 | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | (...) Good isn't objective. What we, society as a whole, consider to be "good" is both up for debate in certain areas (I'm specifically _not_ going to mention ab*rti*n here), and it is no more valid than the ideas of other societies, other than (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Well, that's my point. I'm saying that good is beyond what the particular fancy of a given society says it is. We are not the author of good, we are the seekers of it (hopefully). (...) We'll soon see about that;-) (...) All of these (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) Which means that there is no meaningful definition of good at all. That's not very useful either. (...) <antagonist>Drat. It was a dud. Well, I'll try again in 100 years. </antagonist> (...) If God is good, why has he never deigned to touch (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38850a4f.919486838@...et.com>... (...) fancy of a (...) seekers of it (...) I take back what I said. I think Larry could tell you his objective definition of good, which I agree with. I will try myself. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You need some qualifiers, or you'd better drop dead now in order to avoid your immune system killing any bacteria, yourself from swallowing one-celled creatures and eating and drinking, and to provide a fertile bredding ground for maggots and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389ab7c6.963900110@...et.com>... (...) Life-affirming (...) Search this group for 22/7 - read some of my earliest posts, then follow the thread if you wish. (...) and (...) OK, what if you were a dinosaur? I don't (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, at least an all encompassing definition of good. It is not something that can be comprehended in its entirety-- it is a continuous learning process. (...) Sorry if some things aren't easily understood-- that's just the way it is, baby. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:09:41 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote: BTW, Neal, your line lengths could use some work. 72-75 is a good value. (...) Oh, I don't really care about how easy it is. I have my own morality, and it mostly coincides with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sure it isn't you? I'm set to "wrap at 72" for new posts. But it could be my NS Comm is damaged. (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Netscape Communicator has a whole host af well-known "issues" in this regard. Bottom line is, unfortunately, that it's impossible to _always_ get it to do things the right way. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Agreed. I am and have always been set to wrap at 72. Now, if I could rap at 72 I'd be a happy camper;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | No, you wrap fine from what I can see. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | | All's well here as well. I think the blame lies with an incompatible reader ;-) Mine are set at 76, is that OK with everybody? Tom Stangl wrote in message <386F0784.8CF5B770@n...pe.com>... (...) -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Larry's hasn't been wrong yet, but the post I was responding to, John Neal's (URL) , apeared for example the following lines: (...) Which are 90 characters long, slightly over 80. This is as I mentioned a known bug with Communicator -- (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A post of yours chastised me for my line lengths, I believe. I chose to respond to one and only one of your chastisements, and it was whim that made me respond to this one rather than that one. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b16b.962273428@...et.com>... (...) Don't we all. (...) Wrong. You can learn from arguing, I have. (...) I am not a Bible-beater, I am not a Christian, but the Bible was written by men for men. There is much good (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) Medical virgin birth is quite easy, but I won't go into the details here ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Two words: Turkey Baster. No, seriously, you're right - what might be known as Extremely Heavy Petting has resulted in the occasional (but rather rare) virgin pregnancy. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but any history account from those times isn't error free. Historians back then were not objective reporters like the press is today.........Okay, I'm back, I just laughed myself silly;-) (...) The Bible is not a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal and others write: (...) One thing that's always bothered me about the dying-on-the-cross thing is the question of how could He have done otherwise? I mean, if He knew, as I suspect He must have known, that His (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <387ab92e.833168838@...et.com>... (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) I think you are just plain wrong. Some societies flourish while others perish because they have a better (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Until we have a planetary wide homogeneous society, Good Societies will ALMOST NEVER flourish longterm over bad, as history has proven. They may last a while, but sooner or later a "bad" society (more warlike) stomps on them. -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | Tom Stangl wrote in message <386EFFA9.A7755EDC@n...pe.com>... (...) who (...) for (...) others (...) I (...) ALMOST (...) while, (...) I remember a country named Germany that did that, and stomp they did, but didn't good prevail? Maybe I am wrong, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
