 | | California Power "Deregulation"
|
|
The media in the US are touting the situation in CA as a "failure of deregulation". (URL) is it really? Let's review: Utilities used to produce their own power. But building plants to keep up with demand got hard for them. So some thought to open (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Well I'm not sure I agree. I bought my revolver (and the hollowpoint bullets I keep in the speed loader) based on my evaluation of how much bang for the buck I got. Those hollowpoints will stop a person dead in his tracks. I would have shot (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) True, but it doesn't matter. Guns are not designed to kill people. That's just reactionary liberal disarmament garbage. Guns are designed to sell. Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) A small but probably non-zero number. So what? Guns kill a few innocents, so do TVs. Worse yet, TVs sap the intellect and ambition from millions every day. In fact, I have read of correlational studies suggesting that TV exposure correlates to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) _We_ do mind registering them! At least those of us who love liberty do. Further, there are at least several activities for which guns are much more useful than cars. Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
I've held out of this one but must reiterate these points. (...) There are two main threads when arguing in favor of gun ownership. Tim is going down one thread: that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns besides the one for which they are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) The valid justification is this: The government eventually wants a completely disarmed populace. If they tried to pass laws that just forbid all guns in Canada, they would be strung up in the streets. So they just want to record where all guns (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) I've been waiting to see the new thread. Did I need to respond to get it? If so, then shoot. (Bad choice of words given the other thread :-) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) I think that something we've been forgetting is that the "deadbeat" might very well be the victim too. There is no knowing that he knows there is a child in the world of his genetic lineage. Just a point, Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) What a device is _primarily_ designed to do and what one does with it, in my mind, are two very different things. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if a pencil is designed to write on paper with, you _could_ buy it for the express (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) To my mind the difference is that pens, pencils, screwdrivers, baseball bats etc have a primary purpose which does not involve maiming or death. I would trust a six year old with a pencil. If you want to own a machine that is explicitly (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) More specifically, why should the child be given greater consideration than a more-or-less arbitrarily chosen man? Remember--in this thought experiment we're not discussing a man who has agreed knowingly to act as the father-figure for the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) <opinion> So I guess that means you want to register bows, arrows, slingshots, BB guns, pens, pencils, screwdrivers, baseball bats, golf clubs, mixing spoons, sticks, branches, etc, etc, etc... After all, these are all dangerous too - you can (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Thanks. I will argue the point of owning guns for protection no further. I personally don't agree with some of the opinions expressed in the www.handguncontrol.com article, but I can't argue with statistics - because one can always argue the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Ideally everyone would be happy - however that would mean that there IS no minority because if both were represented all of our interests would be the. Since that isn't the case a democratic government is in place to represent the majority - (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Why? Chris (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) to (...) faithfullness, (...) It sounds like you are saying that the crux of the moral status of marriage comes from: fidelity, duty, and commitment. How does fidelity work in a culture which accepts polygamous marriage as the norm? Is the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Bill doesn't give supportable or reasonable reasons. He said it's wrong "Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels...[and] because innocent people get hurt." And the entirety of the rest of my note addressed exactly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) I certainly don't believe that infidelity should be rewarded. The conflict arises because while people SHOULD act responsibly, unfortunately that doesn't always happen. And if we are dealing with consequences of an act of irresponsibility that (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) No problem. These two: (URL) I found here: (URL) (...) That's too bad. (...) But what really would be the price. My life is not empty without a gun. I do not live in fear. (...) It is weak. (...) The two things are related. (...) I agree. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Well there are restriction on knife sales and use in the UK, but that is another issue. (...) Guns are intended to kill. They offer a user a rather remote way to kill a person in an instant. No struggle. No blood on the user. Just death. Scott (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) I'd argue is has to represent both the minority & the majority. Scott A (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Could you please cite the source of your statistics? (...) No, you are incorrect. Guns have no place in YOUR day to day life. Where I live, guns play a big part in MANY people's day to day life. (...) So for the sake of those imbeciles (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) WHOA! Hold on one Second here.....I'm still debating the original issue - that is that gun control will do absolutely nothing to stop crime ---- I fully agree that guns are often used as weapons because they are in fact so effective...no doubt (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Uhh....I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one Scott.....a democracy is the government representing the MAJORITY.....not the MINORITY. (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Protection against who? You are most likely to be killed with those youlive with - how many of those are from legally held/bought guns? In the USA only 2% of gun deaths are legally justifiable. In the USA 50-100 0-4 year old kids are shot and (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Why not? They have no place in society. (...) They are not hurting me as I do not live in that sort of culture. If I did, I expect they would "hurt" me in some small way. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Not on every issue. (...) That is all part of democracy Tom. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) My thoughts 100%. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) How many people are murdered with TV's? Scott A (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
Tim Culberson wrote in message <3A55160C.9A731E80@y...oo.com>... (...) <opinion> Good! Guns are freaking dangerous and the more that have their ownership known, and the less that get owned, the better! </opinion> (...) It's obviously going to reduce (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uhh, back to tax again ;-) (Was Re: Is space property?)
