 | | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) You do not have to unmake that particular omelette, only share it. Knowing your stance on property rights, I am amazed you are so lax on this{1}. Or is the whole basis of your reality based on an action of "might makes right" - even *if* we (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Disagree that this is an application of such. Let us postulate that I own clear title to a piece of real property for the sake of what follows, to avoid the (legitimate, in my view) questions of was might involved in acquiring title. These (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Really? I'll propose the following: "Might makes right" - Application: killing animals for food - Boundary: - Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions Ex: cows, chickens, fish - Outside bounds: animals are "aware (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) No, because I don't know of *any* boundary conditions where it would hold, contrasted with the many boundary conditions where "don't yell at your kids" is invalid, and the few boundary conditions where "free speech" is invalid. (to your (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Use salt as needed... Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?" You stated previously that we'd be "merely animal" to follow that notion, but maybe you'd now say it's situational? Or were you referring to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
I've read it. You are being your normal obfuscating self. If you can't keep your story straight within a single post, why should we trust anything you say whatsoever across an entire thread or more? (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, for one, I tend to be somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to this kind of thing (philisophical). If I can tell something *does* break in extremes, I can tell it's not "perfect". And sure, that means (for me) that I accept almost (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in message news:GF6uFz.FB4@lugnet.com... (...) going (...) Now that I am on the bleachers: I used to be an active participant in these things, but it got old. Or I got old. Or just grew up a little (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Working the analogy a bit more, Newtonian physics is valid in a certain regime. The "extreme conditions" where it is invalid are outside that regime. Set the boundary conditions correctly and everything's fine. Can we do that here? (I tend to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Hmmm. Maybe. But I'd use the example of Newtonian physics to say even though it doesn't hold in extreme conditions, it's generally "good enough" for everyday life. Maybe that also holds for this situation... ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
