 | | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: Yes, this *is* old ground. It's a fundamental difference in premise about what the proper form of society is, actually. (...) This is the root of the question indeed. The conventional answer is that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
|
|
(...) No, I think they should remain public. But for the next fourteen days, any snide comment (as judged by at least four of we who have posted >100 notes to .debate) should be assessed a fine of $10 paid to LUGNET. Chris :-) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
(...) I read your other post, and you made some groovy assertions. I suppose I'm as guilty of "point-scoring" as anyone else, but I wasn't consciously doing it to amass points. Sometimes it seems to me simply polite to address each point in turn, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
David Eaton wrote: <...snip interesting set of propositions...> (...) This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology (I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer). However there are some possible (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) [...] (...) whose (...) education (...) heads (...) don't (...) Apologies if I'm plowing old ground here, I spent a while looking for the original source of this discussion but couldn't find it (possibly due to the fact that I'm using an NNTP (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
