Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:52:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
880 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)
If you mean you avoid the point(1), and I don't - I agree.
>
> 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.
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 voodoo dolls?
Scott A
(1) Like you did here with ROSCO's 3 questions:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11325
>
> ++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
|
|
|
|
