At 11:16 PM 11/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison
doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says I'm personally opposed to
killing
gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to
make killing gays
On Nov 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
John wrote:
This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of
humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not
like us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity. In
every previous case, we have gone
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First they came for the single moms
and I did not speak out
because I was not a single mom.
Then they came for welfare cheats
and I did not speak out
because I was not on welfare.
Then they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not
On Nov 8, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First they came for the single moms
and I did not speak out
because I was not a single mom.
Then they came for welfare cheats
and I did not speak out
because I was not on welfare.
Then they came for the gays
At 11:02 PM 11/6/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
John wrote:
This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of
humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like
us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every
previous case, we
John wrote:
Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison
doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says I'm personally opposed to
killing
gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to
make killing gays illegal.
I see how you rationalize it John,
be sentience, not any
physical paramaters.
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species
JDG said:
An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to
accept it: How is this position morally different from being
personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against
it but ultimately not standing in the way of it?
Whilst these are not morally different
- Original Message -
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
(Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would
presumably make
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:00:10PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and
1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and
99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now,
which of these (if any) do you
Erik said:
I can see the soul now!
Soul: [Looks at zygote with 1% chimp] Oh, yuck, I'm not going
in there!
Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or
would it? what if there were two classes of people who were
indistinguishable in all ways except that one class
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or
would it?
It seems like a solid problem to me. So...it would sublimate.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
I said:
This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there
are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the
path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is
in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a
viable organism
- Original Message -
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Dan said:
You argue from infintesmals...since one cannot exactly define the
dividing
At 06:30 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or
would it? what if there were two classes of people who were
indistinguishable in all ways except that one class makes the
soulometer beep and the other doesn't?).
Speaking for
At 06:00 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to
accept it: How is this position morally different from being
personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against
it but ultimately not standing in the way of it?
John wrote:
This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of
humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like
us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every
previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make
At 08:30 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
I know what a skilled rhetorician you can be, so I suspect you've
asked your question to make a point :-).
I think the words you are looking for are Socratic dialogue. ;-) (Not
that I'm some Socrates, mind you... just using the same technique of
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: The Magic Ingredient?
And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find
sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror.
I
On Nov 5, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do is get
Roe
vs. Wade overturned. That would give the Democrats an easy way to be
the
majority party again.
As much as I'd like to agree with you on this point, and as much as
I'd like to
- Original Message -
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 5, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do
On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:32 AM, JDG wrote:
I know what a skilled rhetorician you can be, so I suspect you've
asked your question to make a point :-).
I think the words you are looking for are Socratic dialogue. ;-)
(Not
that I'm some Socrates, mind you... just using the same technique of
making
a
On Nov 5, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I feel I need to point out that I'm opposed to abortion and
think it regressive... just as I'm opposed to the death penalty.
Rock on, brother. I admire that principled combination, and find
it odd that there are many other brothers and sisters
At 03:41 PM 11/5/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
I feel I need to point out that I'm opposed to abortion and
think it regressive... just as I'm opposed to the death penalty.
Rock on, brother. I admire that principled combination, and find
it odd that there are many other brothers and sisters
At 10:12 AM 11/5/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find
sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror.
I think that the experience in Iraq has been nothing, if not humbling.
What is worrisome to many of us is that we see no indication of
- Original Message -
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:38 AM
Subject: The Magic Ingredient?
Folks,
The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is
self-righteousness.
Pick a /behavioral/ minority
Dave Land wrote:
The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is self-righteousness.
Nah, it's even simpler than that. Just point out that you're against the two all-time
great objects of Christian fear and
loathing, the twin bogiemen of Sodomites and Saracens, and you're
guaranteed to
On Nov 4, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is
self-righteousness.
Nah, it's even simpler than that. Just point out that you're against
the two all-time great objects of Christian fear and loathing, the
twin bogiemen of Sodomites and
At 06:03 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
The problem is that, despite all the evangelical language that
accompanies the bombast, this line of thinking dethrones God. It
denies the gift of the cross and says that we, not Christ, are the
savior.
So, I guess that we should just close all the
On Nov 4, 2004, at 8:02 PM, JDG wrote:
At 06:03 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
The problem is that, despite all the evangelical language that
accompanies the bombast, this line of thinking dethrones God. It
denies the gift of the cross and says that we, not Christ, are the
savior.
So, I guess
Folks,
The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is
self-righteousness.
Pick a /behavioral/ minority, label them immoral, and whip up the
moral majority with Bible verses that seem to justify their
marginalization.
It fueled the extraordinarily high number of voters citing Moral
31 matches
Mail list logo
