|
|
 | | Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
| (...) I want to leave people out of this at least for a bit. While your point is valid, it is not necessarily helping the question get any clearer. Just stick to two different species of bacteria, interacting in a natural environment with no people (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | someone has to say it...
|
| With regards to some of the replys in the "sexism" debate... Do you really think that choosing to raise a family is tatamount to inflicting a prohibitive "medical condition" on ones self? Is a persons only purpose in life to work for a corporate (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I think that the notion of rights is wholly a construct of man. You know you have a right when the other humans around you generally agree that you do and respect that right. The rights of people are not innate and they have been and will (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) No, I wouldn't say it's a directive force. Paraphrasing what you said, the results speak for themselves after the fact. (...) Sloppy, eh? Yeah, I guess it can look that way sometimes. When you say a gene is lost, you mean that it is not passed (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I'm not sure if you meant it this way, or were just going quickly, but I think that sounds like a circular argument and maybe anthropomorphic. "Bad" genes are only defined after the fact because they failed to propogate. It sounds like you are (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
