Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:57:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1015 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I'm very confused.
>
> Chris:
> > > Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with
> > > morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is
> > > therefore amoral. But not immoral.
>
> Scott:
> > I agree.
>
> Larry:
> > > Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral.
>
> Scott:
> > No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth.
>
> Scott, please clarify. What *is* your position? Or is it merely whatever
> Larry is *not*?
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 equate us as well.
People are always welcome to urge me to ignore him, it's great advice, but
as soon as they say "and there's no difference between the two of you" they
can pretty much count on my tuning them out, as they no longer have standing
with me to comment on it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread: (Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|