 | | How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | Almost if not completely verbatim... I ran into an old friend the yesterday and really 'ruffled his feathers.' We got on the subject of the Iraq war and he made the comment: "Over 1000 Iraqi civilians were killed and we didn't even find anything." I (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | In other news... My SO can't have children -- she'd choke them to death! -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) Go Mike go! And on that, I completely agree. Dave K (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I'm not sure that quite qualifies perspective-wise, even accepting the fact that abortion==murder. We're talking (assumedly) military-inflicted deaths in Iraq versus civilian-inflicted deaths through abortion. And even beyond that, the Iraqi (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) Over 1000 every day. (...) Yeah I figured it might be taken that way, that is why the subject is "how to start a fire" (...) Well assuming we can trust the news reports of mass graves. The estimates I have read in the paper are over 1 million (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) In the words of Strong Bad: "Holy Crap!". That's an average of nearly 250 per day! Dang. By those standards we should've killed, what? 20-25K Iraqis and we've only bumped off 1000? We're under way under par! I'd say that our 1000 is *progress* (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) " jug jigga jug jigga jug jigga jug jigga JAH JAH!! jiggidy jug jigga jug jigga jug jigga JAHH JAHHHHH!!! " :) Still smile anytime I even think about it... Dave K (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) He's not much of a debater then, is he? If you're really interested in tackling this subject, I'm game. The first point of contention is that a blastocyst is not a person, and the elimination of a blastocyst is not the elimination of a person, (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Disagree. Once the cell mass is discernably human and has a heartbeat it is a person. What about the mentally handicapped? (...) So the age of a person determines their worth? (...) What about the physically handicapped? (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Who determines when it's discernably human? If I put a 64-cell embryo on your desk, would you be able to tell me that it's human? Who do you identify as a credible authority on determining humanness? By pre-brain-functional, I refer to brains (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Once the cell mass has a heartbeat (which occurs after about 21 days) it is distinctly human. Prior to that the cell mass could technically become anything. (...) Maybe a DNA expert but it would be tough. (...) By your definition, not mine. (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So you're in favor of embryonic stem-cell research? That's a tangential point (purely for my own curiosity) but it meshes nicely with your overall argument. Anyway, why is a heartbeat the deciding factor? What distinct difference exists (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes. I also have no problem with someone taking the "after morning" pill within the first 2 weeks. (If someone waits longer than that it is their choice and they should deal with the consequeces of their choice.) (...) It is a trailing (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Probably a bad idea. By calling into question the definition of innocence, life, experience, and sentience, you're allowing an "in" that's off-topic. Fetuses are killed by civilian mothers and civilian doctors. The Iraqis in question were (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) True enough. I'm taking it as an abortion debate separate from the Iraq debate. (...) I don't accept "person potential" because, with the advent of cloning, most cells in your body have "person potential." It is not slippery slope reasoning to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I think that's what you'd end up debating, unless you're trying to create or debate law which defines the "acceptable" point for an abortion to take place. Then you'd argue the points you brought up. In general, I think the issue that (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Going on the assumption that abortion = murder, your argument is that an unconnected wrong justifies another. This requires that you prove any abortion = murder without condition (not to mention you are still saddled with proving one wrong (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) No I think he took it exactly as I intended. Along the lines of "why are people making such a fuss over this when there are far worse evils to be stopping first." Also you might want to read: (URL) Petrucelli (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) So, an unrelated wrong justifies the other. Nonsense. Nor is the "wrong" proven, just your opinion. (...) Why? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) No an unrelated wrong does not justify the other. However it is receiving undue attention when there are larger concerns to worry about. Much like I can not figure out why everyone made such a big deal about the space shuttle accident. Far (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I think, at least for me, and I believe I've heard others describe it this way--like when Kennedy got shot, when the Apollo 1 caught fire, when the Challenger blew up, and (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