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) problem (...) I (...) The _concept_ of ownership is an ancient one, certainly, but as far as I know the laws of government are the only thing that _assign_ the right of ownership. (...) voluntarily (...) (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Fair enough - I agree that it is similar to car registration and whether or not one agrees with car registration is rather irrelevant in the sense that car registration is a relatively old law and the fact that you DO have to register your (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
Um, I was replying to Scott, if you didn't notice. Scott seems to have the attitude of "screw the minorities" - everything's fine with him, because he's in the majority in the UK. And he seems to think that if he DOES end up in the minority, he can (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) I'm _not_ telling you _not_ to own a gun. Nor is the Canadian Government. What it _is_ telling you is that you _have_ to register the ownership of the gun, which is no more onious than registering the ownership of your car- you can chose not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Well that's great for YOU....but many other people have several reasons to own guns - hunting, target shooting, collections for the sake of collection, and for some, personal protection. Although I hate to presume I'm guessing that you live (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
That's certainly your choice. But don't try to tell others not to own them. If they aren't hurting you by owning them, it's none of your business whether they own any or not. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) So someone's money should be stolen from them for up to 18 years because of another's (and THEIR PARTNER'S) deception. Nice world you live in - take everyone else's money, whether they need it or not. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
Your case is not relevant - your mother and step-father obviously understood you were not "his". There was no fraud involved. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) This statement.... (...) And this statement... Conflict. So you're saying the NON-biological father SHOULD support the child, strictly from a legal marriage contract (that generally assumes fidelity), he should support them because he's been (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) It isn't. (...) It needn't. (...) Well, I think that your main point here is that they should be prepared for the results. And I agree. But that doesn't mean that people have to get hurt. (...) Disagree. Most people, most of the time, are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Agreed, but in the case above he's required to tend both his own garden and the garden of some other, deadbeat gardener. That's where I have the problem. (...) I wasn't very precise in my statement. Of course fatherhood isn't simply a matter (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not considered wrong because (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Well let me see. Woman gets pregnant. Lies (or isn't forthcoming with the truth) about who the father is. Damn right he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's called Fraud. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) little (...) Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really, the same could be said for the biological father of the child in question. He may not even know he is the father to this child and may have a family of his (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) It's kind of like being convicted of manslaughter and given 18 in prison, and upon being found not guilty, still having to serve the term. The woman is not punished for fraud. The real father does not carry the burden of his actions. AND the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) At the same time, though, what if the alleged father has biological children of his own, and the financial burden of providing for someone else's child has an adverse impact on the man's own children? You refer to these men as "these fathers," (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | OT for OT - give blood!
|
|
Well, this is OT for .debate, but no other place to put it... GIVE BLOOD! Better yet, sign up for the Marrow program - (URL) your chance to save a life. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
Note the one father did NOT want to disconnect from the child, he simply wanted the biological father to rightly shoulder the financial burden. That being said, I DO agree with something else in the article - if the "fathers" DO get out of support, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Or blood boiling because these fathers find it so easy to suddenly detach themselves from children they've thought of as their own for years with little regard for their emotional and financial well-being? Maggie C. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
Blood boiling because the "fathers" rightly think they owe nothing, or that the courts still force them to pay? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Family values?
