Debate : 26147


Off-Topic / Debate / 26147

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) True tolerance entails the recognition that one's own views are not inherently or absolutely correct, but are instead correct for oneself, and perhaps very strongly held. Attendant upon this is the realization that other people's views might (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Lee Meyer

(...) Hi Dave, well I certainly can tell by your views you are a moral relativist from your distorted definition of tolerance. There are absolutes in the world. Moral, logical absolutes. There are universal truths that apply to everyone, across all (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Lee, this is an interesting argument against moral relativism - but I doubt Dave is arguing on behalf of moral relativisim. You have assign this belief to him, and then proceeded to attack that belief, all the while you ignore the discussion (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Lee Meyer

(...) I don't assume anything about Dave - his own statements show he is a moral relativist. Nobody else here apparently has problems calling things as they see them when it goes against their own positions. I'm no different. And I am just about (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) First of all, let me say thank you to Lenny for his (URL) input>. He is quite correct that it is falacious to caricature the position of one's opponent and then attack that position as if it were the real one. That's the classic (URL) Straw (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Lee Meyer

(...) SNIPPED in order to meet post req's (...) SNIP for post req (...) Dave, this discussion is a total joke. You rip me for assuming you're a moral relativist because you don't come out and say you are, and then proceed to use every type of moral (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) I did not rip you. I cautioned you against the use of a Straw Man falacy in misapplying the definition of tolerance, but that's a discussion of rhetoric. If you perceived my addressing of your rhetorical shortcomings as a "rip" on you (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Shouldn't that be "declaimed", and not "disclaimed"? On no! Your entire argument now has now been forfeited! Nyahh. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh. ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) I guess my posts could sometimes be declammed when I've cited too many shellfish. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Clams got legs! Unfortunately, your disclaimed/declaimed/declammed non-sequitor doesn't. Unless I reply like a fool, in which case....oh no.... -->Bruce<-- clamming up... (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) Looks like mollusc has run out. Actually, when I first read your post, I saw "declaimed" as "declammed," so the non-sequitur was borne of a misreading of your sequitur. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I figured as much, which is why I juxtaposed the three of them together so the full irony would be apparent. Of course, if ya gotta explain a joke.... -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) Doh! Next time, try juxtaposing the three of them apart. Maybe I'll get it, then. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Avery Christy

You know, for a time now I have wanted this whole thing to go away and stop appearing on the main news page, for you see, I have a terrible weakness: a great fascination in philosophy. So, this whole discussion was honey to me and I was having a (...) (20 years ago, 18-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) How are we that different? Do we possess any unique basic attributes that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, or do we simply possess a unique combination and degree of shared attributes? Animal research has suggested that we are (...) (20 years ago, 18-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) So the whole can be completely, thoroughly, logically, scientifically explained by the sum of the parts? As in there's no magic at all? If there are systems and components we don't understand scientifically today, there will be a time in the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Ross Crawford

(...) I see that as analogous to believing in an omnipotent God that has all the answers, and decides not to tell you them all just yet. (...) The operative word being "may". I don't happen to believe that everything is or will necessarily be (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) The original poster wanted to know how we (our behavoir) could be more than the sum of our biological parts. I simply pointed out the relevance of such an issue in the context of systems engineering. That itself isn't magic, it is a well-known (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) That's the wrong way to ask the question, IMO. Or at the very least you're setting a task for science that isn't science's responsibility to answer. The more precise phrasing is this: Are there systems and components in nature that cannot be (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke Or something like that. This argument of Dave K's strikes me as a variant of the Designer argument, at least in some ways. (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) Also in Babylon 5 with the Technomages. :) Love that JMS... So my friend and I were talking the other day about Clarke, Asimov, Chalker, Heinlen, etc... Can anyone name a really good science-fiction author that was born, say, after 1960? I (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not without doing some digging(0). Plus it varies according to taste. Lately I like the "killer B's"...(1) they all are within a "few" years of that mark, as compared to the grand masters you name (whether I'd put Chalker up there is a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Larry Pieniazek

(snip) So, further, while I was chasing that question, I thought of another favorite of mine, one who hasn't gotten too much press because he hasn't written a lot, so I thought maybe he's young enough to qualify... Steven Gould. He wrote (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Byron(1). Nice. Dave K 1-Sometimes that disturbs me, that people drop names like that. Here's a writer that probably spent numerous months composing these fantastic poems and I (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —David Koudys

