 | | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
|
|
(...) I can't agree to this request, it's too blanket. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) As far as I'm concerned, my "conclusions" (our definitions on what exactly those conclusions are would undoubtedly differ) are supported by "debate and critical thinking". If you refuse to accept anything Biblical however, then yes, the debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
<kay, I'll throw my opinion in the pot. And before I even get started, I'll (...) Can morality/truth/fairness be universal, when it is demonstrable that there is not equality between those it is appying to? On a less-meta-arugment scale, there are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) WHY are we worth more than sparrows? WHY would a god instill a soul in only ONE of his creations? -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) This is all assuming you BELIEVE in "the soul". -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then you aren't reading all the posts in here. (...) I don't believe in Adam and Eve as the true basis of our being. Morals have been around since before the Bible. (...) Thank you. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Show the statistics saying that it's 99%. (...) So instead you believe in Creationism, for which there is ZERO evidence? Just the word of a 2K year old book? Fossil evidence points very highly to evolution being right. I suppose you believe (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) That would be a reasonable argument if: 1. The IRS didn't try and get it's fingers into deals done without the use of the coin of the realm (they have in fact gone after barter exchanges, just try that on a big scale and find out what happens (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) You're right. When I read Frank's para, above, I did an un-shorthanding where "worthless"=="not likely to have a clean resolution, and likely to go on for a while" (not to be confused with my own use of worthless...) You've explained how you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say "Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which is how I read much of what has (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Yes it can be so argued... (and yes, it's a bit plowed but worth reexamination) A few points to consider: - While the constitution speaks of coinage, it does not reserve coinage as a (federal OR state) government monopoly. - Coinage (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In my last post, news:G5xxB1.3tv@lugnet.com..., I wrote the following: (...) This is also the bridge connecting parents to their children - another aspect of "social relationships". Why do parents raise their children rather than the state? Or, why (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a Christian or not. My initial post served a few functions. A. To test whether or not the Christian debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) Same hear. I know that I have left some folk's questions unanswered specifically directed at me and I apologize for not responding but lack of time is the reason. Ideally, I would like to get F2F with some of y'all over a beer and have at (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Can it not be argued that by participating in the monetary system deployed by a government (in accordance, in the US, with the Constitution) a tax is simply a "service charge" for using goverment property (money)? That is, if you don't want to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
Larry handled the first step well, but I do have a couple questions. (...) Hi Paul, In reverse order: Why refer to the Old Testament? And substituting words, you ask "Why does organization-x need permission to steal from you?" In any instance of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of ".debate" between Scott and Larry
|
|
(...) This brings back a memory of a movie which I forget the title but it involves a family relocating across the country and all the mis-adventures of the move and the new house, and then I think they wound up moving back. In any case, in this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Not to mention Zeppo and Gummo. Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Finally. Something I can contribute. (I have extracted only the relevant sentences.) The SI prefix femto with symbol f is ten to the minus fifteen. To be on the cutting edge of small, there is the atto with symbol a (10^-18), zepto with symbol z (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Note the distinction Frank is making... he is asserting that the *debate* is worthless. Not that christianity, in and of itself, is worthless, per se. If something cannot be proven or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
