|
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) Bruce, I agree with your take on why the laws were placed. However, I do think that a conspiracy evolved. Law enforcement's most important lobby is the continuation of the War On Drugs. Not because it's the right thing but because if we quit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|  
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| [snip] (...) Well it can be proven that Bruce is innocent of the charge. While there is no proof that a *insert magic cure of your choice* works, there is also no proof that it does NOT work. I agree that it is a stupid technicallity but that is the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) I was only speaking from a hypothetical standpoint and not voicing my own opinion. My viewpoint is the same as yours, but from the Catholic standpoint, you just commited a sin (the thought is the same as the action), so what does that imply? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Idunno - as I said, that's their problem to wrestle with (I am not a literalist). I'm tempted to say the problem is one of their own making, but I am hardly enough of a Bible scholar to actually say that with any certainty. I don't know of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) And I never once said that you were. But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) It is neither here nor there. If there is a gay gene, I don't see what the Bible has to do with it. That is a problem for the literalists to wrestle with. (...) No, not at all, except that you seem to interpret the possiblity of a gay gene (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| (...) I'll need to see that evidence before I can believe you, and it would need to be pretty convincing! 8^) (...) Yeah, that does stink. I think, though, that tests for validity *do* exist, such that an alleged (IE: Fraudulent) "psychic" could (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| Lately I've seen a bunch of commercials for pseudoscientific "health" products, such as magnetic insoles, ionic bracelets, and electro-stimulating gut reducers. In general, these products have been shown to have no beneficial medical effect, yet the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) A number of people duplicated the results by following the same method as the original claimants - but basically those were non-critical attempts (the methods themselves were not initially questioned). I asked my father-in-law at the time why (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Allegedly two studies duplicated the original results (one currently unpublished). Another did not produce the same results. The sample size was small in all cases - I wouldn't take claims either way as conclusive. (...) What does this have to (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Gotta agree with Chris - the desperation seems a bit more on the other side. (...) A propensity for "gayness" may be in someone's gene, it may not. I don't discount it, but I don't accept it out of hand, either. I've been more of the opinion (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) Perhaps the problem is that the news networks’ balance sheet has some protection from the "cyclical" economy due to the war on terror? ;) I've just completed reading MM's now dated "Studpid White Men". If half of what he has to say about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.367)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.366)
|
|
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Spectacular sentence construction there! That's what you get for writing half a sentence and then coming back to it a half hour later to 'wrap it up'. I think folks can read (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.364)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I will assume you read that reply. SNIP (...) I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them in the heaven stage that isn't really described in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.363)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Bzzt!!!!! (1) Darn. You were winning, too. It's a darn shame. Well, at least the thread is over, anyway. 1 - half in jest, we subscribe to Godwin's law here: (URL) (2) ... or at least we say we do because it's fun... 2 - not the only Jargon (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.363)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Nah, I won't take offense. I try not to let anything said in o-t-debate get to me-- it takes all the fun out of it :) (...) No, I don't believe in him, but for the sake of the argument at hand, I'm taking it as a given. Well, ok, that's not (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.362)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am skipping over a long argument (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.362)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.362)
|
