 | | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah- I would are *similarly*. I.E. that a line *does* exist yet is next to impossible to find accurately. (...) Neither do I really-- that's why I said it only works if you define it differently. I really rather like the hot/cold example better (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see. That's what I get for jumping in mid-stride. I was approaching the issue as if you were espousing your own view, rather than pointing out the implications of an opposing view. Oops. (...) I would sum up by saying that it is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) My intent is to spark interesting discussion, nothing more. I am not the only person who posts cites or excerpts from various places, although my frequency may be a bit higher than some. I would welcome others posting interesting discussion (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
Larry, I really would like to know what your intent is of continiously posting material from the Libertarian party? Are you hoping to "convert" people into Libertarians? That seems to be the general impression I am getting. Offhand, I cannot think (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes: <snip> (...) You've got a point, but it's not directed at the right group. *All* the off-topic groups are meant to discuss *non*-lego things, which is why (well... sorta (1)) they are on the default (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 – (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Well, I'm an athiest, so I just internally translate anything to do with God into a similar sentence something like "my belief". So god-given rights would become something like "the rights I believe in" (roughly speaking). I think athiests (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) How well do humans understand morality? I doubt animals would have the same idea of morality as humans, heck even different humans have different ideas... (...) Type "pit bull attack" into your favourite search engine. Do these animals know (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Before someone points out my error, I'll just correct myself here. It can be argued, and come to think of it, I think *should* be argued that self-consciousness *is* the prerequisite (sp?) of which I was speaking-- I merely was assuming a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I whole-heartedly agree. However, in order to argue that animals do *NOT* have it and that humans *DO*, something must be different. But I don't argue that. Accepting the premise that animals *DON'T*, I hold that at some *point*, morality (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) You're creating a false dichotomy between a la "it must happen at specific point X, or else it cannot happen at all." This is simply untrue. I would assert that, far from occuring at a single, threshhold point, morality is a system of values (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) The question is, what constitutes proof of morality? Prove to me that *you* have a concept of morality. Perhaps morality itself is instinctive, even? Once you can draw the hard line between instinct and intelligence you've made a tremendous (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) <snipped some stuff here and there> (...) Same could be asked about women with motherhood (motherly instincts). How much is learned, how much is hard wired? Most people disagree but I really believe that people are hard wired with so many more (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Why? He's done it before. Why enable him dodging a simple yes no question by urging him to indulge himself rather than urging a straight answer? Besides, I freely admit that I don't always have all the answers nor do I always answer every (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: My reload button
|
|
(...) LOL! I'm with you on this one Chris. -Duane (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My reload button
|
|
Sometimes when I'm actively reading off-topic.debate, I just leave a browser window up and periodically go back and reload the page to see if anything new has been posted. If I'm actively involved in one or more threads, the name of the reload (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I wasn't actually saying I do or don't-- I was just asking to try and probe Scott a little further. Socratic method, I guess... I'm not really exploring and/or defending my own standpoint with Scott yet-- I'm trying to figure out where he (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I for one would actually like to see you do that. Demonstrate away.... (...) Speaking of language, could you try re-stating that again? That is a very difficult sentence to read - and I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. (...) Leave it (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Ah, excellent. But then see below. (...) (URL) for those (like me) who hate to follow links: Scott: (...) Chris: (...) Scott: (...) So, in that case, perhaps I should ask this: Were you wrong to agree? Or were to agreeing with something else? (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) First, you still haven't clarified what you were agreeing to above. Second, by saying that animals ar not moral, immoral or amoral you do not add to the discussion by not stating what you beleive. I interpret your stance as either 1)animals (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Larry, At this point I am tempted to dig up all the old posts you have not answered - where the questions were *very* direct. All those ones were you were unable to justify yourself. Unable to back you own argument. Unable to show us your (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in childrens books. (...) I can't find the post you refer to. (...) No, inferring ones own morals on others is. If an individual makes a donation to a charity they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Good restatement. Good luck getting a straight answer though. I agree that we ought not to infer or impute human characteristics of animals unless they are demonstrably present. That's why I think of animals as amoral, because I tend to (with (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what infering our morals on them really means, but I do agree that we are anthropocentric in our judgement of other critters. But I'm not sure a) that this is a bad thing, or b) that it is possible to get away from. How would we (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No no, your position on whether animals are moral/immoral OR amoral. Do you think they are moral/immoral or amoral? If your position is in fact the one above then you wouldn't be allowing yourself to even HAVE an opinion on the issue, and yet (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think that until we have clear evidence that animals understand morality, we have to assume that they probably don't. Even if an animal does lots of nice things, I wouldn't call it moral unless it had the ability to decide to do not-nice (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
I'm responding to various layers here...not just Frank. (...) hits. (...) It seems that your observation of an animal acting on what I think could be explained through instinct and self-interest has lead you to assign morality. I'm not convinced. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) So you really do believe that ability == right. Why even use the word right instead of ability? Ability has no confusing connotations to other members of society, after all. (...) This I won't buy. I just zipped over to dictionary.com to show (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) My wife (who was on the pill the entire time I knew her, prior to our attempt at pregnancy) suffered very slight physical discomfort from her cycle. However, when she was premenstrual, she was quite simply irrational and agressive. (Of course, (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
At this moment I am drinking Mountain Dew; Code Red. I have the ability to drink it and have chosen to do so. The right to drink it is mine, I have given this right to myself. If, this afternoon, I were to learn that the governments of the world (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) OK, they were your points - I stand corrected. BTW : the questions you posed did remind me of an American stereotype we often see here. What I mean are those who say that they have "god given" rights. I always think that, in an agnostic (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I don't see this as a case of avoiding the point. I don't see any point in Lar (or anyone) rushing to answer these questions - I don't feel they have any real answer, they're kinda rhetorical, intended to get people to think about where rights (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is might right, or just a reality? (Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) This is a very interesting point. I think most of us would say that might is not right. However, although he may just be talking about animals, Chrisis right when he says "Might makes reality". In most of our day-to-day lives might does win (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) If you mean you avoid the point(1), and I don't - I agree. (...) This sounds almost threatening. You must be pretty thin skinned Larry. Do you keep a little black book of all of those who "no longer have standing" with you, or do you use (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) This is how I feel thus it is true to me. I think the fundemental condition of "right" already existed in nature, as nature is our inspiration for nearly everything else-- art, music, even science. Our arts often try to capture that essence (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) *Little* problems? Ho ho ho... I dunno, I wouldn't call them that little. <only half tongue in cheek here> I know this varies, but some people I know, me included, have a lot more than just a "little" problem with the period. And I dislike the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
