Debate : 7757


Off-Topic / Debate / 7757

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) All right, all right. What I was getting at is that The Big Bang doesn't imply any supernatural intervention, and as such it is by definition theoretically accessible under physical theories (even if they haven't been formulated yet). At no (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) HA HA That's why it's a theory - once it's gets more evidence they'll refine the theory yet again. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to prove the theory which is what science drives for. That is, without a supernatural force entering into (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) I suppose you're testing me with this false statement, since as a physicist you surely know that the greatest strength of science is precisely its ability to grow as understanding grows, rather than stagnate on centuries of dogma; if it were (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Richard Marchetti

(...) I know Jon can speak for himself, but just to clarify things -- I think Jon is alluding to the idea of the "prime mover" or "first cause." No one knows what the first cause of the universe was or is. Science, on this count as well as others, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) I disagree with that, but not too sharply. Science is not a matter of faith at all, since it is at its essence a system seeking to verify itself through observation rather than saying "it is that way because it is that way, end of story." (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) Hey Dave!-- I just thought of a question to which I would like to hear your response: What do you think about scientists who believe in God? Does believing in something unprovable put into question their worthiness as scientists? Or is there (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek

I ain't Dave! (...) I think Dave! answered it already when he said they were different realms. I think no more or less of a scientist because of his non scientific beliefs, unless he indulges in Jon Kozan's fallacy of letting faith pollute his (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) Lar was already kind enough to answer before I had a chance to respond, and he summed it up pretty nicely for me (thanks, Lar!) I'll elaborate just so I'm not guilty of a "me too" post. Many scientists certainly do believe in a god or ultimate (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is inconsistent, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) Which atheists are you referring to? Certainly not me, since I've never demanded any proof of God's existence. I *have* demanded proof of miracles such as prophecies, because these are terrestrial in effect, and therefore part of the natural (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically; I was querying the atheists in the crowd who do this:-) (...) Then you agree that it is inconsistent to do this? (...) Ah, but who does? (...) Really? But at least they are credible witnesses in the eyes (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh. That makes sense, then. I thought you were directing it just at me, but I see what you mean. (...) Absolutely (which I almost spelled "absoulutlely" which would have been a cool pun). That's what I've maintained all along, that science has (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl

(...) Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's nonexistence in order to not belive in him? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) Come again? I'm saying it is inconsistent to expect proof of God's existence when that is by definition not possible. Science and religion are separate realms, so don't hold one up to the other as a test of its validity. -John (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Don't you get it? (...) Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening? That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) It is you, sir, who hasn't been listening. (...) NEVER ASKED YOU TO BELIEVE ONCE. Go back and check. (...) Okay, here is my point (again). If I turned water in wine right in front of your eyes, what I am hearing you say is that you wouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) In a way, it's because time itself doesn't really exist "at the beginning." All the rules are off before, I believe, the first microsecond after the bang or poof or whatever-- our understanding of things Science can only take us so far, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Dave! already answered this quite well (thanks, Dave!) but I want to elaborate/restate a bit in hopes that if the christians understand this point they will cease and desist in their hijacking of every topic that comes along. Let us be clear (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) Had to stick that in there, eh? For what reason would you give that the existence of God is implausible? (...) Fair enough. But if I'm asking you to consider something which by definition can't be scrutinized by the scientific method, and you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl

(...) You know no better than Larry. I seriously doubt God (IF he exists) tapped you on the shoulder and told you exactly what he requires. You are going by what an old BOOK says (a book that is VERY old, and conflicts internally quite a bit), a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal

(...) I think He (Jesus) made it perfectly clear as recorded in the Gospels. (...) I never said that. It is more right for me (obviously, because otherwise I'd believe the one which I felt most valid). (...) Hmm. Works in advertising.... -John (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl

(...) The Bible was written BY MEN. I refuse to believe that your God would have tapped people on the shoulder 2K years ago, and NO other time in history. Do you believe EVERYTHING written by men? Doubtful. So why believe something written by many (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Peter White

(...) Every belief system is man-made, so it surprises me that the followers of any system can believe one is more valid than another. Maybe the Christian god is off setting up franchises on the other side of the universe. Weren't the gospels (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) Larry - your vehemous defence of asking to be left alone is admirable indeed. And you are certainly correct in that you are facing the consequences of your actions - I will actually support your doing so. But I would ask you this - If you knew (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Vehement. So leave me alone already. This forum is not the time and not the place to prosetylise, a point you seem to be having difficulty grasping, and this thread was not started to discuss religion, so you're hijacking it. Knock it off. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Vemon (was: critical thinking) —Jon Kozan

