 | | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I never said they *must* emerge in their "fully developed" state-- only that they must, at some point, be considered "self-aware" at some *point*. And again, that's only assuming that at one point they *DON'T* exist AT ALL, and at another (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) I think that the government *does* need to step in in cases of public interest and libel. Otherwise, if you don't like what you are reading - stop reading. On the other hand, those are both restrictions, so obviously I feel that governmental (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: - snip - (...) First of all, I would not define "class warfare" in this way. To me, "class warfare" sounds like a fight between the "have"s and the "have-not"s. Calling this discussion "class warfare" (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What is spam? (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) People initiate topics all the time. Initiating a topic is, by nature, unbidden, except perhaps in the larger context of the events of the day raising awareness. So, then, any topic that is initiated by anyone can then be labeled spam by any (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) This, coming from you, is beyond laughable. You are the biggest contributor of useless noise to this group of anyone I've seen to date. (...) <ScottA> What's the matter? Not going to answer? Why not, afraid to? </ScottA> (...) -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (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)
|