|
|
Here's one that's sure to get the blood boiling. Any thoughts? (URL) Dave! (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uhh, back to tax again ;-) (Was Re: Is space property?)
|
|
(...) I agree that I am sort-of legally _not_ entitled to those portions of my personal property. There are some problems in the US with whether the income tax is actually legal, but I suppose that's an issue for an other time. My claims that (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, 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 :-)
|
|
(...) My mistake. I misunderstood your position. Out of interest, how could the police be funded outside the TAX system? Would one have to have insurance to ensure , say, ones own murderer is tracked down? Would one also have to have insurance to (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, 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 :-)
|
|
(...) Oh, all of those things should be privatized...oh wait, that's not the conversation we're having... Well, defense and foreign policy pretty clearly fall under "The assurance that our global neighbors are behaving" above and police and courts I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Uhh, back to tax again ;-) (Was Re: Is space property?)
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) unfair, (...) You're right. I have made two mistakes in my argument: one was to invoke the ambiguous concept of "fairness", the other one was to rigidly stick to the dictionary definition of "stealing" (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, 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 :-)
|
|
<zapped> (...) <zapped> But what about police, "defence", courts, and some sort of governmental foreign policy office? Scott A (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
<picking kernel bits out of my teeth>Golly!</picking> (...) I don't see how this paragraph supports the idea that "fair" isn't an even distribution. I mean, I basically agree with what you're saying, but I don't see the connection to defining what (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Bwaaaahahhahahahaha! I can't believe I did that! *Last* century. Last. d'oh, LFB (Now if only I could stop writing "19" on my cheques...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) 8^) I make it a habit only to be burgled by people who accept Visa. I might be unknowingly straddling two issues here; I'm comparing taxation with burglary in terms of the "taxation is theft" principle I've read, but perhaps that's not (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Warning: Long, long rant by the resident imperial historian follows. Grab a donut (or an ear of corn, if you're a Middle American like myself). ;) (...) It doesn't. The lifestyle we enjoy in the US, UK, Europe (as a whole), Japan, Oceania, Canada, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No "year zero", but if there was, we STILL just started new millenia!
|
|
(...) If that's the case, my computer that reads 2001 is wrong. If there was no year 1, then how is there a year 2001? Any numbering system for years starts at an arbitrary date - you are correct that there wasn't a year 1 in the sense that the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, I get your point, but... The payment of taxes is (normally considered) a proper and right thing. So it feels different (even to me) than being burgled. (How often do you write a check to your burgler?) And, I do know that the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(*Sound of dead horse being savagely beaten*) That's all right, it deserves it. Keeps our minds off of more important but far more depressing matters [1]. (...) I'm in full agreement with Franklin, but my evidence is in the term "Anno Domini" (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(...) You're missing my point. There wasn't a year 1 AD either. There is a year which we now call 1 AD. My point is that the relevance of when the bleep the calendar started is about zero. Therefore I find more relevance in the last digits turning (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) Just a minor nitpick; if the money to fund such killings is taken from you against your will and beyond your reasonable power to resist, you are not morally responsible for what is done with that money. If a person breaks into your house and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) And I think that the removal of forced wealth reallocation, particularly when the wealth was not gained corruptly is unfair. Fixing that problem would "push things in the _direction_ of fairness." (...) There are two issues. One is that the US (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A513F9C.2142BF82@m...ng.com>... (...) I would agree that life probably can't become even mostly fair for humanity as a whole. However, that would be a very poor excuse not to strive to push things in the _direction_ of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
Hmm, I've been thinking about this issue since before Chris posted (look back and you'll find a thought exercise of mine dealing with someone living on property which is totally surrounded by someone else's property where that other person decides (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is space property?
|
|
(...) I do find it unsettling that the majority of humanity doesn't live under the same conditions I do, but I don't see a clean way to get from where we are now, to a utopia where everyone has a "fair" allotment of "stuff" (life necessities, goods, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
