 | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Dave, (...) Well, whatever form it may be, it is still the same. My point is that whether you talk about providing health care, being prevented from having health care, etc., someone still has to pay for it. Whether that be the government, or (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Bzzt. Scott "loses" the debate, he mentioned Nazis first. Darn, he was doing so well, too. <grin> (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Scott: (...) D'oh! I forgot to address that! With "not being prevented from obtaining health care" I was trying to avoid implying that "the people" should pick up the bill. My oversight! (...) Well, the easiest criticism against this is that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) The amazing thing is that they were foresighted enough to understand this, and left the constitution as a relatively small framework, and even gave the ability to modify that. The government we have today, for better or worse, is a result of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You still haven't shown that they are still completely relevant. Past successes do not equal future successes. See stockmarket. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) No he didn't. Godwin specifically refers to calling contributors in the thread nazis/nazilike, not to just mentioning them. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Oh, but it's long been extended beyond that. I'd agree with larry; any mention of nazis is grounds for losing. Check out the jargon file entry: Godwin's Law -- [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Nope. And your own citation disproves it. (...) Comparison != mention. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party)
|
|
(...) Using an example/hyperbole involving the Nazis probably counts though. (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party)
|
|
(...) Consider this; perhaps it will help placate the pendant in you: the Nazi-thread-death convention is not Godwin's Law, merely derived from it. And as a tradition, it's often been that bringing Nazis into your argument in any way is grounds for (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party)
|
|
(...) Some claim so. I disagree. Sometimes I'm a pedant. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party)
|
|
(...) <pedant>pedant</pedant> (...) I know. That corollary is mentioned in several places, though, and in its original form, and almost all others, refers only to Godwin's Law -Strict. (...) Often, yes, majority, no. Not that this is an issue for (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
