 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) A well reasoned response. (...) Go back an read my reply to Chris. (...) Which assertion was this? Can you at least give the date Chris posted it? (...) Why, does he suggest I not ask a staight question - which is just what the post you (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> Whoops. Forgot to trim lugnet.admin.general from followups, please, if you respond, do trim your followups even though I forgot to. ++Lar (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
In retrospect, perhaps I should not have responded to David's post. I certainly didn't expect to spend this much time here. :-) I'll do my best to answer questions posed to me, and I don't mind civilized debate, but I don't see how sweeping (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes: <snip> I snipped the whole thing rather than responding point by point. I'll summarise my stance as follows: Great post. I'm disappointed that no one else commmented yet. Is it because everyone agrees (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) No, silly, not like Elvis. For one thing, Jesus doesn't have a secret love nest penthouse suite at the top of a famous, but unnamed Las Vegas hotel, and for another thing, Jesus has never been abducted by aliens and had his brain removed, CAT (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcement - Religion Useful? Debate...
|
|
You can find this on the web at CSPAN.ORG if you do a search on "Alan Keyes". Frankly, I thought both parties were sloppy (Keyes resorts to Ad Hominem, for example), but Dershowitz in particular showed a real unfamiliarity with the philosophical (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Announcement - Religion Useful? Debate...
|
|
Since there's no announcement group... If anyone watches this, I'd like their opinion. It would appear to be inline with a few of the debates here... ------- C-SPAN will re-broadcast the Keyes/Dershowitz debate from Franklin & Marshall College, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) If "we" includes "me", then no. More generally, I'd like to see a cite of a .debate post where you admitted you changed your mind about something that you had been exposed to here. I may have missed it. You need to be a bit crisper sometimes, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) A side thought; what might occur in Creation that is unknown to Him? Is there somewhere one can go to be out of His view (rhetorical point--not a real question). Isn't there something in the Bible about noticing the death of each sparrow (or (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths. (...) Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop. The phrase (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes in response to Kevin Wilson: Steve, sorry to interrupt again, but there's a basic assumption of your argument that I totally disagree with. I think your subsequent conclusions are fascinating, but I'm (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) I haven't left a debate yet simply because of sheer boredom. It's actually a lack of time. I'm amazed to see all the time that some folk can devote to these threads, I don't have enough time to build LEGO much less respond to all the postings (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Oh, I'm not saying I agree with it-- heck, the argument that God exists period can be circular and is non-falsifiable... certainly any statement about Him which therefore presupposes his existence can be said to be so as well. DaveE (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Or in this thread, unless one is trying to prove that people can't keep .debate topics in the right place. (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) In an abstract sense, do we agree on this? Scott A (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) in (...) Ah, of course! Todd never struck me as being one who liked a debate. :-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET member 164 (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3F972C.2F1C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Having followed a great many debates here, on Usenet and in my workplace SPAM forum[1], I have watched some of the greats[2] at work such as the legendary Derek Smart, and our own (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A412021.29594A...ape.com... Tom, Thanks for your reply. I hope to get to this soon, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you had any feeback on the rest of my post. I had some (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) generated? (Observer here) I'm not sure stats matter, why should they ? I'd take it as a given that anyone who thinks LEGO-mindedly should also have a sufficiently expansive intellect that debate would be an occasional part of one's life - (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) You must not have talked to very many blind people. Many consider it an inconvenience, not crippling. Only the blind can truly state whether it is crippling or not, and that on a personal basis. (...) Good luck breeding/not breeding desires (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Just popping in with another plausible take on the issue of free will vs. God being omniscient-- I like mathematics. I like looking at fractals and examining complex system behavior. I made an algorithm for playing the brickgame at (URL) . I like (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A3E5530.B9A803...ape.com... Tom, Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows: (...) I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger question" as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then it is no longer omniscience. (...) Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) the (...) You're right that I have a problem with (1). However, even leaving that aside, I see a missing step (or implied assumption) between 2 and 3, which is that procreation is the *only* purpose of sex. If (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: I'm gonna correct myself really quick here, cause I realized I should restate this-- it kinda sounds like I'm going against other things I've already said: (...) Instead I'll say: ALL humans have a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) See, I knew it had holes. :) Hmm. I don't necessarily hold to the philosophy of predetermination. How does the knowledge of the results of a choice render that choice non-existent? An example of that is that we all know that I replied to Tom's (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Idunno, it's kinda comforting knowing your weird can't be avoided and all there is is to grip your broadsword and have a cry of Valhalla on your lips. Time is an illusion. :-) Bruce (been playing with Castles too much, methinks) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) Money is the accepted measure of value. Sure, you could go back in time to and trade commodities - but that would be crazy. We use money as it a stable measure of value - even better than gold these days. If I look and my bank account over a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) The ONLY way for two people to exchange wealth without a middle man is to do a direct goods or services for goods or services trade. If you use cash, there is a middleman (the guy who minted the money, and whose guarantee you are depending (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) You are correct, too many of the e-business get treated by consumers as "make hey while the sun shines" type deals. Despite that, I think there is a need for what paypal is providing. However, I see no reason why individuals should not be able (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | respect... (was Re: Polyamory)
|
|
True to form Larry, you have resorted to personal insults. I think one of your countrymen once said: "When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself." I largely agree with that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"? That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital, forever? Or did you (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I haven't failed to answer your point, I merely refuse to play your game. Think about the difference. (...) By the way, in order for me to be concerned about what a person thinks of me (in a particular area), I have to have respect for that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Yep, that about pegged it. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the ENTIRE game is rigged from femtosecond one to the end. Free Will is nothing but an illusion in that case. Personally, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK. That is, I think, the 3rd time you have abjectly failed to answer that point. I would have thought more of you if you had just not replied - rather than adopt this "holier than thou" attitude. I can't say I'm surprised though. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Right, but Tom isn't just saying that God decides in advance which way we'll turn out; Tom is asserting, I believe, that in order for the outcome of an event to be known in advance with absolute certainty, that event must be pre-set in some (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Um-- huh? I don't really understand where that statement came from. I was asking you about proving things in a court, and whether a court's decision represents "proof". If O.J. was found innocent, does that PROVE his innocence? If someone who (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) Jumping in here, I'm not sure I agree with (1) or (2). The human species can be defined by both its shared characteristics (we're clever monkeys that walk around and grab things) and the variety in our population (both genetic and cultural). (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I'm not going to play yours though, or at least I'm going to try very hard not to. Too disruptive. If someone else wants to try, they are free to give it a go if they like, but I see it as a waste of effort. Me, I've got better uses for my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Well, I can't speak for others, but here is one take on it. (and I haven't thought this through overly much, so it may have holes...) I don't see a contradiction. If I choose to (X), or to not (X), how does God knowing ahead of time which I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ask Suz why -- she was the one who put them there. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
But according to others in this group, man doesn't HAVE free will - God knows everything anyone will do from cradle to grave - where is the free will in that? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) This view is both aesthetically pleasing and consistent with much medieval doctrine. That is, man is capable of embracing salvation or damnation by his own actions. An infant starts as neither good nor evil but able to succumb to temptation (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) <snippage for the purpose of emphasis, also because I'm coming in late, and am (bluntly) too lazy to hunt up the argument to date and comment in a forward-moving way> I'm not sure about other flavours of christianity, but I know that the RC (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) And I ask, which is a better view of humankind? Personally, I would tend to think that Christianity is a pessimist's view, if it says man is essentially evil. No thanks. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Interesting - I was thinking of using the same analogy. :-) Two big differences though - Murder is a crime giving death, and O.J. denied it. Christ's resurrection gives life to whomever accepts him, and not only did he "admit it" afterwards, (...) (24 years ago, 19-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:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com... Kevin, (...) I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order. I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I understand your intent and accept your apology, but you must recognize that a person who does not share your views of Christianity is apt to feel insulted at being called blind. Many among us have duly considered the questions of Faith and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