(...) Actually, here I was mixing vehement and vemonous. :-) (...) Odd - no one bothered you to reply, yet you did. So who's leaving who alone? I actually like talking about what interests me - I though you did too. I didn't hijack the thread (that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl

(...) And THIS is where you should have ended the reply... (...) This makes me sick to my stomach, and furious, and I'm sure there are Christians who would agree with me. Shoving YOUR religion down someone else's throat when they don't want it is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) I merely pointed out why people do what they do. I can't believe that by sharing motivations that I'm proselytizing. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. And, I, in no way, am telling someone even "how to" be a Christian. Help me out, how (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Peter White

(...) Maybe you should stick to hanging about school crossings or drug rehab clinics. So non-believers are comparable to the drug-addicted and the immature, that's a fairly biased analogy. What if we compared Christians to schizophrenics, who hear (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) Simply because I draw metaphors, doesn't mean I find them comparable. Easy there. I'm drawing motivational analogies, not making comparisons. -Jon (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —David Low

(...) If someone has a completely adequate understanding of theology, and remains agnostic or atheist, IMHO it is pointless to continually badger them about the reality of God. Ultimately belief relies on faith, an irrational attribute that should (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) That's precisely the position I'm arguing against. Faith is not a blind irrational element. Faith is based on the seen and experienced. If I have confidence in an object - say a chair - to support my weight, I have faith in it. The faith is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —David Low

(...) I disagree. Faith, for me, is a subjective experience that only really makes sense to the individual. An individual's faith may be based in religious tradition or a community of worship, but ultimately belief depends on the individual. Unless (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) I DON'T - Don't let him force you in to his inconsistant "proof" requirements. See 7864... (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existance isn't possible, because His existance isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existence isn't possible, because His existence isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, that's an easy one. Einstein's dead, so I have to go with J2. However, were Einstein alive, I'd expect he wouldn't be 8wide infected and therefore I'd go with Einstein. <grins, ducks and runs> ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) They most certainly do, although it's nice to see that you're answering your own questions... I sense that you are edging closer to God. -Jon (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler

(...) Huh? "They most certainly do" what? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. (...) Oh, ye of little faith. Dave! (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) Fit in one another's realm -Jon (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —David Low

(...) Doesn't this depend on what you mean by "fit"? You can consider science and religion (or even the universe and God) to be like yin and yang, intertwined but clearly separable. Or you can think that science and religion are like colours of the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan

(...) A suppose this is a slight against religion - stagnation from dogma? If so, I should point out that religion (Christianity at least) hasn't stagnated at all... (...) A bald claim at best - a false statement in reality. (...) No, not really. I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Religion and Science —Dave Schuler

(...) Not intended against religion, though I'm intrigued that you read it that way. I was referring more to adherence to rote, like obeying the teachings of Aristotle in science without examining and verifying them. (...) That doesn't seem very (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Jon Kozan

(...) I didn't say change with the times - rather that it doesn't stagnate. I guess you could define stagnation as you will, but there are many levels of learnign and debate within the Protestant and Catholic (to name but 2) parts of Christianity (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Science is not in the business of proving anything. Proof is not a stage in the scientific life cycle. Scientists don't even believe in proof. Proof isn't what we're looking for. Increasing evidence and plausibility are the goals. This may (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) All the religious relics of the middle-ages. Eastern Orthodoxism. Protestantism. Reformation. Warrior knights. Pacifists. Rise and disappearance of saints. Mary cults. Seems to change a lot. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —John Neal

(...) And yet, Bruce, if I said to you "there is a God who exists as revealed by Jesus of Nazareth", what would be your first response? Maybe you'd say, "that's nice for you, now run along and play" (oops, that's what *Lar* would say). But what if (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Jesus of (...) for (...) I (...) would (...) What (...) it (...) You weren't asking me, but this is a great question. I think direct observation of a miraculous occurance that I couldn't explain in any other way more easily would cause me to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I suppose the turnabout is fair, so I'll ask it: What evidence, if witnessed by or expressed to you (the 'you' being a believing Christian), would lead you to conclude that Christianity is incorrect, and that there is in fact no God (or at (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'd ask what's more important, the message or the messanger? Is it the message that Jesus of Nazereth brought that is important, or who you claim him to be? Is the message only of importance because of who it is from, or because there is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —John Neal

