On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:21 PM, JDG wrote:
At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote:
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells]
after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of
this:
1) The [group of
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:43:27 -0400, JDG wrote
At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
You are conflating two separate things:
a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before
acting
and
b) agreement from other nations before acting
Tomayto, tomahto,
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:
RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
You are conflating two separate things:
a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before
acting
and
b) agreement from other nations before acting
Tomayto, tomahto, potayto,
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:11:08 -0400, JDG wrote
The problem, Dave, is that many people in general, and you and Nick
in specific, use the phrase serious consideration of the opinions
of other nations before acting while actually meaning agreement
from other nations before acting.
I'm
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to the song: In attempting to form a
civil response to the
supercilious puffery of our listmate, Let's call
the whole thing off was
about as gentle as I could be. It sure beat the hell
out of sod off, which
suggested itself to me. It was
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:17:00 -0400, JDG wrote
Do you believe that the poor will always be with us?
I believe that there is truth in that sentence. I'm not sure what *you* mean
by it. To me, the verse the poor you will always have with you, means that
we are called as Christians to be with
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:21:00 -0400, JDG wrote
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives?
I know that this is a
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote
The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission
slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions
of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.*
That's the point! Bush was saying that if
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren, that is a good example of the kind of Atheistic thinking that
I respect. It matters little whether one agrees or disagrees about the
specifics; the general idea you propose is one most Christians should
be able to
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm quite sure that you don't know what I actually mean.
I'm quite sure that NOBODY knows what you actually mean. Nobody, not
even Nick. Because it is NONSENSE. Damn that brain-destroying religion!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Honestly, Dave, if supercilious puffery on the list is your problem,
John doesn't appear to be doing it more than, say, you. So maybe if
you
were a little less arrogant and self-righteous he wouldn't seem that
way?
There's a lot of projection
* Gautam Mukunda [Thu, 21/04/2005 at 08:27 -0700]
The amazing thing about this article is how _blatant_
it is.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html
I would say I'm disgusted of Chirac if I weren't allready on the verge of
sickness for so long. Typical of the janus-like
Forward from Brad Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to nitro9, hou-sf-con
Adams has now joined the race with Heinlein, Asimov, and Dick
to see who can spin in their grave the fastest.
http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html
(Review - no spoilers - worse than anyone can imagine bad, links to
snip
Dan:
Frank:
The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
can be stronger than the US, but at present these
nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Jean-Marc Chaton wrote:
* Gautam Mukunda [Thu, 21/04/2005 at 08:27 -0700]
The amazing thing about this article is how _blatant_
it is.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html
I would say I'm disgusted of Chirac if I weren't allready on the verge
of
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
Forward from Brad Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to nitro9, hou-sf-con
Adams has now joined the race with Heinlein, Asimov, and Dick to see
who
can spin in their grave the fastest.
http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html
Review - no spoilers
- Original Message -
From: Frank Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3
What's your perspective on this?
(for the above I relied on
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I think
Iraq was a threat to the security of the United
States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise
doesn't make you right, it just means that you're
unable to understand other people's points of view.
After the years of discussion of this subject on the list,
After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do
not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US.
If you have not done so, you might want to read the Duelfer report
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/. It shows in detail how
it could be both true
At 07:23 PM 19/04/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Why? Morality is not the product of an opinion poll.
Something is either the right thing to do or it is
On 4/26/05, Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:23 PM 19/04/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Why? Morality is not the product of an opinion
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:16:31 -0700, John DeBudge wrote
The short summary
is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as
possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he
could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as
they were so he could
Count Maru wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant
(although they could conceivably suprise someday)
but the Electoral College itself does have some
interesting properties as compared to a straight
majority vote:
From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4461899.stm
(BBC - charming but - Did the script veer too far away from the
source material or tie itself in knots trying to keep faith with it?
Bizarrely, I think the answer is both. Is charming a BBC
Frank Schmidt wrote:
Count Maru wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant
(although they could conceivably suprise someday)
but the Electoral College itself does have some
interesting properties as compared to a straight
majority vote:
From the Archive: Math
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
read it with your own eyes, and not through mine. If you read Dutch
better than English, related sites have it in Dutch. If you do, then
your Dutch must be unbelievably good, but I wouldn't put that past
you. :-)
Right idea, wrong troll. It is
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent
danger of being lifted
If sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted, how did we manage to
start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an
country that has a large amount of US military presence
Large amount? Talked to any military people about this? We are and have
been vastly under-staffed for the job we're
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
You are conflating two separate things:
a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before
acting
and
b) agreement from
At 08:12 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote
The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission
slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions
of his or her parents, the child gets, well,
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to
evade the US in an
country that has a large amount of US military
presence
Large amount? Talked to any military people
about this? We are and have
been
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05m.html
What is the strategic purpose of North Korea's nuclear weapons drive?
Does it want to use them against the United States, South Korea or
other nations? Or is it seeking to sell nuclear material to
terrorists?
If not, is the program aimed
At 09:09 PM Tuesday 4/26/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
This would be addressed by returning to the system where every
representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a
crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?G
IIRC, the figure of 8000+ members of the House I
At 07:53 PM 26/04/05 -0400, Maru wrote:
On 4/26/05, Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Agreed. Further, I think I can describe what it takes, namely an expanding
economy, to keep a population in a mode where it extends human to
all. In stone age times where there was plenty of room to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote
What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral
sanctions on Iraq.
In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could
have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions?
Are you saying that
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:58:51 -0400, JDG wrote
We are spread very, very thin over there.
None of which at all contradicts the term large amount.
Oh for heaven's sake, John. The statement was about being able to find a
fugitive. In that context, we do not have a large number of troops in
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:26:55 -0400, JDG wrote
Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing
against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist
upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
the two combat
veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both
from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the
second) vociferously disagree with me on that.
I'm pretty sure that just about any Marine will tell you that the
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:09:45 -0500, Robert G. Seeberger wrote
Pyongyang says its pursuit of nuclear weapons is defensive to cope
with U.S. reckless moves for military aggression, but analysts
dismiss the claim because if North Korea had no weapons, the United
States would have no reason to
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives?
I know that this is a
At 08:57 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing
against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist
upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions
RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:20 PM, JDG wrote:
But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ...
same old song and dance
I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this:
I. Understand. The. Difference.
Do you believe that:
substantial snippage
Thank you for your answers.
They weren't
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...?
Nick
JDG wrote:
-the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
States constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone
else for that matter
-the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy
From: Nick Arnett
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...?
Its relevant cos it
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:35:02 -0400, JDG wrote
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:31:45 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote
From: Nick Arnett
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I
50 matches
Mail list logo
