 | | Is this sexism?
|
|
I'll try not to make this a long ramble, but a short and to-the-point suggestion, and a few questions. I think that companies should give women a day (possibly two) sick days off per month to deal with the physical symptoms of their menstrual cycle. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well, depends how you define sexist, I guess :) Does it make sense? Sure. Is the impulse for you to suggest such a thing solely based on the fact that you personally (and women in general) would "benefit" from it (actually, as you implied, it (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
This is a non-issue if we pay workers for the work they do - not the time they spend at work. If we don't do this (it is not always possible), but give women 10% of the time off work, then it makes employers (esp. small ones) less likely to employ (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) It certainly provides extra benefit to one sex (or both, if men get paid more because of it). Is that bad? I guess I think it's not ideal. (...) I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that men and women think (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) My opinion on this issue is similar to mine on other issues regarding the personal goings-on of one's life (e.g., what kind of substances one uses, whether a person feels it's time to leave this earth, what one does with one's own reproductive (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Right. (...) Hmm - yeah, many people seem to notice that. A lot of people mention how women seem to able to handle five conversations at once, while men have a hard time with two. Of course that's a broad generalization, but it's one example (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah, and it has seemed to me that when discussing how to solve some problem or social dilema, women are more likely to answer practically and men are more likely to answer with idealistic answers. And men and women tend to have different (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Are you suggesting that this time be in addition to any other sick time or PTO time? If you consider that a womans cycle is typically 28 days, this will occur 12.7 times a year, so lets round to 13 (1). This would result in 26 days off a year, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I strongly agree about this point of view. I can see that this kind of privilege to women will reduce their employment, which is the real discrimination. I know this will be the situation in my country at least. You may also (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Hear Hear. My theory is that this is the way that a LOT of (most?) people actually feel. Despite that we have a lot of government meddling anyway. <snipped the rest because I agree with it too> (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
I would consider it sexist. I have no problem with giving the time off, but to be fair you'd have to give men the same time off. There are all sorts of physical ailments that people have that require time off, and most companies don't give paid time (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) How do you feel about maternity leave? Sexist? Should the husband get the same time off as the woman? Should they be paid? And yes, I do know some companies DO allow men to get time off. But it's certainly a lot more rare. I guess my point is (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Wow, both Larry AND Selçuk agree with something I said in debate (oh happy day!). Magi (who generally posts here with fear and trepidation because of the mental energy expenditure involved in trying to defend oneself once one's views have been (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <grinning> Well, it must really be your lucky day! I agree too. I don't think the government should regulate this either. It was made as a suggestion for private companies to decide for themselves - with the explanation of why it may be worth (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, yes, and no. This should really be in a separate thread, but... Women usually CHOOSE to get pregnant. I don't think they should get PAID time off for a medical condition they CHOSE to have. I also don't think parents should get paid Flex (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I dunno-- it may still be relevant... see below... (...) So, if they DON'T choose it, is it sexist/unfair to give women paid time off? Likewise, couldn't a woman choose to take the pill to at least lessen the effects of PMS? Or, embarking into (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Generally, I would say that this is the case, but not always. I'll leave that to another thread. (...) I don't necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. How about LASIK or other elective surgeries? As far as I know most people (at (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) PAID time off? If you don't also give Paternity leave, yes, it is. And that still makes it unfair to those that choose not to have kids. (...) Yes, it would be a choice, assuming that miracle pill had zero side effects for anyone. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) As I said in another post, though, whether they choose to GET pregnant isn't quite relevant. Whether they choose to STAY pregnant is their choice. (...) Lasik isn't relevant, really. I had it done, and was watching TV that night (I drove (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Shiri, When you return to Israel, will you not have to serve in the military? Do they take your monthly cycle into consideration when they order you to fall in? As far as companies are concerned, you may be able to have a few options. Lots of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Not touching that one... That's a whole other heat wave. (...) My point was that it's an *elective* surgery. Pregnancy is generally an elective condition. Should people who choose to have an elective health-related procedure done be entitled (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, I CHOSE to get pregnant - twice. I have an angelic son, and a beautiful baby daughter. I also discussed with my husband -before we were married- how *not* to get pregnant when we were finished with that phase of our lives. I can't take (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Tell me about it ;-) (...) Sure - IF it's part of the base PTO that EVERYONE in the company gets, not some "extra" PTO that only some people get. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support | Netscape Communications Corp | A division (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Uh oh-- I better jump in and clarify. That sounded bad on my part. (...) I guess where I was going with that wasn't to suggest that having PMS *was* a choice-- I don't think it is. It was to say if it *were* a choice, would it be treated (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Alright-- I'll ask a little more directly: what does the act of choosing have to do with it? Should those who *didn't* choose to have kids have negative reprecussions? Should those that *did* have negative repercussions? Should those negative (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Okay - point taken - sorry to jump down your throat. (...) embolism - not using the spell-check (...) Snip (...) Haha - yeah, I could tell... ;) (...) How about the guy who works his tail off 50+ a week to support his family? Does he deserve (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well-- my point would be that the guy who works 50+ hours a week to support his family "deserves" (in a purely philosophically 'fair' world) exactly the same amount as the guy who works 50+ hours a week just to be rich. The fact that he's (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I've been reading the main drift of this somewhat bemusedly... Strikes me that most sorts of jobs are such that pay ought to be based on contributed value, not on mere hours worked and especially not on need (except for second order effects (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) (not picking on Dave E per se, he's asking good questions) Why isn't this a matter for employers to choose? In an ideal world, shouldn't employers be able to decide they want their company to be family friendly and offer a palette of benefits (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think that would be what I'd suggest. It's up to the company to decide whether or not to undertake such a policy. If they pull it off, great! But my personal guess is that any company that tries it is liable to get a mouthful of abuse with (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Because certain jobs *do* require specific days to be worked, and are paid hourly. Mine isn't. If my company instigated that policy among my department (other departments like support, where you have to *be* there wouldn't be covered under (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snip> (...) Well of course! IMHO, other than the common law prohibitions we've had all along there isn't much of *anything* that makes a good choice for government legislation. :-) But the usual (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Agreed. Night watchmen sort of have to watch at night, and Sunday School teachers sort of have to teach on Sundays. :-) (...) Truck factor 2!!! That company is asking for trouble. :-) She needs to ask for a big raise at the same time her co (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah-- their company has... issues. Their turnover rate is silly. Someone came into her department on their first day of work. The next day she called in to quit. Now *that's* turnover! Suffice to say my friend's looking for new work, and the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) But isn't that a grey area, Tom? How do you prove if it was a choice or not to get pregnant, yet alone a choice or not to even have sex? I think it would be hard to prove and/or a waste of time and money even trying. I say give women the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread, where I state that choosing to BECOME pregnant isn't really the issue anyways. Choosing to STAY pregnant is (and I think that choice is solely up to the woman). (...) Sure, give them the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Two questions-- 1st off, what if the woman can't abort? What if it's either against the law in her state/country, or it's against her religion or something? But that presupposes the *real* question at hand, that I think I posted elsewhere but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Still her choice - travel to a different state (I'm mainly talking the US here, obviously). (...) STILL HER CHOICE - she chose that religion, or chooses to stay in it. (...) When have I said they deserve more for not having kids? I'm for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I understood your point perfectly the first time. My concern is the attitude about staying pregnant. I think if a woman has to face loss of pay and possible loss of her job if she chooses to have a child then our society has some serious moral (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) You didn't. I didn't say you did. However. You keep stating what seems to be an exception clause that it has to do with choice, when in fact, I think you don't mean that: "they CHOSE to have kids, and rewarding them for it/punishing others for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Extremely, or I wouldn't be there. I could take a higher paying job elsewhere, but I LIKE my job, and that is very important to me. You don't find very many people that stick in Tech Support for 5 years before burning out. Whether you like (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
Dan: I know you hate it when I quote you out of context but I was just wondering, can you elaborate more on whether a person has a "right to reproduce"? That is, do people have the right to have kids no matter what, or are there preconditions that (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Wow those are long lines. OK, Tom. I personally have been in jobs that I hated and jobs that I liked. This may be quibbling with words but I don't see benefits or the lack of them as "punishment". Punishment is typically something meted out to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