(...) Thanks Larry! I did like the ring series by Chalker (though it was a long long time ago (in my teens) so I may be misremembering...) Thanks for the other info as well--I'll finish 'The Teeth and the Tiger' by Clancy and find some of those (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Kyle McDonald

(...) How about Orson Scott Card. Ender's game, and many other very good (in My opinion anyway) Sci-Fi books. Not too dry, and not too much (but enough) science. -Kyle (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —David Koudys

(...) My friends like him. My only time with OSC was the novel of "The Abyss" (at one time, my favourite movie, and the book is an excellent adaptation thereof) Thanks for advice. Dave K (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Born in 1951, I think.(1) (...) Some people (2) really like him. (3) Some people find him a bit too preachy. ++Lar 1 - so does (URL) - me for instance. I usually have a preachyness detector but his mormonness doesn't come through strongly (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) My son is reading Ender's Game as I type this (page 200). I started after him and zoomed by him to page 273 (just put it down so he could go read it - he has to have it read for school by Sunday). I'd agree with your analysis. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —David Laswell

(...) I tried reading one of the Alvin Maker series a while back, and I just could not get into it at all. Aside from that, the only OSC books I've ever touched were in the Ender series. I wouldn't want to say that he's a good sci-fi author in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Frank Filz

(...) Hmm, I'll have to check this out sometime. I just checked out my favorite SF author, CJ Cherryh, and I didn't find a birth date, but she received some kind of honors in 1960 and a degree in 1964 so clearly she was born before 1960. Another (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ?? —Dan Boger

(...) 1942: (URL) the wikipedia!) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Jules Verne? I heard this really great quote once where Salvador Dali blames Jules Verne for everyone's death - cuz Jules Verne inspired people to develop other types of technology rather than focus solely on medicine - which if we had, we (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Fun with Calendars —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think he meant 1960 C.E., not 1960 by the Assyrian/Babylonian/...brew/Roman calendar or whatever calendar you commies use, Len(in)ny... or is it Le(ninny)?... (...) That would make a great story. Of course stories using JV as a protaganist (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Orion Pobursky

(...) Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age. Both in my top 20) almost meets your requirement (b. October 31, 1959) Greg Egan (b. 1961) seem to be fairly well respected (won a Hugo and John W. Campbell Memorial Award). I haven't read anything (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) He's also written/co-written a couple of novels. The only one I've read to date was Neverwhere (also a TV miniseries in the UK), but. (...) He also drove a lot of adults away from reading the Star Wars novels, largely as a result of the two (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) Whoops, forgot to complete that thought. ...but it didn't really strike me as a great example of his work. The ending kinda rolls out in a largely predictable manner. I'd say the most compelling reason to read it is the unusual array of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) Hmm, C.S. Friedman was born in '57, so she's out. But don't let that stop you from reading her work. (...) And J. Gregory Keyes (now going by Greg Keyes), while an excellent fantasy author, has only written sci-fi for SW:NJO and B5 thus far. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Jennifer Clark

"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I5uC0L.1JF1@lugnet.com... (...) after (...) Greg Egan - born 1961. One of the best IMHO! (URL) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) Evidence and proof are aspects of science. How can one use 'evidence' to show 'something outside of science'? How can one use 'proofs', which support scientific evidence, to 'prove' something unprovable? I agree that we must not stop pursuing (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, if you can't provide me evidence that some supernatural phenomenon exists, then I must ask you how you conclude that the phenomenon exists. Some factor or factors must compel you to reject a natural explanation (or possibility of a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) Evidence is scientific. This is much like talking about colours to a person who has been blind their entire lives--you can get across the 'concept' of colours by talking about blue is running water, and red is heat or flame ('cause a blind (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Kyle McDonald

