 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Just for clarity's sake, I wasn't referring to a genetic "whatever it takes;" I was using a more metaphorical meaning of hereditary, like hereditary royalty, or a generational history of child abuse. Dave! (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) life-affirming, or (...) So you admit to lying three times now? (...) of (...) At the moment it is mandatory. (...) if (...) would (...) at (...) I live in a city. You must be right, I am blind, because I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) would (...) Beside the point, really, and I ought to be debugging my example instead of posting, but mostly when I see the homeless, they're adults. They are the deranged, the crackheads and mostly, the winos, mixed in with a few people who (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think you already have enough people btw :) Looking at (URL) I see lots of research into the types of action they want to affect, but not too much research into the actual consequences that it could have. IMO it would be a good thing, as it (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Agreed, studies of synaptic development favour the 'nurture' in nurture vs nature. (...) Sadly, as the wages go up, teachers who care less will be attracted the the profession. Not that teachers shouldn't be paid more, it's just a problem to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Bwahahhahahah! That's perfect. If I can engage in some cheap and unnecessary ad hominem commentary: I can't think of any single statement that sums up your approach to these topics than that line right there, John. Thanks for the laugh. -- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Fo8LLM.K4F@lugnet.com> <Fo8q9s.8p7@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, stage 0 is get enough people on the boat so that a reasonable plan can be worked out that won't be immediately (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) If the kids don't have whatever it takes, they don't have it. No amount of government posturing is going to fix it. If people really feel these kids deserve a break (and perhaps if this REALY is the case, they do), then charity will step in. I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) up (...) much (...) the (...) lines. (...) concept (...) is (...) Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think this would be a very bad thing for the Red Cross to do. The Red Cross gets a lot of respect because it remains neutral in conflicts. That doesn't mean that other organizations wouldn't do well to do this. Of course current US poilicy (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) How many countries have you lived in??? It must be an awful lot to make that assertion. (...) Okay, but the point that I'm making for the third time is that there are homeless children all over America - does that make you less life-affirming, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Well, if I'm silly then I may as well enjoy it, big nose! (...) Nope, then the Red Cross wouldn't be able to go into war-zones and treat the sick (which is their mission) as then they would be an army too. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) To provide any clarification - I agree with this as well.. I just want to find the *best* path to utopia. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What I'd really like to see is some sort of.. visualised plan. Like - stage 1, remove some taxes, implement dollar for dollar tax credit charity.. this is what we expect to happen, what has happened? If different then replan. Stage 2, abolish (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian splurf (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Gosh. The point that is that if you are uneducated, and can't afford to educate your children, then they won't be able to educate theirs.. and you're condemning generations to poverty.. that truely is only liberty for the rich, which is (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) of (...) at (...) the (...) rely on (...) Hey man, You don't need to show me that, I have already looked. I try to point out reality to others whenever possible (often to their disdain), and I have shown (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) That's a lovely notion, but it seems at best unrealistic. "Whatever it takes" is a lot more than academic ability or even a knack for succeeding on tests; it stems from a solid upbringing and a sound family unit, and there are demographic (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
