 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) *Exactly* my point. The statement "It is not very nice to yell at loved ones" therefore does not hold, because it is untrue in extremes. It does not mean it is *always* *not* "not very nice", but that the statemtent/theory itself is not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I think I see your point, Dave. But I'm sure you'd agree the validity of something (an action or idea) is often situational and cannot be judged/argued if it happens in extremes or abolute vacuum. Nature abhores a vacuum (and a dustbuster as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
(...) You may want to take this thread to off-topic.debate, where it has been discussed before. IMHO it's off topic for general now that you're verging on class warfare. (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No I am not. I am trying to do better at ignoring you, or at least ignoring you when you are at your silliest... What possible value add is there in a comment like "do I use voodoo dolls", I wonder? And I am sure everyone else is wondering it (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Why are you concerned? Do you want to make sure that your name is in the book? I've never met anyone else who can get stuck on such simple things besides you. You ask rhetorical questions and actually expect an answer.... (...) -Duane (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced to guess, as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Yes, I do. However, I do not understand how that answered the question. Were you saying "None of the above"? What were you saying? Should I just infer what you were talking about? I asked for clarification. (...) That is a re-quote, not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I'm glad *you* can understand what "none" means. (...) You are correct, it is not all that clear what I mean (from my perspective). I was agreeing that the lion's view can not be viewed within a moral framework, but I also think they should (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Really? Do you understand what "none" means? (...) Duane, read what I wrote again: "Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in childrens books." (...) fact the lion's. (...) Irony. (...) I can not comapre my (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
Tom, try reading the whole thread before you jump in with your one-liners. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