Speaking strictly in a biological sense, all living beings have the natural right of reproduction. The presence of sex organs and sex hormones is proof enough that organisms are here to thrive and repopulate. Reproduction is a natural, hard-wired (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I guess we just have different views on this subject, that's all. But I don't think "punishment" is the appropriate word here and neither is "reward." Either way, so long as we agree that there are differing views to this subject then it makes (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Ability, not right, wouldn't you agree? See below. (...) Evolution in action, as they say. <snip> I snipped the human perspective because I agree with your statements pointing out that it's not always a good idea for folks not prepared or for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, I know what you mean but I am forced to maintain that in the basic biological sense all living beings have the natural right of reproduction, whether they are fit as a fiddle or severely genetically abnormal or diseased. BUT here's the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <snipped all the rest because I'm not disagreeing with it> I'm afraid I am still "stuck" on rights. (and I've been stuck on them before) What are rights? How do you know if you have them? Let's talk about organisms other than man for a bit. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think "rights" came along after bouts of give and take, either within nature or within society, until equilibrium (long or short term) was achieved. I think all "rights" thus far in human society were preceeded by violence until it became so (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if you meant it this way, or were just going quickly, but I think that sounds like a circular argument and maybe anthropomorphic. "Bad" genes are only defined after the fact because they failed to propogate. It sounds like you are (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) No, I wouldn't say it's a directive force. Paraphrasing what you said, the results speak for themselves after the fact. (...) Sloppy, eh? Yeah, I guess it can look that way sometimes. When you say a gene is lost, you mean that it is not passed (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think that the notion of rights is wholly a construct of man. You know you have a right when the other humans around you generally agree that you do and respect that right. The rights of people are not innate and they have been and will (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I want to leave people out of this at least for a bit. While your point is valid, it is not necessarily helping the question get any clearer. Just stick to two different species of bacteria, interacting in a natural environment with no people (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. I agree that rights aren't "what you are capable of enforcing". That's too amoral. Rights derive from fundamentals about people (and other reasoning moral beings should some be constructed or discovered in (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" given to those higher up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) They both equal natural "rights" to try to thrive and succeed. If both are in competition, the one that can reproduce more or faster, or finds a niche in a specific environment, may be the one who survives longer. Look at "Africanized" honey (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and assuming we are still (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So be it then, Dan. Clearly your idea of rights is far different from mine, and I will indeed take your statements about rights with a grain of salt since your definition, from my perspective, is flawed. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Unless you are amoral, the fact that you can kill someone does not mean, in and of itself, that you have the RIGHT to do so. It merely means that you have the ability to do so. Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Evidence? (...) Again, do you have evidence that other animals *can't* choose? (...) We may be higher on the sliding "moral" scale than most animals, but I don't agree that all other animals are at the bottom (ie totally amoral). I think (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) But nature allows killing for the sake of survival. I have no problem taking the life of any human being who is trying to take my life or my wife's or child, and I have no problem being absolutely brutal in doing so if it means survival. If (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its might – it is its natural right to do so. A lion will kill its prey as quickly and cleanly as it can – it does not pump it full of antibiotics and growth hormones first. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) This is an interesting point. Maybe the things that animals do resemble our rights cloely enough that we could sometimes call them rights. The dominant chicken (almost always a rooster, if one is present) does have the right to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) that (...) But you could argue that rights we've given to ourselves are just privileges that we all happen to agree on. Based mostly on the fact that we'll sue whoever disagrees. 8?) (...) I think "rights" has no real meaning or usefulness (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Disagree. Nothing makes 'right.' Might makes reality. (...) Additionally, they can choose to be immoral, which I'm wonder if people in this thread are forgetting is not the same as amoral. (...) I think there is. Neither the lion nor the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) fact (...) whoever (...) Your emoticon implies that you're kidding. I'm not. I think your statement cuts right to the hear of what our rights actually are. But the difference I was pointing to is that we don't invest rights in certain classes (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force. (...) If you initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book. (...) See above. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing *immoral* about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It sounds like you're were going somewhere good and have given up Larry. I assume (hope!) your goal in all this was not to get to the point where you could just tell folks that they don't understand rights. I think there must be common (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it has a choice? (...) Dead animals don’t run away. Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns. (...) You may be right. I am no expert. (...) The problem with (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) What is you point? (...) To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything. (...) Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass? Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun? (...) Same as what? The same as you? Do you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) To what end? Your implication seems to be simply that there are bad people. But we all know that. The discussion of what a 'right' actually is, has nothing to do (in my mind, at least) with whether or not certain people respect rights, or even (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth. (...) You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are the role model they should aspire (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) My aim was to show how western morels have treated these two so differently. One is bought by the west so he can go on trial for murder, the other is given ~3.5 billion dollars in aid per year so that he may continue to murder. At the same (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
I'm very confused. Chris: (...) Scott: (...) Larry: (...) Scott: (...) Scott, please clarify. What *is* your position? Or is it merely whatever Larry is *not*? (...) Do you not do the same? Don't I? Doesn't Larry? Don't all morally conscious (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I would speculate, along with Larry, that animals do not have a system of rights in the same form as humans do. But I don't think we invented the condition of rights as much as they revealed themselves to us through nature. Do you think this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Hah! Beautiful work, Dave! (...) Yes, Dave is right-- it seems evident here, Scott. I know you guys always disagree and you'll never convince each other to see an issue the same way so just agree to disagree. The world does not revolve around (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Dave.I think this pretty beautifully illustrates the fundamental difference between Scott and myself, and between our debating styles. (charitably extending the term in one case) And it may illustrate why it irks me greatly when people (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I'd go farther than speculating, I'd assert it, unless someone can prove that some specific animals do reason morally, in which case I'd consider that we might want to consider them as "human" rather than "merely" animal. (a tangential SF (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Perpetuating folly is a flaw in anyone who does it, including me. When you and Scott go at it, you are equally at fault in perpetuating the folly of arguing with someone that has given you no cause to believe they will ever see reason (as you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, yes and no. If you know or can establish that the person you are debating has a fundamentally different view of a basic principle, and has a track record of never changing their mind, it may be that the "best" you can do is get that (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Here is my take on the subject: From my dictionary here at work "Right (noun) - Something due to a person or governmental body by law." There are other definitions, but I feel that this one is the most relevant to the discussion. By this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was exploring the idea that perhaps the only fundamental right is the right to an impartial "rights based" mediation of disputes. This does suggest why animals then don't specifically have rights since they don't have the capability to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Being the relative moralist that I am, I'll push that one step further and say I don't believe there *are* "natural" or "fundamental" rights. It's a moral definition humans create based on an emotional response. Perhaps, however, there are (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was off by a bit: "To have a right ... is ... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." And also: "When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Good examples! Dogs are pack animals, it is true. Is that sufficient to explain these behaviours? I don't know. Saving one's meal ticket would exhibit forethought. Do dogs have such? The conventional answer is that they don't, so that's not an (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Important point to keep in mind: amoral does not equal immoral. Immorality implies that the converse--morality--exists. But can't a competing, "dog idea" of morality exist? Why must human morality be ported to a dog, when moralism is (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) What about dolphins which have saved people with probably no real opportunity for bonding? My feeling is that most of what makes us human is not unique to us, but is exhibited to at least some degree by other animals. It is interesting to note (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, the idea is (in my mind) that morality in general has some "root" to it in order to be deemed morality at all. Heck, your morality is just as misplaced when ported to me as when mine is ported to a dog. And yet we do both. Are our (...) (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: 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: Did animals have rights before we invented 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) ? 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
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: 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?)
