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 (-20)
  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)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Ah, Larry, always throwing a few snipes in to Christianity, huh? I expected nothing less, that's all right. (...) Folks, all I responded to was Frank Filz (SP?) discussion about debate, and according to what he thought, I agreed with him. I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) The way it's written one could almost read it as he hopes that you two have a lot of fights with each other, rather a mean thing to wish so close to Winter Solstice festival, don't you think? :-) So I'm doubting *that* is what he meant. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Scott is free to email me whatever he likes, but I feel it is important that I and others continue to use .debate to discuss the larger topic of what makes a good .debate and a good .debater as and when appropriate. I think it's an important (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Shou shalt not steal?
 
(...) Think I missed that thread-- But I'm gonna come in late and argue something perhaps a little more basic: Inter-human morality all boils down to: "Thou shalt respect others." Which really works great, I think. "Thou shalt not kill" => "Thou (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
 
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) My family is going through the stomach flu at the moment - I can feeling it creeping up on me as I type after spending last night cleaning up %$@#$# - so I am going to be dropping out for a while. Back later! (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) About what? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
 
  Re: Uselessness of .debate
 
(...) Can the two of you please take all of this offline to private email? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-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 :-)
 
(...) people (...) So we've gone around in a circle and I still haven't heard any explanation as to why it is OK for you to take the resources of your fellow. It's not even that I _just_ disagree. I don't have anything reasonable with which to (...) (24 years ago, 23-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 :-)
 
(...) I think, we are back to where we started on this one. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) No, I made it up as an example of the sort of "miracle" one sometimes hears proffered, but exaggerated in the mundane direction for effect. ++Lar (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