 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) be (...) First, I really (really!) meant consumer firearms. Military contract is a bit different. Now, the purpose (if you mean _my_ purpose) when I travel with a concealed firearm is not to kill people. It is to defend myself. I have defended (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) If he wasn't informed about the pregnancy in a timely manner and if he would have willingly taken on the responsiblility had he known, I think it's fair to say he's a victim in all this too. Maggie C. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) 400,000 in the US, which is now one of the lowest smoking rate nations in the world. You bet your ass tobacco is more dangerous than firearms! Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) there. So you wouldn't feel victimized if you found out that you had a ten year old son that had been kept from you? I would. Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Worldwide? Chris (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) The gun manufacturer designed it to appeal to people with some cash. So that they would give the cash to the manufacturer. Whether or not the gun kills people, looks pretty, fires blanks only, or can be used as a hammer in a pinch doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
(...) Once the man is known as Dad in the child's eyes, he is no longer just another man. As to why the child should be given greater consideration, even if you don't believe it is the right thing to do, from a pragmatic standpoint it is better for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Nope, simply not true. How many deaths by knife are there in comparison to those by gun in the US each year? I'm willing to bet that the death rate by firearms in the UK is substantially less than the death rate by firearms in the US , eh? I'm (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) While I guess one could call me a freeloader for not being at least trained in the use of firearms and not owning one, I have to concur absolutely with the above. Unfortunately, so many of my fellow citizens didn't pay enough attention to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Statistics be thrown out the window - if you're in a position where no matter how bad the argument gets you'll haul a gun on your own family then gun control isn't going to help -- you can just as easily use anything else around the house for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Ah, ok. The AK and the AR-15's, are not designed to kill, that's right. NO, they are designed to maim- how could I forget reading the info that 5.56 is based on? What exactly is the purpose of a pistol kept under your clothing in a state with (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) And just for the record I also agree with this argument/motive for owning a gun....I chose the other root because it _could_ open up the debate from people who believe "it is never right to kill anyone under any circumstances, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Thank you so much Chris. Here here to that. (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Nowhere within either the BNA act, or the Canadian Constitution (1982), is there a mention of the right to bear arms. Therefore, you _do not_ have a right to own them within Canada. You have whatever rights the majority of the people of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Sorry if you mentioned in an earlier post but could you clarify your theory as to how? (...) Although I don't exactly believe that that there isn't at least _some_ motive to eventually get rid of ALL weapons I agree that military and handgun (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) I would have brought this up at some point in my debate but it opens up a whole uncharted can-o-worms along with it.....but I do appreciate you willing to dive in :) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) Then I guess you should register when you buy alchohol products. Isn't around 30% of traffic deaths alchohol related. I don't consume any alchohol, so it doesn't affect me. Let's make it as hard to get as possible. How about cigarette (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) _I_ think you are full of the same stuff that farmers spread over fields, if they own cows. :) :). At least, as far as this issue goes. Will this register do anything to stop criminal activity? Yes, it will. Will it do what $300 million worth (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Family values?
|
|
He's not much of a victim - it was HIS choice to take the risk of causing a pregnancy (even IF birth control methods were used) - no sympathy from me there. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
|
(...) What if you miss? Does your shooter have enough power to force a bullet through wall of your home? What then? The fact is, statistics show that you are more likely to use your gun on yourself or your family, than you are a criminal. Do you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
