 | | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) believe, (...) seem (...) As an atheist, here is my take on human rights: Rights are, as far as I can tell, a human social construct, a "base-level" set of behavioural rules that originate from (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) and (...) will (...) I've been thinking about this. I have at various times thought that rights are: A) immutable truths based on the nature of our humanity, B) make believe, C) legal constructs saying what we can do, and D) fuzzy terms that (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthcare should be based on need?
|
|
In: (URL) said <very heavily snipped down to one sentence...> (...) Well, I responded at the time that I didn't think I agreed. I didn't go into a lot of detail on why, because this has been debated at length in the past. At great great great (...) (24 years ago, 27-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Well, yeah, that's the central concept, isn't it? If you're trying to apply and extend a concept but you don't really know what it is to start with, muddle will result. (The irony is that you're trying to go into space when it is grounding (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Which means the rest of us can get the last word? :-) I think it is extremely important to be carefull when making mun of something in the middle of a heated debate that it is clear that you are making fun. That was not at all clear (and there (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
To All, I was just kidding around about the sniping part folks. I do know there are other things that are celebrated, Tom S., and the like, I was just ruffling Larry P. a little bit. We have talked about this a little offline. I swear this group in (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) In my mind the ownership of objects, concepts, or land is not as clear cut as most people think it is. It is realy subject to their expectation that things will be where they see them now. (Hillside Home slides into sea etc) I myself have a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Hi Erik, I'm not sure I follow. I just went back and reread my note, looking for unclarity or definitionless terms. The only thing that I really came up with is the concept of rights. Rights are definately up in the air as far as a definition. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) But, why not? (...) I don't buy the must part. I think what you mean is "ought to," right? (...) It simply depends on your inertial frame of reference. Why stop there? That same space is also spinning about the galactic core and rocketing away (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Short answer NO. Long answer: However Space-Time can be a form of limited property, and *must* be so!!! This is due to the reality of SPACE. When people think of space they are woofully ignorant as to what they are refering to. A (...) (24 years ago, 26-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
