| |
>
> > We are supposed to live in a civilised society aren't we?
>
> Supposedly, yes.
>
> > Isn't it the 'civilised world' that is under attack.
>
> No, the 'free' world...
This is a joke coming from you, in the last weeks you have shown me that you
don't understand (amongst other this):
Freedom
Liberty
Freedom of Speech
Freedom & liberty
From http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13318
==+==
SA
> > As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you do not even
> > understand what "freedom" really means. What tipped the balance was this post:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13204
LP
> I'm totally comfortable with what I said there and see no contradiction.
> Feel free to explain how it shows that I don't understand what freedom
> means. Freedom does NOT mean letting those that violate your rights get away
> with it if you can help it.
SA:
Your comfort is irrelvant. You said what happened on the 11th was an attack
on "freedom and liberty", I'm just asking you to justify that (if you can).
This text questions the premis that it was an attack on freedom and liberty:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html
The author takes it apart. It is a long text, but well worth the read. Read
it, and then tell me what you mean by "freedom and liberty".
==+==
Freedom of Speech
From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12631
==+==
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
==+==
> > And the civilised society does differentiate between x-boxes and food.
>
> Yes, a civilized society assigns them different values in the marketplace.
>
> > And any family in the UK who's bread winner goes to jail most certainly would >get aid if they needed it, irrespective of their partners crime.
>
> Which does not make the UK civilised, unless you accept the definition of
> civilized as "society uses force to take from those that have to give to
> those that need".
Nope. In a civilised society, we don't view it as being "forced" to pay our
fair share. For many a "fair share" is not enough, and they are free to give
more.
I would rather that than return to child labour and the workhouse.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an allegation that it's not worth responding to. Further you don't get to dictate where the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) Incorrect. Suffering of children is never "justified". My argument merely demonstrates that their suffering is not the *fault* of the US, just as the suffering of FB Jr (while not "justified") in not having his wants satisfied is not the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