(...) Yes;-) The message is most important, because it finally reveals God's true nature. And although the following may sound circular, I think it makes sense. What makes Jesus so special and that He alone has the final revelation from God? The (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Tom Stangl

You're missing a point here - WHO SAYS Jesus was God Incarnate. Why, you do, and the Bible (a conflicting, HUMAN AUTHORED document). Why do you believe the Bible is the True Word, and others are not? Other beliefs have been around FAR longer than (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Okay, but that other guy over there claims that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu (Christianity has such a hard time of explaining Christ is a manifestation/incarnation of God and Hinduism has little problem with the same concept) which is pretty (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —John Neal

(...) Well, being God and man at the same time is quite a trick;-) Fully human, fully divine. As for Hinduism, don't know anything about it. (...) I don't have the answer to that. And I will be the first to say that God is probably bigger than (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I surmised as much. So you can't answer the question - which is okay, since I already figured that out. Hopefully you now understand that, too (i.e. you are proceeding on faith alone). (...) Then why are you claiming here that God is provable? (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Ack, "Muhammadism" is a lousy term. It's a coinage of 18/19th-C. Orientalism, designed to denigrate Islam by reducing it to its Prophet. Muslims don't believe Muhammad was a (er, the) deity. They *do* deny Jesus's inherent divinity, but not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Busted! Yeah, I know better. Just running off at the keyboard with those pre-programmed terms. I'll also vary between Mahomet, Mohamad, Mohammad and other variations if you look close. (...) Jesus is a prophet of God, just not the most (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Slow motion thought. I had to dredge back in my memory to come up with Ahura-Mazda for Zoroastrianism, and that it dances the line on monotheism. Found the following: "Ahura Mazda is not the only god in the universe of Zoroastrianism, and he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Selçuk Göre

(...) You are mostly true here. Islam accepts Jesus (Isa) and Moses (Musa) as prophets of the god, just like many others (I think 24-25 of them are mentioned in Koran by name, including Adam/Adem Solomon/Süleyman, Simon/Ismail, Abraham/Ibrahim, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Moses is Musa? That explains the name of the great king of Mali (Mansa Musa). Hadn't known about that connection before! Thanks too for the "whole universe" cite--that's a bit that I didn't know either. (An excellent way to anticipate (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Kevin Wilson

John Neal wrote in message <3A2DE97F.D6DE09@uswest.net>... (...) on their own. Why not, John? Most of the time, most of us can tell what's the right thing to do, and many of us do the right thing most of the time. Probably just as much of the time (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Steve Thomas

Kevin, (...) I think we use terms like "a good and moral life" in different senses. When Christians say that atheists, agnostics, or people from other world religions lead "good, moral lives," they are speaking with reference to humanity as a whole (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Kevin Wilson

Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) couple (...) disagreement. The widest gulf is in sexual "morals". The requirement to get married in order to have sex, for example, is one that many people nowadays don't subscribe to. Various Christian sects (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Dave Low

(...) I wonder about this -- maybe there are good sociological/behavioral reasons for 1+1 couples making better families (still a hot topic in Utah as far as I know). What type of marriage has been more common around the world, couples or multiple (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Dave Low

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low posts before he's finished, the idiot: (...) This is not to say that well-adjusted people couldn't and don't live happily as a single person or in open relationships (or as a triple or quadruple (or sextuple cf (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Kevin Wilson

Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) happily (...) (or (...) Exactly Dave. Polyamory is something suited to some people, certainly not all, probably not most: but most people never even consider it because it's outside the social norm. No family (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Dave Low

