 | | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) I've heard the argument that since an agnostic doesn't actively believe in god, they are technically a subset of atheists. I might call it 'soft atheism' versus 'hard atheism.' This is actually something I've been thinking about recently. How (...) (19 years ago, 24-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
|
(...) Ahhh, but see is unrestrained murder of thousands of your subjects "more ultimate" than the murder of the guy that breaks into your house? If so, how can murder be the "ultimate crime"? If not, why do they carry different sentences? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) lol, my veiled point was making a distinction between the definition of the term "atheism" and one such as "agnostic", which I assume that you are (technically). JOHN (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) Probably true, and it's a shame. We've discussed Pat Robertson before, and what a shame it would be if he were everyone's idea of a "typical" Christian. (...) I hear that all the time, and it baffles me! Besides, I've told you before--if it (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(...) Ha, and that study was conducted in my own backyard! I think this is a classic case of misunderstanding. As an atheist, you have been tarred by the likes of Michael Newdow, from whom I'll bet 99% of the GP draw their conclusions about y'all. I (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Heads Up, Non-Atheists
|
|
(URL) are not to be trusted... Dave! (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
|
(...) Now, now, settle down, Dave! I'm pretty sure that the word "ultimate" pre-existed some apocryphal, presidential playbook and no association with OFL whatsoever was intended. (...) Let's see. (...) See? You got it on the first try! :-) (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) All that "ultimate punishment" talk is, alas, straight from the George W. Bush buzzword lexicon. In typical Dubya fashion, it enables him to sound tough without actually taking a definitive stand. Since I know you to be a person of conviction (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Okay, Tom, let me take a stab at justifying a position such as this one. A pro-life stance would hold that a human life above all is sacred. So, the ultimate crime would be the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, the ultimate punishment (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
Honest question - which is more ridiculous? 1 - pro-life and pro-death-penalty 2 - pro-choice and anti-death-penalty I don't know, but I see far too many conservatives that fit #1, which makes little sense. And of course I see a decent amount of (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, O'Reilly uses his radio program to say things he wouldn't say on the telly, and vice versa--in this way, he can claim he didn't say something bigotted or factually wrong on whatever (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Ahh, I forgot to factor in O'Reilly. I didn't even know he had a radio program. As for Howard, well, he is the poster child for much that is S & R [1] with our country. JOHN [1] Sick and Wrong (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Good guess, but actually, it was a not-so-stern jab at Bill O'Reilly. I'm not sure, but I don't think that Howard currently has a primetime show. And anyway, he's more of a kvetcher than a whiner. Dave! (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) But if you go there, don't tell them that you know John, or you'll be summarily booted. Dave! (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) See Sore Thumbs (the webcomic) lately. I'd give you a link but not from behind this firewall... (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) Sorry. That was an inside reference to Dave! I was referring to the (URL) Democratic Underground>. (...) You could have a sample size of 1,000,000, but if it isn't random, then it is worthless. Berkeley is arguabley the most liberal place in (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) That's an inside joke between Mr. Neal and me. Nothing to do, incidentally, with discussions of the UN Embassy in Denmark, which we have all "let go." (...) I don't know about that last part, but a sample of 2,000 kids growing up in a famously (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) ???? (...) Disagree. One hundred people is a decent amount (error is proportional to 1/sqrt(sample size)). Besides, if the sample size was considered inadequate in a statistical sense by the experts in the field who review the paper (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) lol For the record, I signed up again with yet another email addy, and was summarily nuked; they must checking IPs. I have officially given up life in the underground. Pity. (...) Agreed. (...) I wasn't a whiney child (so I'm told), and I did (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
|
|
(...) I read about this on a certain Other Forum and basically said "eh." It's a too-small sample size from a too-small geographic area. I'd say it's close to meaningless, and in any case the factors of adolescent life and parental leanings likely (...) (19 years ago, 22-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
