 | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) 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?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