(...) Although I can imagine it would make life hard for the government! "Are you single or married? If married, to how many people of which genders?" Kevin, do you think polyamory (where did you find that expression, btw?) works better for (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Dave Low wrote in message ... (...) Heheh. Might move them towards treating everyone the same, single or married! (...) There's a whole polyamory subculture. Try doing a Google search, there should be plenty of hits. I first came across the term (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I wonder how much of our societal unacceptance of polyamory is based on the desire for control? It would be harder for the government to keep track of stuff, but so the hell what? But for those who think that kind of control is good, I can see (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) This is pretty typical of the crap that polyamorists spew in an attempt to make themselves seem enlightened. First of all, what state is forcing morality on anyone? As far as I know, in most state adultery isn't even illegal. Many religions (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) never (...) Why do you think it's important to look for one person who does fill all ones needs, Eric? Do you think it's likely that one would find such a person? ALL needs? Your use of the term "copping out" seems (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) That's great for both of you. I note with interest that you snipped away the part where I said I didn't see anything wrong with dating multiple people, as long as *all* people involved in *all* the relationships are aware of what's going on. I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) I suppose it really depends on how you let the other person view the relationship. (...) I'd choose the one who needed me most. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) That's an easy answer, but I'm not so sure it would be a comfort to the person who needed you greatly but, in your opinion, not as much as the other person. Or, worse yet, felt they needed you more, but you disagreed. eric (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Life is full of such decisions. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) to (...) the (...) as (...) what's (...) I snipped it away because in spite of what it said, your use of the term "copping out" seemed to me to show that you *did* see something wrong with it. You didn't answer my (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) As I said to someone else, I'm not going to get bogged down in a semantic argument. (...) This: "Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my needs, and I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Bull. Committing to multiple people requires MORE trust between all involved, and can involve more commitment, as you are going against "the norm" in your daily life. (...) And why do you seem to think polyamory would only involve romantic (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Really? How? I see it as hedging your bets, leaving yourself an out. (...) Don't confuse commitment to what you're doing to commitment to a person. Once again, if you are dividing yourself between X and Y (not to mention possibly seeking Z) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) I think the divorce statistics in the US prove that monogamists leave themselves an out quite often. (...) It can also involve FAMILIAL love, which you seem to push as the sticking point for the cases of "people in need". (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) my (...) to (...) Too much snippage. The entire paragraph you're quoting from contained questions just before your quote: (...) I'm still interested in your answers. (...) that (...) that (...) logic, (...) A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Ah. I assumed they were somewhat rhetorical at best- at worst, they have nothing to do with the question at hand. But here are my answers: (...) Who said I thought it was important? I never said that I thought it was important or necessary to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As deep as any relationship can be. That's like asking how much can you love your mother if you're having to think about loving your father. Love is not finite. You don't have 100 points of love to spread around and so the more people you have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) No, not really. When you're committed to one other person, no part of your brain is seeking another person, or giving attention to another person you're already seeing. (...) No, they're thought experiments. Yours apparently failed. (...) Not (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

Eric, from this an another note of yours, it is clear that I approached this conversation with the wrong tone. I will seek to be more neutral herein. (...) What about your friends? Can you have friends that supply you with forms of entertainment (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Yes, but it doesn't mean I have romantic feelings for them. I am capable of caring for someone without wanting to <thinks of a Lugnet-acceptable term> get it on with them. (...) Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness doesn't require (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Then they are no worse off than if they were in a monogamous relationship? Seems to me you proved polyamory is the better choice here - no more negatives than monogamous, yet the possibility for more positives. (...) You can't fit ANY one (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Have you really thought that through? Person A has to choose between being with Person B and Person C. He chooses to be with B. C now has no one to be with, despite being in a "committed" relationship. I don't see how a person in a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person D (or E/F/G/etc) also. (...) You haven't thought about what I've been saying, obviously. (...) Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) You missed my point, and it's my fault. Person A is in a relationship with both persons B and C. B and C both want A to do something, and A cannot do both (what those things are doesn't matter). A is forced to choose, merely by dint of being (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Yet you continue to ignore the fact that polyamory or polygamy CAN result in familial love (multiple children from mixed "couples"), so it does have bearing. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —James Brown

(...) (not interested in the debate, just forgot to add .debate back into my skip filter, and this caught my eye) If this is your argument against polyamory, then it's also your arguement against any kind of familial relationship. Person A = parent (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In the consulting racket, that's what we call a "drive by"... "I'm not interested in your discussion but I did have to put this one point in, and now I'm ignoring you again so don't bother trying to refute it as I won't see it" (overstated for (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) That is pretty much what you have said to me a few times. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —James Brown

