 | | Re: The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
(...) That wasn't Todd's intent, read the intro post he made that shows the charter. You are more than welcome not to participate. It would be too bad if you didn't, unlike some current participants we'd be better off without, but there is no one (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Long as its a 12 long technic axle so it can bend a bit.... 8?) (...) I think this is all consistent with my (current) view that we don't have any "fundamental" rights. They're all derived from our (collective) experience over the ages of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) I think I am defining that line of mine a little better. If there is questionable material on TV (which I feel there is), I don't watch it. If there are other people who feel as I do, ratings will drop. With dropping ratings, advertisers will (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
(...) Man, you're just lookin' for a debate (any debate!) today, aren't ya'? 8?D I know I'll likley break my own word at some time in the future, and probably get lambasted then for doing so, but here goes: <way too rightous for my own good> I read (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) Yuck. The only checks on the media should be free market and property rights. (...) Protection against libel is a property right. (...) Things like autopsy photos should be adequately protected by property rights. The family most certainly has (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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" (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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, (...) (23 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 (...) (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)
|
