 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Here is my take on the subject: From my dictionary here at work "Right (noun) - Something due to a person or governmental body by law." There are other definitions, but I feel that this one is the most relevant to the discussion. By this (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, yes and no. If you know or can establish that the person you are debating has a fundamentally different view of a basic principle, and has a track record of never changing their mind, it may be that the "best" you can do is get that (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Perpetuating folly is a flaw in anyone who does it, including me. When you and Scott go at it, you are equally at fault in perpetuating the folly of arguing with someone that has given you no cause to believe they will ever see reason (as you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I'd go farther than speculating, I'd assert it, unless someone can prove that some specific animals do reason morally, in which case I'd consider that we might want to consider them as "human" rather than "merely" animal. (a tangential SF (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Dave.I think this pretty beautifully illustrates the fundamental difference between Scott and myself, and between our debating styles. (charitably extending the term in one case) And it may illustrate why it irks me greatly when people (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Hah! Beautiful work, Dave! (...) Yes, Dave is right-- it seems evident here, Scott. I know you guys always disagree and you'll never convince each other to see an issue the same way so just agree to disagree. The world does not revolve around (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Paid Time Off & Paid Flex Time -Duane <snip> (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Yeah, it's too bad people choose dishonesty. It's their honor I guess and it will catch up to them sooner or later. I love watching "Dateline" or "20/20" when they catch people in insurance scams. A guy has "back problems" from a work related (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I would speculate, along with Larry, that animals do not have a system of rights in the same form as humans do. But I don't think we invented the condition of rights as much as they revealed themselves to us through nature. Do you think this (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
I'm very confused. Chris: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott, please clarify. What *is* your position? Or is it merely whatever Larry is *not*? (...) Do you not do the same? Don't I? Doesn't Larry? Don't all morally conscious (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) A little of both dishonesty, laziness, and subconsious bias. And certain people would abuse it more than others, I think-- and of course SOME people abusing it leads to more, when their abuse becomes apparent. And SOME become offended. Etc. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) 1st off, just to get it out of the way, what's PTO/PFT? Anyway, you sound like you're saying *equal* charity for *all*, yes? But that really doesn't follow from my own assumptions of what charity is-- charity being that which is selfless, and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) My aim was to show how western morels have treated these two so differently. One is bought by the west so he can go on trial for murder, the other is given ~3.5 billion dollars in aid per year so that he may continue to murder. At the same (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth. (...) You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are the role model they should aspire (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) What is you point? (...) To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything. (...) Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass? Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun? (...) Same as what? The same as you? Do you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) To what end? Your implication seems to be simply that there are bad people. But we all know that. The discussion of what a 'right' actually is, has nothing to do (in my mind, at least) with whether or not certain people respect rights, or even (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it has a choice? (...) Dead animals don’t run away. Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns. (...) You may be right. I am no expert. (...) The problem with (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It sounds like you're were going somewhere good and have given up Larry. I assume (hope!) your goal in all this was not to get to the point where you could just tell folks that they don't understand rights. I think there must be common (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing *immoral* about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force. (...) If you initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book. (...) See above. ++Lar (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) fact (...) whoever (...) Your emoticon implies that you're kidding. I'm not. I think your statement cuts right to the hear of what our rights actually are. But the difference I was pointing to is that we don't invest rights in certain classes (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Disagree. Nothing makes 'right.' Might makes reality. (...) Additionally, they can choose to be immoral, which I'm wonder if people in this thread are forgetting is not the same as amoral. (...) I think there is. Neither the lion nor the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) that (...) But you could argue that rights we've given to ourselves are just privileges that we all happen to agree on. Based mostly on the fact that we'll sue whoever disagrees. 8?) (...) I think "rights" has no real meaning or usefulness (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) This is an interesting point. Maybe the things that animals do resemble our rights cloely enough that we could sometimes call them rights. The dominant chicken (almost always a rooster, if one is present) does have the right to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its might – it is its natural right to do so. A lion will kill its prey as quickly and cleanly as it can – it does not pump it full of antibiotics and growth hormones first. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) But nature allows killing for the sake of survival. I have no problem taking the life of any human being who is trying to take my life or my wife's or child, and I have no problem being absolutely brutal in doing so if it means survival. If (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread my posts then. What I am arguing for is justice for ALL, which would negate the need to even consider charity. If everyone had equal PTO/PFT, regardless of the reason, this debate wouldn't even have had a reason to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Evidence? (...) Again, do you have evidence that other animals *can't* choose? (...) We may be higher on the sliding "moral" scale than most animals, but I don't agree that all other animals are at the bottom (ie totally amoral). I think (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) <snipped some intersting stuff> (...) Right! People have different ideas of what is most important in their lives, and life in general. For some people it's their family, others their friends, some people are just plain hedonistic and live for (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Unless you are amoral, the fact that you can kill someone does not mean, in and of itself, that you have the RIGHT to do so. It merely means that you have the ability to do so. Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So be it then, Dan. Clearly your idea of rights is far different from mine, and I will indeed take your statements about rights with a grain of salt since your definition, from my perspective, is flawed. ++Lar (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: [snip] (...) Like so many other political & corporate policies.... ROSCO (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Potentially being one of the subjects of this post (?) I'd like to make a distinction here-- I think the first time I was forced to realize it was reading Emanuel Levinas-- the distinction between the morals of charity and justice. Justice is (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and assuming we are still (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) They both equal natural "rights" to try to thrive and succeed. If both are in competition, the one that can reproduce more or faster, or finds a niche in a specific environment, may be the one who survives longer. Look at "Africanized" honey (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
<snipped your statement> Well said, Kirby! Thanks. Dan (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" given to those higher up (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Can you give an example here? I think it's rather cold and callous to talk about unlimited rights to reproduce without regard to the fact that it's not practically possible to allow such rights to exist, nad that you're setting false (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. I agree that rights aren't "what you are capable of enforcing". That's too amoral. Rights derive from fundamentals about people (and other reasoning moral beings should some be constructed or discovered in (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
