless of its apologists, Creationism is not science and must never be included in a science curriculum, except perhaps as an example of politically well-connected (...) (19 years ago, 10-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Chemical weapons used in Iraq
|
|
(...) I think you have the wrong US administration in place if you're looking for any sense of justice. Or ethics Or any type of moral behaviour. But I could be wrong. Dave K (19 years ago, 8-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Chemical weapons used in Iraq
|
|
Now that it's (URL) clear> that the US used chemical incendiary weapons during the abominable siege of Fallujah, is it possible that anyone in this administration, or at any level of military command, will be held accountable? I mean, if the threat (...) (19 years ago, 8-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Could someone get Fred Phelps to shut the heck up?
|
|
(...) You know, I too believe that everything happens for a reason, that everything is an element of God's plan. But, I cannot even by the furthest stretch of the imagination see how they came up with that. I guess when a person is filled with hate, (...) (19 years ago, 5-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Could someone get Fred Phelps to shut the heck up?
|
|
(...) What a touching and personal moment, and how sad. LEGO as a symbol of childhood (and, by extension, of innocence) becomes all the more poignant when discussed in context of war. Regardless of one's views on the war in Iraq, the loss of a (...) (19 years ago, 3-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Could someone get Fred Phelps to shut the heck up?
|
|
Hey all, I just followed a link from the new (URL) ILENN - International LEGO Enthusiasts News Network> to (URL) this article> about the funeral services for a soldier killed in Iraq. This was linked on ILENN because in remembering his son, the (...) (19 years ago, 3-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Ogre
|
|
(...) Hehehe! I never thought of the inverted club looking like a butter churn! Actually, I wanted him to be holding the club (raised) in his hand, but it blocked too much of his face, and just didn't look good... Mmmm... Ogre Butter... :) "Big (...) (19 years ago, 1-Nov-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) But our government supports a system of protecting the rights of its citizens-- the real debate isn't whose choice it is, but rather whether or not the fetus has rights which need protecting by the government. Obviously, 1 second after birth (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) If you took all clone purchasers and boiled them alive, TLG's competitors would go bankrupt and it would be good for AFOLs (assuming what's good for TLG is good for AFOLs). I just said that, but do I actually advocate it? Of course not. But it (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) Again, your selection of words is questionable. NARAL supports a system that allows for reproductive choice. It's true that choice may allow for abortion, but it also allows for non-abortion; why do you condemn NARAL for one avenue of choice (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) By supporting a system which allows for abortion I would argue that they are indeed supporting abortion. The whole pro-choice/pro-life facade is just emotional manipulation. One group believe that abortion is immoral, the other group believe (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
|
(...) Boiled down, Bennett did indeed say "Abort all black babies and cut crime." You can slap qualifiers on it such as he said it might be morally reprehensible, but I think his very statement was pretty morally reprehensible regardless on a rather (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) At the risk of splitting hairs, I have to take issue with your choice of words here. NARAL does not support abortion but instead supports the right of reproductive choice. To say that NARAL supports abortion is like saying that the NRA (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) This article is not talking about the Left, it is talking about supporters of abortion throwing an event. This is a liberal point of view but not a Left wing point of view. Please don't bandy about terms incorrectly. As for the event, I would (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
|
(...) I have to admit I find it similar in nature to stating that aborting black babies would lower the crime rate. The message of the event would appear to be "don't force abstinence on people", but calling it "Screw Abstinence" gives it a slant (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Screw Abstinence?
|
|
I'm curious about how folks weigh in on (URL) this event>. Not surprisingly, I find it beyond stupid, and the story even cites one person of the left as calling it "cringe-worthy". Well, "good times" or "cringe-worthy"? This is the Left that I fear (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Fair enough. But the link to crime and being black (in Bennett's mind) is merely from drawing on statistics. Blacks do account for a disproportionate amount of crime in our country, regardless of reason (which is a different discussion). (...) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) That is an accurate summary of what he said. It's not up to the headline to provide the context; that's what the article and the original transcript are for. I suspect that you're taking issue with the use of "Republican" here, and that's not (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) But the "out of context" charge doesn't work, either, because Bennett's comments are little redeemed even if you read the entire transcript. For him to claim "not guilty by reason of quoting out of context," he would have to show that his (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Bennett should have said "the crime rate would go down if you aborted all babies." The absurdity would have been more succinctly demonstrated, and he would have avoided any perception of racism. The fact that he explicitly singled out an (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Sorry to butt in when you were on a roll:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Really? "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican". That doesn't come off as a proposal? Please. (...) Therein lies the rub-- "accurate". (...) That's my whole point, Lenny! It is a non-story. The "story" comes as a result of the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. I should have read the title better :) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Not at all! In fact, I state that the rag is even unworthy of smearing:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) In fact, John is not only metaphorically smearing it, he is proposing literally smearing it as well ;) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) I'm not John. But I think the title of the article is the smeary (or 'sensationalist' if you prefer) part, not the body. But then, so's the title of this thread (as John chose it), it smears the Guardian, doesn't it? It does so in the name of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) The headline doesn't suggest one way or the other that Bennett is advocating anything. It is reporting what he said, then goes on to chronicle the incident itself and the reaction to it. Giving abbreviated but accurate headlines is what the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