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: : (...) To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess! The difference in our view seems to come down to this: I support a "transitional range" within which distinction is made between one state and another (be it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Very disappointing. You guys never insulted each other either. :-) Try to do better next time Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Ok, I noticed something odd while mulling over the topic on my way home last night... While I admitted elsewhere that I agree to a certain degree of immorality for eating meat, but that it was negligible, I'm actually not sure that's the case-- at (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Interestingly (or maybe not--you tell me), something analogous happened to me a few years ago during a one-on-one meeting with a Scientology "Advocate" (or whatever their brainwashers are called). Eventually I got sick of the crazy rhetoric (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was quite clearly a sign from God that Scientology is in fact stupid. DaveE (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Blasphemy! Who will protect us from Xenu (not The Warrior Princess) if not L. Ron? Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Gasp! You've read the super-secret extra-litigation copyrighted Operating Thetan documents? Don't you know that you can't properly appreciate those until you've been Declared Clear? You'd better take back that Undeserved and Inaccurate (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) He'd tell you that you actualised your desire and voila, a bus. Or something like that. Warning, be very careful discussing this particular, ahem, well, whatever it is they are. I hear they have some majorly powerful lawyers and I'd rather (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I'm certainly not saying Scientology is a cult. I would never say Scientology is a cult. Anyone who would say Scientology is a cult is nuts. No sir, Scientology definitely is no cult in my book. (...) Actually, while it's not high cinema, I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Forget the magically appearing bus-- what I find totally amazing is that you actually spent 90 minutes with a Scientology recruiter! What did they do, bar the door shut? Maggie C. (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was a combination of things. I think I've demonstrated by now that I can't help leaping into the argumentative fray, so when the opportunity presented itself to go head-to-head with an apologist of such a... litigious cul--I mean, religion, (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I say if you must eat them, at least kill them swiftly before tossing them in the boiling water. Why miss opportunities to be humane? It's good self discipline and shows character, in my opinion. For example, when an old and sick or dying pet (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Honest question-- is this possible? I know that killing lobsters "incorrectly" makes them poisonous to eat. (...) Completely agree. However, since I don't kill my own cows, I feel quite morally distant from the act of their death-- But I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Don't I do this by discussing concepts of morality with you? (...) Do you mean the ability to conceive of morality and the lack there of, and different sets of morals? Or do you mean the tendency to act in a way that we consider moral? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) For the sake of staying within what I consider dubious givens, I would say that it was impossible for you to acquire ownership of sentient (the real meaning, not your vernacular one) beings (cows) without excercising some kind of 'might makes (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Hmm, since we've been playing with taking interpretations to extremes to see how they work out, a technique which I wholeheartedly endorse... - Can you justify your ownership of anything metal? The metal was "found". - Can you justify your (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Sure you were. Weren't you purposely neglecting to consider the source of the food? :-) Chris (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ownership (was: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?))
|
|
(...) I've been having a crisis of faith over the past several months and tried to bring it up unsuccessfully once before, but this ties into it. To get to the point, I'm having trouble justifying ownership. The entire notion of ownership actually. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Really? That's something I didn't know (but then again I dislike all seafood anyway so I know very little about it). Just out of curiousity, how does it make them poisonous? Is there some sort of drastic chemical change that happens when (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Frank: Try envisioning the greater ethic behind my statement about ownership and maybe you'll appreciate it more. I think by picking it apart and making it overly technical, you've missed the greater lesson. If you want to disagree with the notion (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ownership
|
|
(...) Really? I just thought it was just an extension of man's territorial nature (maybe no different than dogs pissing on trees to mark territory). (...) Yeah, at what point can it be called exploitation? I think there is such thing as collective (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Do you have any cites for this? You've said it a few times, it may be time to take a closer look. I feel the need for a bit of reading on this topic so if you have some site cites that you feel present the case in a reasoned way, that would be (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
>>In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: >> >>Seeing how horrid our agricultural practices are... (...) Then I'll rephrase it: "Seeing how horrid much of America's meat related agricultural practices are, in my opinion,..." Is that more (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think some crop growing methods may be suspect also. Certainly there are situations of overuse of pesticides, and monoculture growing is probably not ideal either, but there's certainly less to potentially get up in arms about. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Why? Just curious. Dan (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) They are one of the most extreme "animal rights" organizations. While I do feel there probably are some bad practices with animals, I don't think blowing up buildings, burning buildings, and other such destructive (and possibly endangering (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) PETA does this? That's news to me! I've heard of PETA protests where people threw pies and even animal blood on employees (mainly execs if I remember correctly) of fur makers and cosmetics companies that use animals for testing. Where did you (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It's not obvious to *me*. Always looking for the disagreement, eh? I ask for some reading material because I want to have an open mind and do some research and you conclude that I disagree apriori. (...) Not interested in *countering* it. I'm (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) That's vandalism, which isn't quite as nonviolent a form of civil disobedience as some other ones, but it's small potatoes, I suppose. Actually hitting someone might be a bit of "assault", though. (...) I'm with you on this, Dan. Their FAQ (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
I wasn't born yesterday, my friend. The way I see it, Larry, you have a computer and are smart enough to research the issue of animal abuse (or lack of) for yourself. The fact that you haven't yet (and you admitted this) speaks to your lack of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps I've lumped things together. It's something most of us do. On the other hand, I'm not so sure they "distance" themselves from ALF, they certainly mischaracterize the actions in this FAQ: (...) Or perhaps the not so harmless (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) What if it was an endorsement? Judge the motive before the deed. Sometimes certain causes lend themselves to extremes, so long as the innocent are not endangered. The worst fight I had in my life was when this guy threw my dog in my pool. I (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) You assume too much. I did that already, or something close to it. Didn't like the quality of sites I found, and thought I'd just (without any aspersions being cast, which is why I just asked outright instead of prefacing it with "I already (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) For the love of heaven, must we start a new thread as to define what a fact is? How about diatribe? Were there not enough facts given at these sites? The answers to your questions are often not right in front of you. Seek well and learn well. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I would assert that if you wish any success in encouraging people to change their views on the way animals are treated in this country that the onus is upon you to substantiate your claims. If the rest of us think that things are basically OK, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I don't think he was questioning the reasonability of your statement. He wanted you to cite some of the sources that you've used to come to that conclusion. Actually, I was reading the group yesterday when larry posted and went off to search (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think there's a real difference between burning down a supposedly empty building (the reports I've read weren't "empty" buildings, and destroyed not just the potentially abusive research, but also research which did not use animals) and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was trying to figure out how to say that, but I got hung up on how to actually do what you're suggesting Dan do. What about it? How would Dan, or I, substantiate claims of gross cruelty through negligence and intent? (...) Agreed. But do (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) How do you mean 'only' Frank? I mean, you could just type an email to your senator and figure that you've done your part. That would be an alternative action. But it wouldn't do anything. You could picket in front of the place. That would be (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I understand the motivation too, I think (who can be *sure* they understand the motivation of others?). But I cannot condone force initiation. We must exhaust the rule of law first before we get that extreme. I share your concern about farming (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) It happened when I was 16 years old. I was living in Michigan at the time and in the summer I made a trip to visit my family in California. Since my friends helped me get the pool running that summer, my mother agreed to let them swim there (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think the mechanism being used so far (undercover employees reporting what they see) seems to be working fine for identifying problems. I am satisfied that this problem exists, just not as of yet clear on how endemic it is, nor clear that my (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) Dan, I'm all for how you handled that. 100%. But don't delude yourself. What you did settled your internal justicemeter. It tought the thug nothing about respect for animals. The best it could have possibly done was taught him that some people (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) I'm not deluded about it now. Perhaps I should say that I felt that way AT THE TIME (i.e. I thought I was teaching that jerk a lesson). I realize now as an adult that beating him up didn't somehow convince him to be a better person. More than (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I already have. Like I said before, read before you post. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Are you saying the dictionary larry quoted is wrong? Are you saying the one I quoted is wrong? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I do not think that "lack" is strong enough to suggest that. But, even if it is I still think it is negative. (...) I have. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Interestingly, my thesaurus give these replacements for “amoral”. Unprincipled Unethical Dishonourable Unscrupulous *Immoral* Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) You have asked this already. I have answered it already. (...) I think we tend to group socially with those who have morals which match our own. (...) Your own values are your own. We are all individuals. (...) A great deal. (...) Yes (...) It (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Perhaps it is time it was brought into the 21st century? Much of it is based on the English bill of rights which dates back to 1689. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) "Meat related agricultural..." Seems a little vague to me, but I think I understand what you are getting at from the rest of the thread. You'll also have to bear with me since I am at work and am unwilling to go to either site while at work. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I'm saying that I agree with Larry. Do you think I'm disagreeing? What are you looking for here? (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I would have thought that was evident. Rather than just saying "I agree", I thought your statement had more substance? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Funny, my dictionary here at work (The American Heritage 3rd edition) gives this definition: Neither moral nor immoral Try dictionary.com and see what you come up with. (or should I do the legwork for you?) Tell you what, I'll mail you my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I do not speak American English. ;) (...) I think Larry did that last week did he not? Look here: (URL) you read it, you will see it was actually in a reply to YOU. It is a few messages above this one. Next time, take the time to think before (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) My statement is exactly what it is. I try not to put hidden meanings behind my words. It keeps life simpler. -Duane (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Forget hidden meanings. I shall settle for a meaning. ;0 Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Yes, I have asked it already, and yes, you've tried to answer it-- however, I either did not understand your response, or I find you to be in error for ever disagreeing with Larry about the issue. So, either please clarify by answering the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I think we should not compare our morals with the lion’s decision making process. (...) i think "judge" is rather strong a word. (...) If they wanted you to - yes. (...) The consequence is that it annoys them. (...) Why do you neet motivation (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) That is *exactly* what we are doing when we say the lion is amoral. We are saying that our morals do not apply to it. That's where the breakdown in communication is happening. You appear to be operating with a different definition of "amoral" (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Uh, no, by the definitions you gave (and my understanding also) amoral does not specifically relate to _our_ (human) morals, but _any_ morals. (...) ROSCO (Never let it be said that *I* let this thread die!) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right. My imprecision. What I meant was: "We are saying that morals do not apply to it." Mea culpa, mea culpa. James (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So. You admit you were wrong to disagree with Larry about his assessment of your position as being that the Lion was amoral? (...) Do you think "judge" is incorrect? Please suggest a better word. What is it that family/friends may do with (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Have you read my respnse to Dave on this? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) no. Calling it amoral compares it to us does it not? (...) no. (...) If you mean murder, by anyone's moral code this is wrong. I expect even murders know it to be wrong. (...) What is your point? (...) Yes, but I do not have to stop myself - I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Which response, to which Dave? Precision is good. Do you agree with my summation below? If not, could you give what *you* think Chris meant, and what *you* think Larry meant? From looking through, it is very obvious that everyone who has (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Not by my watch. If you were unclear on the issue you probably should've asked Larry what he meant by amoral. Otherwise, you must explain what definition you though Larry was using, explain why it's not what you're saying, AND explain the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) By referencing the dietary constraint issue, are you talking about my ethical stance on vegetarianism? You are claiming that there is a difference between protecting lives and dietary restriction, but my dietary restriction does protect lives. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Including me I think. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No. Not at all. I meant consumption levels. I used to share an office with a guy who has utter contempt for anyone who is more than a pound overweight, gay or a Catholic(1). I was thinking of him when I wrote the text. He lives in the USA (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Well I still think it is. I view moralising as rather sanctimonious. To say an animal is without them is negative - in my opinion. (...) Amoral is negative. (...) Evaluate comes to mind (...) Read Larry's message again. Assess the tone. What (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Again, I'm tremendously unclear. Please try and explain in more than 2 sentences. Try and summarize in a couple ways-- that might help. As near as I can tell, you mean one of two things: 1. You mean to say that we cannot tell if animals have (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I am saying I do not care about the lions morals. Saying a lion has no morals, is like saying it cannot drive a car - it is irrelevant. I view calling a lion “amoral” as negative, as it is saying it has not got what we view as being “good”. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