(...) I can state my opinion that it will emphatically. Yes. I think that the evidence of science's track record of constantly growing, and growing at pretty much an ever increasing speed, predicts (and predictions [or guesses] are all we can make (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My response to that has been(1), and continues to be, "so what?". If I can't taste it, and it can't taste me, what does it matter? I'm happy without. If you want to believe in pink elephants that's fine with me. Further, if the Elephantians (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) ***snip*** (...) Nice! I haven't heard that joke in quite a while, and it always gives me a giggle. Dave! (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) First of all, we Merkans don't take kindly to that Frenchy "u" in color. And we don't want no horse doovers, neither. Secondly, I can't see air, but I can discern the effect of air upon objects. Therefore I am able to draw conclusions about (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) Eh, I thought I'd add a particular flavour to my otherwise colourless rant. If you want me to do you a favour by dropping the u's out of color, I'll do so. (...) We can set up scientific experiments, observe, and hypothesize, and come up with (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) That's actually from ST6: The Undiscovered Country, which I just recently caught on TV. I can't remember which scene specifically it's from, but I think it was the dinner shared by the Enterprise crew and the Klingons. (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) Correct! The line came from the daughter of the Klingon Chancellor in resonse to Chekov's ham-handed attempt at diplomacy. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) Like those posters in the t-shirt shop--"everything I needed to know about life I learned from Star Trek..." Here's something I gleaned from IMDB.com the other day-- the "Guess who's coming to dinner" line was suppose to be spoken by Uhura. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) Well, in his defense, he was liberally lubricated with a certain illegal Romulan paint-stripper. That stuff can't be good for your brain cells, especially not after you've had some vile space-bug in there chewing on the wiring. (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water? —David Koudys

(...) D'oh! Wasn't paying attention--was thinking TUC, but somehow TVH was stuck in my mind... Why was that? There be whales here??? Maybe it was more of the computer asking Spock, "How do you feel?" :) Dave K (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) That's true, if viewed in a certain light. Murder is always wrong, but societies define "murder" according to their own sense of morality. Many people would consider executing criminals to be murder. Texans do not. Many people would consider (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Many people view atheism as a belief system rather than a religion. Your points still stand, nonetheless, but I did want to point it out. I'll go farther, and state that I feel that people who consistently call atheism a religion are, in my (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) What is a religion, if not a "belief system"? Just because atheism is not an organized religion doesn't mean it's not a religion at all. (...) You must have missed my lengthy discussion with Mr. Schuler regarding the fundamental differences (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions. (...) Nor does it necessarily mean that it is. (...) No, I didn't miss it, I just wasn't convinced. My take then was that you were arguing by assertion. I'll take this (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It is entirely dependent on approach. I've seen atheists who approach it as a religion, and others that do not. Generally, the more strident and absolutist an atheist is, the more it approaches a religion. The more dispassionate and scientific (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) ...until it becomes agnosticism, the only true non-religion. The fundamental difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheism, like all religions, makes firm dogmatic claims regarding the existence of a supernatural being and the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Orion Pobursky

(...) Actually you're confusing terms here. Agnostics believe that the existance of God is "inherently unknowable" whereas (most) atheists believe that God's existance is "unproven". There is a relativly small faction of atheists (known as hard (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You summed up what I would have responded with very succinctly, Orion. I agree with you assessment of atheists, and proper definition of agnostics. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I do too. It might make sense to keep it bookmarked! (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) And, of course, I had to look further into it and find all the variations on a theme just to argue against myself (see immediately preceeding post on scroll). -->B<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Saw that, well done. Advantage of arguing against yourself... You always win. Disadvantage of arguing against yourself... You always lose, too. (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want people to vote for you in an election, you don't want to undercut yourself. If you are merely looking for enlightenment and better understanding then it is best to test yourself a (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) I could say the same: A-gnostic: without knowledge of god(s) A-theist: without belief in god(s) (...) Those are essentially different ways of saying the same thing. Anything that can serve as proof for the one group should serve equally well (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Some quotes from Wikipedia that may be illuminating (or confusing depending on if you can keep track of it all): Some atheists distinguish between two variants: Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the standpoint that there is no reason to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell

(...) Those definitions stray from Huxley's (URL) original definition> (no offense intended to atheists or agnostics by the domain, but it was the most complete Huxley quote I could find), as he considered himself to be neither a theist nor an (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm a little confused since the definitions you choose to quote above have utterly nothing to do with the link you provide. That is talking about his intellectual approach and not atheism at all, except in the most passing manner possible. (...) (20 years ago, 17-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) Dictionary.com gives a serviceable definition of (URL) religion,> a definition with which I find myself in general agreement. In casual parlance I would pare it down a little further to say that religion entails the worship of and/or positive (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler

(...) The problem you're citing is basically one of semantics, so I don't think it's a good refutation of Lee's posited mathematical absolute. Whether you refer to "four" as 10 or IV or cuatro or 4, the underlying numeric principle is the same, and (...) (20 years ago, 18-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)