Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:11:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1029 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 understand it). I have tried (and obviously failed) to
point out that I don't care which of you is better than the other; you are
both equally guilty of perpetuating folly every time you try and refute the
other one. Unless you are not attempting to convince the other person(s) to
your perspective, but are merely trying to show them for the fool(s) (you
think) they are. In which case, you'll do that far better by letting them
dig their own hole.
</folly perpetuation>
So no, Larry, I don't think you and Scott are equal, nor do your debating
styles have equal merit. But I never claimed that position.
All that aside, the LCD of .debate posts has risen quite a bit recently, to
where it is enjoyable to read again. If I had time to do more than skim, I
would be throwing my hat in with the rest again.
YMMV.
James
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
