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 / *8391 (-10)
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) What Larry said. Just that the two of you opt to keep .debate around. Chris (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
 
(...) Yes, I agree, taxation of those who consent to be taxed is not theft. Where we differ is on how one gives consent and how one goes about withholding it. Stick with my example here... (...) So in a country of millions of people, as long as one (...) (24 years ago, 24-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 :-)
 
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) Aren't they a good example of law coming from a higher power than government? (...) given (...) That is an entirely inappropriate substitution - I'm not asking why the government needs permission to (...) (24 years ago, 24-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 Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) And a fine answer it is too. It follows that consenting to be governed by a government which demands tax is giving permission to be taxed by that government - ergo, taxation is not theft. (...) governed? (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) I think Todd would be smart enough to figure out that somebody changed the newsgroup in the reply thread and that I simply didn't realize it. So yes, he'd probably find that funny - I mean, the laugh's on me! Which is something you didn't seem (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
I trimmed admin.general off... (...) Scott, where in the above is there a snipe at christianity? I'm honestly puzzled by that. (our holiday cards this year, as usual, wish people a happy Winter Solstice, because that's what we celebrate). (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Shou shalt not steal?
 
(...) I can agree with that one, in fact, that is essentially the 1st Unitarian Universalist principle: We afirm and promote: 1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person. I've always held that the rest effectively follow from the first: 2. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Well, for my own part, I think the debate has turned a corner. Perhaps we've convinced Larry and Scott A to back off a bit, and I think the current dicsussion is actually bringing up some interesting points, and doesn't seem as much to be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony. Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definiti...objective. (...) That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as scientific-observabl...-in-a-lab. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) What I meant was the personal jabs that keep going back and forth. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-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