 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) not (...) I suppose. But so what? The individuals are the ones who'll feel the pain in either case, and I think most people would rather have their eyes than their eggs. (...) kids (...) and I (...) So far, I think I'm winning. I've spent more (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing. Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Well...I'm not sure I'd say it that way. Certainly the picture over time is more relevant to the issue of population control, but you originally stated something like "it's more of a crime if you look at it genetically." The criminality of (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) And the lifespan of the individual is fleeting in comparison to the lifespan of the genes. I was imprecise in saying "crime," but I was being more metaphorical than litigious. Replace "it's more of a crime" with "the longer-lasting wrong (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
