 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | (...) 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? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) [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? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
