 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com... Kevin, (...) I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order. I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) Jumping in here, I'm not sure I agree with (1) or (2). The human species can be defined by both its shared characteristics (we're clever monkeys that walk around and grab things) and the variety in our population (both genetic and cultural). (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) the (...) You're right that I have a problem with (1). However, even leaving that aside, I see a missing step (or implied assumption) between 2 and 3, which is that procreation is the *only* purpose of sex. If (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes in response to Kevin Wilson: Steve, sorry to interrupt again, but there's a basic assumption of your argument that I totally disagree with. I think your subsequent conclusions are fascinating, but I'm (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5vpnz.Fr8@lugnet.com... Kevin, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to get to all of your posts. You are raising some good issues that I'd like to attempt to tackle. By the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> in message news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com... (...) Dave, Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the discussion. I understand your objection and would say that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
(...) This is all assuming you BELIEVE in "the soul". -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In my last post, news:G5xxB1.3tv@lugnet.com..., I wrote the following: (...) This is also the bridge connecting parents to their children - another aspect of "social relationships". Why do parents raise their children rather than the state? Or, why (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A438E9B.2D4C9A...ape.com... (...) in (...) human (...) What (...) Apparently you don't, Tom? Am I understanding you correctly, or are you just making an observation? Steve (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) My family is going through the stomach flu at the moment - I can feeling it creeping up on me as I type after spending last night cleaning up %$@#$# - so I am going to be dropping out for a while. Back later! (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
