 | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was off by a bit: "To have a right ... is ... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." And also: "When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Being the relative moralist that I am, I'll push that one step further and say I don't believe there *are* "natural" or "fundamental" rights. It's a moral definition humans create based on an emotional response. Perhaps, however, there are (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was exploring the idea that perhaps the only fundamental right is the right to an impartial "rights based" mediation of disputes. This does suggest why animals then don't specifically have rights since they don't have the capability to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