(...) Yup, you're right. My bad. Doesn't make my point any less valid, though. I'll stick around like a good little boy, to see if anyone wants to refute it, or debate it. James (BTW, that looked a lot like a snipe, Lar. Albiet a friendly one. :) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, I think I agree with you on this. Life is a series of choices. The question that has bearing may be whether polyamory tends to give you richer choices or tends to make you make harder compromises. That would be a metric I'd judge it by, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think the general truth is probably that it does both. You have open a richer body of choices and experiences, but you do also lose some things. That may include tougher compromises. Many were discussed, but they were hypothetical. The (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) want (...) all (...) want to (...) you (...) that? This is a real issue, and different groups of people resolve it differently. Poly groups are not all the same, there are a lot of different structures developed by (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Yes, I know. Hinge, triangle, primary/secondary, etc (those are the only ones everyone seemed able to agree on). (...) Right. But my point stands- you're forced to make a choice that you would not be forced to make if you were committed to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Dave Schuler

(...) Out of curiosity, Kevin, do you think it's impossible to find such a person? Or, conversely, do you think it's possible to find any combination of people to meet ALL of one's needs? Is it even necessary that ALL needs be met? I'm not blasting (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) I don't like to say impossible... but certainly improbable. A combination of people is more likely. But in fact I think you're right that ALL needs should not be expected to be met - apart from anything else, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that the reason we surround ourselves with social relationships of various kinds is to satisfy needs. (Needs in the soft sense, really more appropriately called desires.) I agree with Kevin that it is highly unlikely that anyone ever (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Not to put too fine a point on it, Chris, but given the above, isn't your accusing me of having an attitude, and asking who the hell I think I am to make judgements, and calling my use of the term "copping out" a bad thing just a little, tiny, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) make (...) Um...No. I don't even see the link. Are you reacting to the word foolish? How would you feel if I replaced the word foolish with 'probably a bad idea' or 'needless'? Chris (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Really? You don't see the link between asking what place of mine it is to judge another person's relationship choices, and then saying that seeking a monogamous relationship is "foolish" (or below, "needless", or "probably a bad" idea? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Um, EVERY US state? Polygamy is illegal, so there are many rights you lose by having an "under the books" polygamous marriage (try visiting a 2nd wife/husband in the ICU. Try asking for property from a death if you aren't specifically listed (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) So? Legal marriage is a mass of pitfalls, anyway. For example: (...) Although this is outside the question at hand, I certainly agree with this sentiment. But it illustrates my point as well, legal marriage is a fairly narrow band. And (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

Well you can't prove the positive either, so keep an open mind on it. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) a (...) state (...) make (...) The only problem that I see with this explanation is that it's made up. I mean, I think it is. At best it's conjecture. (...) Ummm...all of them. I assume that you mean state as in national government, not states (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) I'm sure. You're right, in most states they are. When was the last time anyone was convicted of them, though? When was the last time someone was *arrested* for them? (...) Given the state of politics in this country, it's pretty clearly not in (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Happens all the time, as do convictions. They just don't make the news much. Read Playboy (I do. Hell yes I look at the pictures, but there's a lot of good reading there!), they bring up the ridiculous nature of some of these morality laws all (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Really? Then it shouldn't be much work for you to actually answer my question and point to a case where someone was arrested and convicted of one of these acts (and NOT for prostitution). (...) Yes, stupid blue laws still on the books can be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) They're not amusing when you are the one being prosecuted. Many of the stories in there aren't "look at this stupid law noone enforces", they are "I can't believe they ARE enforcing this law on Mr/Mrs. X". (...) I married one. If polygamy were (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) So, as I said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to whip out a Playboy and cite a case example. (...) OK, so you married one. What was keeping you from carrying on a relationship with both after that? What was keeping you from marrying neither (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Except that I have NO idea where they are - they're buried in with millions of car mags. I don't put them on an altar or anything. (...) Good question. At the time, personal choice. I grew away from the other woman. I can tell you that IF (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Heh! No, I wasn't suggesting that you did. But still, saying "there have been cases! Really!" Doesn't cut it. Or, to put it another way, "I read in the Boston Globe once that a guy got arrested for painting his house green! He was convicted (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) The latter. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) These aren't EXACTLY on track, but they're close, and both of these things happened in West Michigan and both are pretty well documented in media archives. I am working from memory so may not have all the facts 100% straight. - A teacher was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Provide a cite Larry - it would help make your point credible. (...) Are you saying the board had a right to sack him as he was gay? That is your usual line of argument is it not? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, here you go: for the details of Gerry Crane and how he was hounded to death for being gay, try going to Yahoo and using the search string "Byron Center Gay" This article from Time is from the beginning of Gerry's ordeal: (URL) the details (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) It is the exact opposite. (...) Usually, you tell me that they should be able to. Usually you say such institutions will discover such actions are bad - and the market should decide. I'll ask you again, do you think any school, public or (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) Scott, why do you waste everyone's time with totally useless questions? This is plowed ground IN THE ACTUAL POST. Larry stated quite clearly his position. I don't see how much clearer it can be, and if you can't see the answer, you really (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:3A3BB6C5.A05F09...faq.com... (...) is your (...) more (...) able (...) including (...) way. (...) position. I (...) really (...) to explain (...) already done (...) It is also not clear (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

