 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yeah, I didn't do the best job of citing references--sorry about that. I'm at work now, so I can't give you the titles at the moment, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, either! Next time I log on from home I'll follow this (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Good isn't objective. What we, society as a whole, consider to be "good" is both up for debate in certain areas (I'm specifically _not_ going to mention ab*rti*n here), and it is no more valid than the ideas of other societies, other than (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Industrious in the area of work is something completely different from lazy in other areas. You know that. [move stuff around a bit] (...) Exactly. Now replace "feel" with "under their analysis", _or_ replace "under our analysis" with "we (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
I am going to ~try~ to make a sensible post... John Neal wrote in message <386C54F9.20331CB5@u...st.net>... (...) think (...) definition - (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) In a huge thread where I (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Basically good ===[by The Jasper Janssen English Dictionary] at least trying hard. So that about corresponds ;) Jasper (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
