 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) In the UK, one has to practice overseas to take part in this "sport". I think it is a price worth paying. (...) This sounds like you had a minority opinion. (...) Scotland better. :-) Scott A (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
I see no need to own a gun. I see no need to own 2 guns. I see no need to own 3 guns. Sure, guns may look good in the movies - but I can live without them. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Just don't register it, most people won't do it either… I won't! It’s simply propaganda and a way of government imposing restrictive control over its law-abiding citizens. I’ve read reports stating that the new regulations have even hampered (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My Gun Control Rant
|
|
Well...as of a couple days ago if you own guns and live in Canada and didn't apply for a liscence (for the guns you already own of course) you are now a criminal subject to fines or jail time. In 2 years if you are still a law-abiding citizen and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Presidential Succession?
|
|
(...) Wow! I knew The Constitution would be the place to look, but I was daunted by the scope of the task and I'm not too familiar with the text beyond that amendment about giving a chicken bone to a dog. Thank you for the information and the link. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Granted, but i'd be suprised if anything is ever solved in debate. Personally, I prow around here because I enjoy a gentlemanly clash of arms and because I think that it's fundamentally important to speak up about certain things. For instance, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Presidential Succession?
|
|
(...) If the Pres-Elect dies the VP-Elect becomes the Pres-Elect. US Constitution, Article XX, Section 3. It is not clear to me what happens if the VP-Elect dies before inauguration. The same Article XX might apply; if so, Congress would decide the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Actually Bill, I agree with you to a greater extent than you might imagine. Which is why I made the flippant (hence the "no, really", meaning, "seriously") statement in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly that "intimacy should be shared by (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) The fact that you suggest the self-evidence of marriage indicates that you and I have two fundamentally divergent worldviews. That's fine, of course, but we need to recognize that certain issues are therefore insoluble between us, and this may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
"Steve Thomas" <steve_thomas_2000_n...tmail.com> wrote in message news:G6nK8M.5ny@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) daughter (...) I'll add that if the consequence and the initial action are teleologically related (as are sex and procreation), then the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Bill, I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I want to make a distinction as to its primary wrongfulness. It is not - as I understand the problem - primarily wrong because of any contingent circumstances that may or may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Again, the spirit of the law versus the mere letter. Were we discussing his obligation to his wife's bad credit in some wierd scenario of marriage under false pretenses, for example, then she's up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But if (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) While I agree that he is a low down goodfernuthin if he just ditches the kid that he was taking responsibility for up to X point, I don't agree that it makes him legally responisble for someone else's kid... especially if he was duped into (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Current "Western" ([American, Western European, Canadian, Australian) as a functional (as opposed to formal) culture and economic region]) society may have it's own particular flavor, it's own particular "style" of marriage, but I think that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Presidential Succession?
|
|
I'm posting this to .debate because I can see it winding up there anyway, but here goes. If the President-Elect passes away or becomes unable to serve as President before he's sworn in, who gets the job? Similary, if the VP-Elect passes away before (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) No one here is saying that the man, having established his role as caring father, can just turn away when he pleases. The issue is that in cases involving deception, the decieved man should not be required to support the child of another man (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) In cases involving a minor's well-being, not just the letter but the spirit of the law must be weighed. Fraud or no, if the functioning father has demonstrated a commitment of care, love, involvement, etc. to his non-biological child, then he (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) I can't speak for Chris, but I will point out that as a human invention (and in the form we're discussing, a Modern Western Invention at that), marriage does not determine the moral correctness of anything. That is, of course, unless morality (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader and sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just the way it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but tell me why. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) And what's much worse in this case is that one poor fellow is being forced to shoulder the responsibility for a child that is not his- and that the same courts give him no rights to see or have a hand in raising. That makes absolutely no sense (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
