 | | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) While I agree that that *is* true in practice, the reason *behind* those social taboos *is* a moral reason, I think. So while it actually does violate *both* our morality *and* a social taboo, the actual reason behind it is purely moral, I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Just as a quick note, I'm not sure I've given such a definition, other than by example ("I know it when I see it", or so I think). I'm open to someone trying to give one, I suspect it's a thorny problem. (the circular definition "you're self (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I disagree. But I understand your point. Although the Cambridge link works for me, we can use your dictionary (above). It is not that your rock is "Lacking{1} moral sensibility" it is simply *unable* to have moral sensibility. The distinction (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Aha... now we've reached a potential crux. What do and do not have rights? Does a dog? How about a baby? Does a retarded human? Cro-magnon man? (...) Alright, I guess I'd dispute this, but only insofar as I think animals have rights. I just (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) As far as I know, pigs are not self aware either. The only animals I know of that have been "scientifically" classified as self-aware are humans, dolphins and a couple species of great ape. Is there a correlation between intelligence and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) The cambridge link didn't work for me. When I went here: (URL) got these: 1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong. Seems to me that "moral", (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I was asked if I thought A, B or C was true. I said "none". It is that simple. (...) I thought that, that is why I said "You are missing the point". :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) What don't you understand? And how did "none" answer the question? I'm still confused Scott. Am I to infer your meaning? I've asked several times now for clarification and you have not even tried. (...) That's probably because I can't tell (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this: (URL) view that as being negative. (...) Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) My voodoo doll comment was a jest - I hope you did not take it serious? But I did view yoru original comment as a little ominous. A little Coercive. A little paranoid. I find it stranger that you are not willing to explain it a little – (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Because I find his comments very odd. No big deal. (...) You have never "met" me. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Tom, I can't remember the last time I read a constructive post from you in this group. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) The fact we do eat cows, chickens & fish and not humans, dolphins & chimps is more to do with social taboos that it is our morals. A dog is no more self aware than a cow in my opinion - but I don't see them on the menu (near me). Pigs are one (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
(...) You and Bryan aren't necessarily the only participants (...) Making sweeping generalisations about people who sell things, for example. I'm a person who uses his international contacts/connections and credit line to buy in large quantity items (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Are Newtonian physics really valid? Is it not just that the errors are so small we can live with them? Scott A (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) You need to be clearer then. (...) I have answered this already. (...) You are missing the point. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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. (24 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 (...) (24 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 (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Shock : Larry does not want me to! (...) Just what am I dodging? (...) And there are those were you are just plain unwilling to justify yourself – do you deny that? (...) hmm "gut feeling". If your view is just a "gut feeling", perhaps you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Not willing to answer? Scott A (24 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) No. An ability determines the claim to a right. Back up a few decades for a moment... it would be pure foolishness for me to claim the right of flight as I do not have the ability to fly...now, return to the present... I still do not have the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So inferring ones own morals on others is conceited, but inferring "your society's" is not? Why not? (...) So soceity is conceited? If not, why not? If inferring an individual's morals on another is conceited, why is inferring a society's (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
