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 / *8271 (-20)
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
Scott and Chris, this has surely got to the point where it no longer belongs in admin.general. Kevin (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) "theft"? (...) If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful. (...) Oh yes. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
Feel free to jump in, I sometimes don't have time to post here, and if someone else posts a more detailed explanation of what I am stating, it makes it easier on me ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
 
In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5vpnz.Fr8@lugnet.com... Kevin, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to get to all of your posts. You are raising some good issues that I'd like to attempt to tackle. By the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping. (...) so. (...) I agree (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Intriguing. What do they say about Jesus as Son of God? Or is that considered a claim of Jesus' followers? Dave! (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) As evidence, see the works of Benny Hill, Monty Python, and the gentle-yet-poignant understatement of The Young Ones. Dave! (GDnR) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Pardon me but, are you really saying that Jesus is living here with us _today_? Like Elvis? I really can't understand how otherwise reasonable men/women became such unrealistic at times. Selçuk P.S. Actually you can be true. Two infamous (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) True, but you're speaking as though a finite creator is the same as an infinite Creator. The work of any creditable author contains depth, allusion, and meaning that he didn't realize, much less intend, but that doesn't make the work any less (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) We British are a subtle bunch Chris. (...) I really do not think I do "insult as a debate tactic". (...) It is pertinent to highlight that an individual may not have a belief on an issue, but may still question that of others. Or do you (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) An appealing notion, but it's circular and non-falsifiable, like the statement that "God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is no." These can be comforting on an aesthetic level, but they're not really satisfying logically. Dave! (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Whoa!.. Dead men?.. This is the most weird reasoning that I ever heard..:-) It seems that you choose your belief system very(!) critically..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Sorry but I won't buy it. Since it is not true at all. If your founders ethics had been really based on the "Biblical standards/principles/values" there won't be a United States of America today. But this is not the whole point of course, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
 
(...) No one really thinks that. It just seems that way based on their actions. (...) But what about when both happen? In the recent "debate" on polyamory, I didn't lose my basic premis that monogamy is artificially limiting, but it was occasionally (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly veiled. It would (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
 
(...) For debate to flourish, I think the scope of topics and the numbers taking part have to grow - not the number of posts. The problem is that every question gets turned around, and ends focusing on narrow political/religious points (Frank's (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) I see the potential value in .debate, but the way it has started to go recently, I find I am getting frustrated and angry more and more frequently, to the point that I'm not getting anything out of it. One problem is that potentially each time (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
 
(...) .debate may be getting lots of posts, but I'm not sure that I'd call it flourishing (though the recent posts do seem to be rising out of the quagmire some). Frank (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised society. (...) I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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