 | | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) Come on, Larry. Look at it like whoever labeled it spam did: while YOU may have requested it, lugnet.off-topic.debate did NOT request it...you posted it for public consumption unbidden...that's why someone called it spam. That's all (Well, and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
From my usual source, the Libertarian propaganda (NOT spam, mind you, I wanted it sent it to me, and I, as a regular participant of this group, feel it's worthy of discussion, so people who initially label it as spam are rude or clueless, take your (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Sort of, but you seem to keep forcing the choice to be made between only two options in a field of possibilities. (...) Not necessarily wrong, but the attempt is misguided if it seeks to form a hard distinction where none exists. You're (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) That's my view as well-- they've got "rights" but their rights aren't nearly the same set of rights as we ascribe to humans. They're very diminished. (...) I'd say the latter. We have an obligation out of our own moral senses. Without such (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Lacking, in my mind, means that something is able to have - just in a deficient or reduced manner. Unable is just that - without the ablity to have. The ability didn't exist in the first place. Like I said, I can see the distiction. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: . I'm asking Larry where his line is, because I believe his (...) I'd agree that there needs to be a line or gray area or something. I sense I am about to well and thoroughly wrap myself around an axle (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Didn't I explain this before? I'm asking Larry where the line he's imagining is, not saying anything about what I believe with that statement-- And again, *IF* one asserts that animals do *NOT* have rights, *and* that humans *DO*, at some (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I agree that the boundary may not be as sharp as some may prefer. But is there a distinction? That is, are there things that do not have rights, in and of themselves? I'm in the camp that holds that there are. Rocks don't have rights, in and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) This, once again, is the false dichotomy at work. Are you not asking that a line be drawn as a crossroads between sentient and non-sentient (ie: crux)? It was my impression that you'd already agreed no such line could be drawn, even though a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) within any moral framework? Or do you mean to say that we simply don't know if that framework exists or not? If the former, I think your disagreement with Larry is potentially flawed. If the latter, then your agreement with Chris's initial (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Totally not following this. If something is unable, it clearly lacks. In what way is amoral an insufficient category to contain rocks, amoeba, grass and sheep (positing sheep are not self aware)? (...) If there is he hasn't given it. I would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
(...) Fair enough, sorry in turn if I came across a bit strong. In fairness you didn't, I was overreacting. In fact, reading back through various archives (I can't give a very crisp search string but try one with Quixote in it) here will reveal that (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and amoral. Do you believe that things are either moral or immoral (to varying degrees), with no room for an amoral definition? Or is there a fourth definition in there (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
(...) Actually, I didn't generalise at all. I criticized a "few" auctioneers who I have seen in the past rip the pants off of people( not neccesarily lego auctions only here ie. hockey card auctions, hotwheels auctions ). For example, a auctioneer (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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", (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
