 | | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...)
|
|
(...) Let's just say it was mutually voluntary transaction and leave it at that, without going into whether I had an obligation not to take advantage of her state of mind given that she voluntarily put herself into that state and initiated the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) Well, depends on what Christian you ask, probably... some might say that because they weren't derived from God, they *couldn't* be absoloutely pure, and therefore are wrong. Another might argue that yes, the ideals are good, but because that (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...)
|
|
(...) It all depends on who you live with I suppose. (...) What! She randomly stopped you and demanded a kiss! How unconstitutional. The supreme court must pass a judgement on this! (The fact the we have neither a constitution or a supreme court (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) Rarely, on the above list, which is why I dispute your claim. (...) Kind of a eurocentric viewpoint to claim nearly every major event. See below. (...) Defining Egypt as solely a place that the Jews passed through is belittling its (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) That's an interesting point, and quite similar to the "is libertarianism on the rise?" discussion. If someone adheres to good ideals which are in step with Christianity, but that person doesn't believe in God, are his ideals still good? I (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
