To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *3351 (-20)
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) Oh, but it's long been extended beyond that. I'd agree with larry; any mention of nazis is grounds for losing. Check out the jargon file entry: Godwin's Law -- [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) "I don't know how much it is but it should have been enough"? Luisten to yourself for a moment there, man. (...) Changes meant to be for the good usually turn out to be for the worst. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) No he didn't. Godwin specifically refers to calling contributors in the thread nazis/nazilike, not to just mentioning them. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) You still haven't shown that they are still completely relevant. Past successes do not equal future successes. See stockmarket. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) So if you don't buy utilitarianism, why the hell do you keep using it in your arguments? Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) Your point being? (...) You get your R&D costs covered before you start inventing, or you don't. Simple. (...) They come from each individual mind. Any system where people can _independently_ think of the same things, and only one of them to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) Hmm? You don't need computers in the home for popular votes across large areas, you need computers (and other communications technology) to transport the numbers of votes from each constituency to the central administration. Nowadays, there's (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) It's interesting though. A lot of us here certainly would have the technical ability to copy and redistribute lugnet -- it's not that much harder than copying an electronic novel would be. But, there are other things that might be better (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Rueger writes: Now that we have better (...) Better communications technolgy exists, but that does not mean that everyone has sufficient access to it. I am writing this from work. I do not own a computer. Why? Because (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) I understand your assertion, and I still assert that it has little reference to reality. Your analogy with Lugnet is likewise still flawed. (...) Okay, then, how much money has Todd made on Lugnet? Enough to support himself with no other (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art! or Not Art!
 
(...) Perhaps. If you'd like to check on the reference, find "No Go the Bogeyman" by Marina Warner in your library, and look up the painting in the book's index. I think I recall the book being well-documented with footnotes and references, and if (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> <FnxMM8.6Av@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My assertion is that the mass market stores are going to be pushing such drek, that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Ooops! No, it doesn't, but I sure thought it did. Did it previously? Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Where and when is this magical land? And how does one get there, because clearly this philosophy has little to do with the state of the market today, or of any time in the past four centuries, since the concept of authorship came to the fore. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) People who write worthwhile material will be supported irrespective of ability to copy protect their work. In fact, ultimately, the consumers will protect the works (why should I let you read my copy of XYZ, when you can download it yourself, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art! or Not Art!
 
(...) Wasn't this painting found on the wall of Goya's hovel after his death? It doesn't seem likely to me that Goya would've censored his own painting to avoid offending himself. Additionally, I studied this painting in an Art History course, and I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) That makes a lot of sense. My concern, at present--and forgive me for lapsing into my own pet crusade for a moment--is that the scourge of Postmodernism, among others, has yielded an unprecedented load of manure, and many (not here, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) People are being fed. That means the system is working. Amount it costs or number of people left unfed are merely degrees to which it is working. After careful numerical analysis, one might conclude that it is working at 10% efficiency. It's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
 
(...) The amazing thing is that they were foresighted enough to understand this, and left the constitution as a relatively small framework, and even gave the ability to modify that. The government we have today, for better or worse, is a result of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR