|
|
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Ah. As I suspected. Our definitions of 'prove' differ. To take a rather contravertial case, did O.J. Simpson commit murder? Both sides presented their cases, and O.J. won. Does that prove that he didn't commit murder? Perhaps he 'proved' it to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| (...) Feel free to call me Lar or Larry. (...) No, I don't think this is necessarily true (whether others agree with it or not). I am not a moral relativist. I think there is an objective morality that is proper and good for humans to embrace. I've (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) If you can't grasp the distinction here, there's not much hope (...) Nope. (...) Nope. Government, in view of its great competitive advantage (it *makes* the rules) must be tightly constrained. (...) Yes, but in cases where there is a public X (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Which you never did answer, really. A one line answer was all that was required, but after about 5 tries, I finally dragged out of you that you're some kind of Civil, but not what kind. See, when I refuse to do homework for you, it's avoiding (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) ie. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses describe what they have experienced and any corroborating (or contradictory) physical evidence is examined, etc. Theoretically I could present my "Case for Christ" to you, but while it's proven as far (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
