 | | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Chris, you're hypothesizing in the absence of definitions. (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Oh sure, I was considering water as between air and food in this regard. And as far as management, that is beyond the scope of what I was thinking about. But even still, there is something intrinsically different abut land and air v. food, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) special (...) If you're going to include land and air, then water, too. Don't we then get into the old, old problem of how best to manage common resources? Kevin (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is space property?
|
|
Howdy and Merry Christmas all, As you probably know, I'm one of the property-rights be-all libertarians here. But I've been fixating on the role of land (or locations) as property. I have talked about the generation of property (e.g. jars of clay) (...) (24 years ago, 25-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 :-)
|
|
(...) For some more thoughts on what "consent of the governed" means, see this reference I just stumbled across while reading up on something Chris W. pointed me at... (URL) ties in well with David Friedman's writings on how to have non statist law (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Happy holidays (was: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
(...) Uh oh. Now I need more info. Uh, basically, Newton was born on the 25th of December in 1642 and when I was deeply extropian in the early 90s, people on the list were celebrating Newtonmass instead of Xmas. It stuck with me. I just found this (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) the 24th is our big day, lesser activity today. That's because that's when the holidays fall on the calendar (similar to Washington's birthday being on a monday, but not really)... on the 21st I was still on the road. It's also because we have (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, but on the other hand, calling today the solstice is incorrect. Why not celibrate the solstice on the 21st? Out of curiosity, Larry, do you celibrate the WS today, or on 21 December? Why not Newtonmass? Chris (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Indeed. Pardon me for neglecting those who stand on their heads on a regular basis... (funny, I didn't see any signs of that when I was in Oz earlier this year, but perhaps it was because I was standing on my head myself!) I'd say throw a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I'm writing this on December 25th in a hotel room before we go spend the day with family and I don't take what Larry said as a snipe on Christianity. The celebration of the Winter Solstice predates the celebration of Christmas by a good (...) (24 years ago, 25-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 :-)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what manner yout think I mean. I don't think you are the guy holding the gun, if that's what you mean. That would be too messy. Instead, you pay someone else to hold the gun on your fellows while their resources are collected. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) ...and a happy Summer Solstice to those in the Southern Hemisphere. pete.w (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) There's merit in that argument. Certainly we are "part of the universe" since we reside in it, observe it, are affected by it, and effect things within it. The problem is that "creation" carries a connotation of it being an act of volition. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) You are 100% correct. That is why Jehovah’s Witness still do not celebrate it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Why is it a snipe to call this "holiday season" Winter Solstice festival? Are you so arrogant as to believe that ONLY Christians own the celebrations this time of year? Hanukah, Kwanza (double a?), Winter Solstice, and MANY other celebrations (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Do we? What makes you think this? (...) Skepticism is GOOD. However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Another day. Another contradictorily ironic post from Larry. Another conceitedly snide remark from Larry. What will tomorrow bring? Christmas!! (...) I really am trying: (URL) A (...) (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 :-)
|
|
(...) I do not "take" anything from my fellow man in the manner you mean. I have no problem paying tax within the UK/EU system... as long as it is managed democratically. I vote for governments who tax and spend in the way I find acceptable... I am (...) (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 :-)
|
|
(...) Would it be your claim that it is impossible for the government to steal from a citizen? (...) I have not. (...) Nowhere to go. (...) Pressured with the threat of death is not just a little pressure. So yes. I am saying that anytime someone (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Is that from something? Chris (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Don't know what made me think of this just now, but when I first saw the thread entitled "LP point 1", etc, I had interpreted the LP as "Larry Pieniazek" rather than "Libertarian Party". :) DaveE (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly, anything at all. (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I personally would certainly not include "we all instinctively long to be united with that Entity" in the definition, as that seems an (unproven and highly dubious) attribute of *us*, not of God. Why muddy the definition up with that other (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Since I point that out in the next paragraph but one, you can be sure I was aware of it. A danger of starting to respond before you read the whole thing... :-) as Paul B pointed out. In fact, "unconvincability" is kind of the whole point of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Hmm. A lot of christians might (probably do) hold that, but it isn't central to being christian. A christian is defined, in the broadest sense, as someone who believes in Christ.(more below) There are christian sects that believe strictly (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Well, nevermind the "Son of God" (mysterious at best) title-- how do they handle the intro to the Gospel of John "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...(to verse 14), and the Word became flesh and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Wow, this is a new one on me. Seems that the veneration of Mary is reaching new heights...."co-redemptress"? Equals? -John (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define as God. But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already believe (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not, but the alliteration was too much to resist. (1) Hence in the example I'm trading the CD AWAY for something I value more. ++Lar 1 - although I do like Sixpence none the Richer... (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Wow. I didn't know you were into the music of Jars of Clay, Lar... or were you just waxing poetic? -John (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
<much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (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 :-)
|
|
(...) given (...) Your stace here is (if I understand you correctly) that since a bunch of people think taking my money is OK, that I don't have a right to call it theft. I don't think that makes any sense. No number of opinions in favor, make (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing those fundamental (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not sure (I wasn't real sure about making that stipulation), but there clearly are things which private organizations can be allowed to do that governments can't (such as discrimination). It probably does amount to a moot point since a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I guess. But aren't you missing an answer from within your own belief system? If (BIG if) from "Let us create man in our image" we infer that man is imbued with Grace (or the potential for Grace), then it is not unreasonable to say that man, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Any circularity whatever is sufficient to disqualify a particular item of evidence. (...) No one in this forum (or elsewhere) has yet demonstrated a proof to my satisfaction using this basis, although it's been tried. I feel like a taxonomy of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (...) rotfl :-) Seriously - Why did God create us with an eternal soul? Come on - To know WHY someone does something you would have to know them better than they know themselves. Our (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Free will (was Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity))
|
|
(...) All? No - Just the ones in this thread - and even then it's taking up too much of my time. As I tried to elaborate on before, if I went back in time a minute or a day or whatever and knew that you decided to post this message, how could that (...) (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 :-)
|
|
(...) It is not hypothetical, Britain did this in 1788. They stopped paying their tax to the UK a while back though... we keep a tab. :-) Scott A (...) (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 :-)
|
|
(...) Do they not ask you each and every time there is an election in the US? Sure, I expect you were out-voted - but that is democracy for you! Did Gore and Bush not present pre-election spending plans to your nation? Will your elected (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all. Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly conclusive. I am willing to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God". The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation. SRC (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Thought we cleared this up??? Elvis is alive and well and living in Las Vegas. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A438E9B.2D4C9A...ape.com... (...) in (...) human (...) What (...) Apparently you don't, Tom? Am I understanding you correctly, or are you just making an observation? Steve (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <big snip> (...) No. 8-) SRC (Currently working on a more in-depth answer) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I believe you'll have a hard time demonstrating that to my satisfaction. (...) I don't accept that every asserted fact in the bible is the literal truth. I don't even accept that every asserted fact in the bible is allegorically true. But I do (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) You aren't inherently worth more than sparrows. Read it again. You are worth more than many sparrows. That is, some sparrows are worth more than you. :-) Chris (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is circular. What if I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Disagree. If conditions one and two are in place, three needn't be. I don't care one whit what organization-x does with their internal policy. In a system of competing currencies, Bob's Green Bank could produce pretty USbob$10 bills with (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