Scott: (...) You really are a bit dense sometimes, Scott... Quoting myself in the *very paragraph* you're supposedly "responding" to.. (...) Is that so hard to understand? In shorter sentences: Public (government funded) no. Private yes. Like I've (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5oq6B.9Hv@lugnet.com... (...) more (...) able (...) including (...) including (...) in (...) governments. Why? Why should public/private be different? Do they not operate in the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you can't grasp the distinction here, there's not much hope (...) Nope. (...) Nope. Government, in view of its great competitive advantage (it *makes* the rules) must be tightly constrained. (...) Yes, but in cases where there is a public X (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

You are wasting my time Larry. Go back and reply to my full text - do not conveniently delete text to suite _your_ point. This discussion is about a point I raised - do me the decency of answering it, rather than raising issues of your own - or (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) When a state says that a contract between a man and a woman has more standing or more importance, that is, that it is recognised as a special kind of contract, when compared to a contract between a man and a man or a man and two women (like i (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) State? I think you mean society. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Frank Filz

(...) No, I'm sure he means State/Government. If you distil "society" (as you're referring to it here) down, it amounts to two forces: - market (in that if "society" frowns upon certain activities, there will be influence on cost/benefit analysis (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Well, in the society I am part of polyamory and polygamy are not socially acceptable. Scott A (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And your point is what, exactly? (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) <larry snipped the rest of the text which explained the point I made - funny that> (...) My point is clear - nobody is forcing anyone to believe that polyamory and polygamy is not socially acceptable - the society I live has decided is not, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) You say "government" like it were an entity which just appeared after some sort of a coup. Here in the UK, the government exists "create an open and inclusive society, where rights are balanced with responsibilities, and where every citizen (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

Plowed ground alert. (...) For now. Subject to whim reversal, of course, since you have no mandated and irrevocable protections of your rights (neither do we, but ours are a bit harder to water down since they are in the Constitution, and the ones (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own. It is true, I don't have the right to carry a gun to church - but I don't want it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Provide a cite please. That is, show how your set of rights are *harder to change* than ours, not that they currently give you more or less freedom. (1) That's the point I'm making, which you missed. 1 - they give you less, regardless of what (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) My point is "ploughed ground" Larry. (...) It takes >1 to debate Larry. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Funny, I don't recall you answering this question before. I *do* recall you dodging it, though... Provide a cite to where you provided a cite, then... ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5oqA2.9qK@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) freedom. (1) (...) you (...) I'm not going to do your homework for you again. If you are interested in my point - go find it. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an incorrect usage. The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers subject to votes of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com... (...) my (...) usage. Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate. (...) fiat (...) Not my point Larry. However, you are still wrong. Much (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Which you never did answer, really. A one line answer was all that was required, but after about 5 tries, I finally dragged out of you that you're some kind of Civil, but not what kind. See, when I refuse to do homework for you, it's avoiding (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) To have this charge come from you, the premier time waster of the entire .debate group, as everyone knows, is so laughable as to be beneath any further response. (...) We've had this discussion before, I am not going to reply to every snipe (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

<topped> (...) <tailed> Indeed. If you can not answer my points... there is no point. If you ever manage to get a response together, I'll re-enter this discussion with you. If you need me to explain myself further, perhaps I can draw you a picture - (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) When you actually manage to coherently make a point that hasn't already been answered in depth, do let us all know, won't you? I won't be holding my breath. All the points I could glean from your ramblings have been answered. Pity you can't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) OK Larry. I'll play your game again. Let's revist this message: (URL) this text: =+= The point I was making about rights concerned political freedoms. For example - here in the UK one could always choose to be, say, a communist. Can you say (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not going to play yours though, or at least I'm going to try very hard not to. Too disruptive. If someone else wants to try, they are free to give it a go if they like, but I see it as a waste of effort. Me, I've got better uses for my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) OK. That is, I think, the 3rd time you have abjectly failed to answer that point. I would have thought more of you if you had just not replied - rather than adopt this "holier than thou" attitude. I can't say I'm surprised though. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I haven't failed to answer your point, I merely refuse to play your game. Think about the difference. (...) By the way, in order for me to be concerned about what a person thinks of me (in a particular area), I have to have respect for that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

