 | | 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)
|
