Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:25:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
985 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > > > > No no, your position on whether animals are moral/immoral OR amoral. Do you
> > > > > think they are moral/immoral or amoral?
> > > >
> > > > Good restatement. Good luck getting a straight answer though.
> > >
> > > Larry,
> > > At this point I am tempted to dig up all the old posts you have not answered
> > > - where the questions were *very* direct. All those ones were you were
> > > unable to justify yourself. Unable to back you own argument. Unable to show
> > > us your strengths as a critical thinker. But, you will be glad to hear, I >won't.
> >
> > I for one would actually like to see you do that. Demonstrate away....
>
> Why? He's done it before.
Shock : Larry does not want me to!
>
> Why enable him dodging a simple yes no question by urging him to indulge
> himself rather than urging a straight answer?
Just what am I dodging?
>
> Besides, I freely admit that I don't always have all the answers nor do I
> always answer every question asked. Some are irrelevant, some admit of no
> answer, some I don't know the answers to, some there isn't time to address,
> some are too far off topic. I pick and choose what to address based on
> trying to make my points and to make the debate interesting.
And there are those were you are just plain unwilling to justify yourself –
do you deny that?
>
> Never tried to deny that. Sometimes I even say "you know what, last time I
> got asked this I got all wrapped around the axle and couldn't answer it, but
> here's my gut feeling on it. Can't justify it, but there it is".
hmm "gut feeling". If your view is just a "gut feeling", perhaps you should
do us the decency as saying that - rather than dressing it up as a shallow
reality.
>
> But here's an example of a simple factual (it's based on what he said and
> didn't say) yes/no question that admits of a simple answer.
Just what is this yes/no question?
> However it's an
> answer that if given, would confirm the existance of a contradiction that he
> was caught in. It would point out that he agreed with someone and then
> disagreed with me when it was the same thing being said.
Larry you deluded. If by "contradiction" you mean that I am able to
challenge my own views (ie think critically) than I am happy for you to say
that. If you are saying I am representing a false argument - I view that as
tantamount of being accused of copying you.
>
> Hence you won't get a straight answer no matter how hard you try. His track
> record suggests he's incapable of recognising he has contradicted himself or
> of admitting it to others.
>
> So let it go. Chalk it up as a good try and let it go. Let's move on.
>
> Like I said to Chris a few posts back, sometimes the best you can do is
> highlight that a difference exists and then drop it.
And when you said that, I thought you were copying just what I was doing
with you a couple of weeks back. ;-)
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
