Debate : 25203


Off-Topic / Debate / 25203

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) You make it sound as if there is something wrong with coming to a conclusion about anything. Is it so hard to accept that I can consider a POV and finally reject it? It is as if your definition of "close-minded" is anyone who doesn't see the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) We may have to. My definition of close-minded is to be so entrenched in your own point of view that you do not consider the possibility that any other point of view could have merit. Your endless circuitous logic, well demonstrated in this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) Okay, I accept that definition and gladly state that in a lot of areas, I am close-minded. Here is one example: on the topic of adultery, I am close-minded and reject that behavior. Do you have a problem with that? (...) More generalities. You (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Dave Schuler

(...) One aspect of open-mindedness that should perhaps be cleared up is the fact that an open mind need not admit all possibilities. An open mind refrains generally from speaking in non-verifiable absolutes (in the knowledge that nothing can be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) This is hardly new ground, but alright, here are the specific cites: From George Bush's State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003: Lie #1: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) (snip) (...) What's wrong with that? In theory he was correct. (...) So did he lie, or did he present a feasible worst-case scenario? (...) Again, in theory it could have been the case. We are talking about WMDs here. Would you want your (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) Theory is not fact. To extrapolate the worst possible scenario from a report and then state that "the UN has concluded ..." is a lie. (...) Bush is terrorizing the American public to further his personal political agenda. Sounds like (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What I wouldn't pay to be watching the news when that happened... Chris (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) Where did he go? I guess John's brain must have self-destructed when faced with the undeniable truth. So what I want to know now is, if nobody can step up to the plate and defend Bush, who exactly are all these people who answer polls stating (...) (20 years ago, 15-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps it is like onanism; a lot of people do it, but very few admit to it in public. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Dave Schuler

(...) Except that a vote for onanism is unlikely to start any more wars. Dave! (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Don Heyse

(...) Well, since you used me as example last week, I suppose I should confirm that yes, I'm still planning to vote for Bush. However, I'm not going to defend my choice here. Others far more articulate than I are doing a much better job of that (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Scott Arthur

(...) You have (URL) already>: "...so I can't really put into words why he's got my vote so far. Probably it's the war thing. I'd rather see someone decisive than a panderer as president right now." Being “decisive” is only good if one is making the (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This isn't aimed at you, Don, but if anyone has an answer as to where these "articulate" voices are, let me know because I have a question: The latest "I've approved this commercial" from Dubya is the "in 1970 there were 40 democracies" and (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Scott Arthur

(...) Afghana-where? (...) Perish the thought! (...) …not to mention Bush’s support for non-democratic nations such as Uzbekistan. (...) It also illustrates why I'm glad we essentially don't have "political ads" in the UK. We restrict our parties to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) Don, thanks for responding! As I mentioned before, I really didn't intend to single you out. I have found that very few Bush supporters are willing to discuss their reasons for supporting the man, though most are quite willing to attack John (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I think we'll have to let the arguments settle to the bottom and accumulate a bit before we sift through your sediments. We don't want to precipitate anything new at this point. -->Bruce<-- Miner in Geology (written as intended) :-) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) Thank you for acknowledging one of my favorite malapropisms:-) (...) You rock! JOHN (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Pardon? I recall alternative definitions being presented to you here. What exactly do you mean by "nobody will?" I also recall reading explanations to you of why such redefinition would be a "good thing" and you merely dismissed them. Can you (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —David Eaton

(...) Well... If presently: "marriage is defined as the union of one consenting adult male and one consenting adult female" And proposed: "marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults" (Assuming they're human, US citizens [is that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —David Laswell

(...) No, marriage is often used as a way to avoid deportation, which would be a non-issue if only citizens could get married. I don't believe either party has to be a citizen/national, so that a Canadian and a Mexican could meet up in Vegas on (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm wondering how commonly held this view is. It doesn't strike me as true but I don't have any specific information with which to refute it. I guess there was a big study based on a survey in which sixty-some percent of married men admitted (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Or wishful thinking about it turned into inflated claims of actuality? People DO brag... (sorry, couldn't resist) (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No, that's a perfectly valid concern to bear in mind. All routes for corrupt data should be considered even if only to recognize the potential flaws when the study is published. Chris (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I2AHnn.17AB@lugnet.com... (...) true but (...) there (...) men (...) even on (...) Well, one could still argue it promotes monogamy, even if not very successfully. Frank (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure, but the root point was that it helps society somehow. I wonder. And, people in other parts of the world actually do support female genital mutilation for the same reasons...and more convincingly, I think. Chris (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) Can I assume that the main knock on defining marriage as the union of 1 woman 1 man is that it discriminates (against gays). But doesn't your proposed definition discriminate against polyspousewanters? Why is your discriminating definition any (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Ross Crawford

(...) The right? I don't think children have any such right. (...) That may possibly be so, but I have seen no evidence to support it. (...) I for one would like to see your evidence to back up that claim. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) "Deserve" a better word? What rights would you ascribe to children? (...) I'm not even sure by what criteria one could use to support or reject such a claim. I go by this: men and women are very different by nature; vastly more different than (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Ross Crawford

(...) Yes, maybe deserve is better, although I really don't really know if that is right either. I'll have to think about that some more. (...) Well I would say that many men are very feminine and many women are very masculine, so specifying 1 man (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —David Koudys

(...) I can't believe this conversation is staying on a 'well gee, wouldn't it be nice if...' level. In todays age, where there are pregnant teens, single moms, and 80 year old males getting married to 30 year old women and having kids, and all of (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I can't believe that the originalral thread (about who to vote for and getting involved in politics in an effective way) seems to have spun off into some of the standard old directions. (the gay marriage direction, the "socialism works/no it (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —David Koudys

(...) ;) I will concur that the possibility of a bad parent exists if he or she's been married numerous times. Who knows how good a parent Larry King is, for example. That said, unless there are specific documented instances against a person, he or (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Ross Crawford

(...) Yeah me too. Well I spose all the IMPORTANT stuff is already packed. And I do still have 16 hours till the plane leaves.... (20 years ago, 12-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Chris Phillips

(...) Actually, you do not digress here, Lar. The original point with which I started this thread was that o-t.d had become a quagmire where meaninful debate gets dragged down into the muck by the same old circular logic. The fact that this has (...) (20 years ago, 12-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'd start by correllating success in life as measured by the normal societal values: level of education, income, marital stability, etc. as well as psychological problems (including substance abuse, depression, etc), medical problems, (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Ross Crawford

(...) OK, 40 hours on planes gives one a little time to mull things over, so here's my take on this. I think parents/guardians have the responsibility to bring up their children the best they can. Many fall way short, but many also do a pretty good (...) (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —John Neal

(...) Hear is the $64,000 question for me: All things being equal, is it more desirable for a child to have both a mother and a father to raise them, and if so, why? I happen to believe it is better, though articulating that belief is difficult to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Ross Crawford

(...) Well that's a different question, and I gave my (also difficult to logically justify) view (URL) elsewhere>. Do you believe every child deserves a mother and father? ROSCO (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Dave Schuler

(...) Although you disclaim honestly that your position is difficult to justify logically, your subsequent statement is still argument by assertion. Let me ask for a little clarification: What do you mean by "all things being equal" in this context? (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Terry Prosper

(...) I think that either combinations are evenly good if the parents are loving and caring. Their sex/color/origin/color of hair/toothpaste they use is irrelevant and not important IMO. I'll grant you that diversity is better, but since we are all (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —Dave Schuler

(...) One issue at a time, John! If would-be polyandrists wish to marry in groups, let them plead their case. At present the issue pertains to two-party contracts. In any case, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why multi-party marriages (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Preaching to the Choir —David Eaton

(...) That's sorta irrelevant-- As I stated elsewhere, yes, I'm all for allowing polygamy, etc (provided some probably some other changes), and all for letting consenting aliens get married if we find any, but that's not the point. The proposed (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)