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 / *8306 (-20)
  Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
<topped> (...) <tailed> I think you have a good point Paul. However, I think there is also value in replying point by point as one can quickly see where the main arguments lie. I enjoy ready through long, well reasoned, text - but without printing (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
(...) If one were subject to theft, one normally calls the police or involves the civil courts. If one objects to taxation, one protests against it. (...) I think calling it "theft" detracts from you argument. However, it is not all that big a deal (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
 
(...) Thirded "The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." Scott A (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
 
(...) For the record, I made my mind up to leave Larry alone a while ago - unless he made a snide comment directed at me. I'm sticking to it the best I can. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Sure, you gave an answer. It is not reasoned though. Despite that, I do see a contradiction in your response - not a big one. I'd still be interested in Chris's reply. (...) It was my reply to the question _you_ quoted. Did you even read my (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
<original message snipped> Generally I don't feel right blowing my own trumpet, guys, but I feel that the reputation (and possibly the future!) of this NG is at stake here. If you have the time, feel free to take a few minutes to read a post I made (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Muhahah!..:-) The strange thing is we have our own version of "Star" (tabloid I assume) here, with the exact same name, but I never heard the story in it. Either this is related with I didn't read it ever, or this is an international (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
 
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) Well, Larry, surely you spend a lot more time reading these newsgroups than most, so perhaps only a few have ventured down to this part of the discussion tree. If you like, you could refer to the post in (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
 
Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) on (...) Seconded. How about Scott and Larry only reply to each other in email :-) then the rest of us don't have to watch. Kevin (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) I think "not a single christian in here" is pretty strong. But I'll go "very few in here and proportionally even less in the general population". The only christian *here* i've seen explicitly acknowledge (and integrate into their arguments) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) (I'll give a more logical breakdown below, but first:) Omnipotent= Can do anything, by the definition you are using. "grant free will" falls under the catagory of anything last I checked. (...) Ok. Let's specifically break out this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) Indeed - Spoken by Christ Himself. (recorded in Matthew and Luke) [1] What you're discussing here is a paradox, not unlike the debate going on around us about truth and morality - right and wrong. (I mean in general, not just this thread) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
 
(...) I know I'm not much of anybody here, but I'd like to request a moratorium on Scott and Larry replying to each other's posts. Please? --DaveL (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) You keep saying that, but I have yet to grasp the reasoning behind it. <snip> (...) The knowledge of good and evil has been a part of all of us since Adam and Eve - yes. I don't follow you on the coopting/selfish/silly part. (...) lol Yes, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
I made a print-out of your post to read over - Do you realize we're up to six pages even before I reply? :-) (...) I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs". No I wouldn't say that case proved O.J. guilty or innocent, but let's (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
 
In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> in message news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com... (...) Dave, Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the discussion. I understand your objection and would say that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
The only time I have hostility towards Christians (or any other religion) is when they won't shut up and leave me alone when I request it. Beyond that, you can call it bemusement, I guess. (...) An omnipotent, omniscient God removes free will from (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) My default in interpreting your words is to assume sarcastic intent. If you actually were complimenting me, sorry... but otherwise: What is the issue? Seems a pretty clear cut answer to a question. Was it that you didn't want anyone to answer (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
Kevin and Frank are right, this discussion didn't belong in that thread. My bad. It kind of crept up on me. (...) Would you prefer "the forceful (when necessary) realocation of resources?" Theft is much shorter. It is more convenient to call it (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-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