respect... (was Re: Polyamory) —Scott Arthur

True to form Larry, you have resorted to personal insults. I think one of your countrymen once said: "When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself." I largely agree with that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post. They already know this stuff. Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin

(...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) As he enjoys playing to the crowd. (...) I _feel_ the contrary. I have promised many times to leave LP alone - if he does the same with me. However, I feel he just can't resist taking a shot at me. Look at this thread – the message he just (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Dave Schuler

(...) Is it necessary to make this a conditional promise? Can't each involved party rise to the moral high ground and ignore the other? (...) That comes from driving on the wrong side of the road and using that crazy metric system of yours. 8^) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Call it MAD (mutually assured destruction). (...) Ah Dave – very topical. Thirt years on, some of us Brits have still not went metric: Grocer trial told of 'metric threat' (URL) the US, you have your gun debate – we have this! Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) After Scott beat me up for not answering it. Not just once or twice, either. Make up your mind, Scott, did you want it answered or not? ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) What are your thoughts on this? Are you willing to set aside your snide remarks? (...) Larry, It goes without saying that there many questions which on which I’d like to hear you opinions. Such as: (URL) I re-stated again the question to you (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Wrong again. See: (URL) (...) Very interesting, but none of that answered my point: "In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own" I note that I was talking about actuality - not theory. But, again, you chose to squirm. Despite that, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm genuinely flattered that you think that. However it's not true. It only takes one good debater (someone who knows how to think critically and who doesn't just *snipe*) to debate me, not an entire team. Perhaps you're starting to feel (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. I wrote state because I meant state. Societies can't express preferences. Members of societes can (forcibly) *impose* their preferences on other members, through the mechanics of the state, but the society as a whole cannot have a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) I think they can. (...) I accept that the majority in a society can implement change - we call it democracy. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You're not paying attention, Scott. The very next paragraph explains why a society cannot express a preference. The majority of members can hold a preference and can use the organs of the state to impose their view, but a society, since it is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur

(...) Does a society not express a preference in a referendum? (...) I think you are putting words in my mouth Larry - and they are all the wrong ones. (...) I feel a little sorry for you Larry. You sound so bitter at what you feel your fellow man (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl

(...) While it may work better for "bent" (non-straight, bent, same derision implied) people, polyamory certainly doesn't exclude "straight" people. Men sharing women while the women share men CAN work (not that I've tried it, but I wouldn't exclude (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson

Tom Stangl wrote in message <3A38F3DE.3C147982@n...pe.com>... (...) implied) (...) Not at all, and I hope I didn't imply that exclusion. Many poly people are het... just a majority of the ones I know identify themselves as bi. Kevin (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why do you say probably not most? (...) Right. I'm sure that if you polled people, you would find that right now they believed that such a lifestyle is not for them. But I wonder if they're just wrong because we're conditioned to only accept (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Kevin Wilson

Christopher Weeks wrote in message ... (...) I was thinking of people-as-we-are-now, not people-as-we-might-possibly-be :-) Rightnow, almost everyone is brought up on the ideal of monogamy (eg all the teenage angst material about "my best friend (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't think so. I think that it's pretty clear that the model that is less popular in North America now than it once was, with grandparents hanging around helping is superior to the two-parent-and-2.3-kids model. In general, larger natural (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Dave Low

(...) This makes sense, but I'm not sure the grandparents/coparents analogy holds. Note: this is all off the top of my head, feel free to throw in some real data. Grandparents are an inevitability (if they're still around when the third generation (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Polyamory (was: Religion and Science) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, I think the role of grandparents in that family model is certainly different than the role of extra 'parents,' but I'm not sure that the difference is important. At least not to my point, which is that more adults is more of a buffer for (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religion and Science —Steve Thomas

Kevin, I responded to your post above in a new thread (something more appropriate than "Religion and Science") called "Christian morality". Thanks and take care, Steve (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)