 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
So people who smoke crack are bad? Don't you? You act like it. Look, if a person wants to use crack, thats fine. If he can't manage his responsibilities, thats when his crack use becomes less than fine. Thats when he starts breaking laws and (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) HEY. That is totally uncalled for. There's no reason to be calling me names. And it makes me respect you a lot less. But, to answer your question: Althought may I sound flippant, for which I apologize, I'm totally serious. People who smoke (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) Wrong. You are deluded. Crack smokers are not "necessarily" bad parents. Just like social drinkers or pot smokers are not necessarily bad parents. Some people are effected by drugs differently than others. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) "Deluded" is still pretty strong name calling. If this were Usenet, I'd put you in my killfile now. It being LUGnet, I'll see if the social experiment is working. (...) Let me get this 100% clear. You are saying to me: Get real. Not 100% of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) John, can you actually _read_? You sure don't act like it. And then you have the nerve to call others 'imbecile'. Of all things. Cool it or can it. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) What experiment? (...) Thats pretty much what I said. there are much better ways to deal with "the problem" (when it is one) than the current ways. If you don't accept that, we don't need to talk to each (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Making you grow up. I must say I'm getting to be sorely tempted to throw you in the Plink-bin myself. That'd be a first on lugnet for me. (...) Oh, lord. What is it about "Your way of dealing with this is less than ideal" that makes you read (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Okay, lets get very real. (5 URLs) There are, according to the UN, around 150 million children on the streets at present. Or is this reality not the one you like to face, instead embracing the puesdo-reality of a system that is still at this (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
I've been out of it for a little while (I've been home sick, and the threading got too complex for me), but here I am back again... (...) One point of note: none of the societies with large numbers of street children are anywhere near Libertarian, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hope you stay well! (...) Brazil has a massive problem too. I think I'd laid off Libertarianism in this one, and I was focussing on the assertion made that children wouldn't suffer because of life-affirmation, that people wouldn't walk past a (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) of (...) at (...) the (...) rely on (...) Hey man, You don't need to show me that, I have already looked. I try to point out reality to others whenever possible (often to their disdain), and I have shown (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Well, if I'm silly then I may as well enjoy it, big nose! (...) Nope, then the Red Cross wouldn't be able to go into war-zones and treat the sick (which is their mission) as then they would be an army too. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) How many countries have you lived in??? It must be an awful lot to make that assertion. (...) Okay, but the point that I'm making for the third time is that there are homeless children all over America - does that make you less life-affirming, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think this would be a very bad thing for the Red Cross to do. The Red Cross gets a lot of respect because it remains neutral in conflicts. That doesn't mean that other organizations wouldn't do well to do this. Of course current US poilicy (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) life-affirming, or (...) So you admit to lying three times now? (...) of (...) At the moment it is mandatory. (...) if (...) would (...) at (...) I live in a city. You must be right, I am blind, because I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) would (...) Beside the point, really, and I ought to be debugging my example instead of posting, but mostly when I see the homeless, they're adults. They are the deranged, the crackheads and mostly, the winos, mixed in with a few people who (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Um, you know those links that you said that you'd read.. did you really? I don't know how you can deny this fact, but still, you seem willing to deny most things. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Which is good, but doesn't mean that they are not there. (...) As LUGNET is an international forum, that statement is hardly going to go without comment! Best for somethings, not best for others... (...) I'm not arguing (m)any of those points (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Trot them out, then. Or far better, and far far far more relevant, answer the main point, that most (not all!!!) homeless Americans deserve it because of the choices they made. Unlike almost all homeless Ugandans or Tibetians or Kurds or (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) No, I don't think I could agree with that.. but I guess finding someone who has worked with the homeless could provide a more substantial opinion. (...) If I ever figure out all of the details I'll be sure to let you know. Richard (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What a cop out. Why wait? You'll NEVER figure out ALL the details, nor will anyone else. All you can do is set up a system in which there is a clear, and just, way to resolve issues, and rights are protected. That's what Libertarians are (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You're right, I'd actually turned off, and was about sleep when I had these same thoughts - it was a total cop out and I am afraid to air some of my tentative ideas. But I turned on the light an logged back on so that I could, as it's only (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) the (...) of (...) has (...) Don't agree? then why don't you form a "Save the Winos" party? I am in AA (1), and its my first responsibility to stay sober. My utmost responsibility thereafter is to help other (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yep, that was a cop-out pure and simple.. as I've already stated in that thread. Anyway, I have tried to make up for that with (URL), if you'd like to help me pick out the holes in that, then I'd be more than happy to take the heat for a (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) That's it. You've just convinced me to oppose libertarianism in the US with every breath, instead of just opposing it _here_. Think about wqhat you're _saying_, man. Non-initiation of force? Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Larry may not want this, but there are plenty of libertarians who do want exactly that. Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) If you don't look, you won't see them. I've seen homeless children _here_. In the Netherlands. Where there are charities _and_ government-sponsored institutions _galore_ to mtake care of them. Denying reality won't make it go away. Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And your point is? I think you're just proving the contention that no system is perfect. I also have to say that the only "homeless" children I have ever seen in the US have been being served by homeless shelters. I have never seen a child (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) My point is that john is wrong, with corroborating evidence. (...) I spend a lot of time in areas the homeless are likely to hang out. It's called the inner city. Look at the statistics sometime - the US has a bigger problem, on average. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
