 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I'm glad *you* can understand what "none" means. (...) You are correct, it is not all that clear what I mean (from my perspective). I was agreeing that the lion's view can not be viewed within a moral framework, but I also think they should (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced to guess, as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I think I see your point, Dave. But I'm sure you'd agree the validity of something (an action or idea) is often situational and cannot be judged/argued if it happens in extremes or abolute vacuum. Nature abhores a vacuum (and a dustbuster as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) *Exactly* my point. The statement "It is not very nice to yell at loved ones" therefore does not hold, because it is untrue in extremes. It does not mean it is *always* *not* "not very nice", but that the statemtent/theory itself is not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Hmmm. Maybe. But I'd use the example of Newtonian physics to say even though it doesn't hold in extreme conditions, it's generally "good enough" for everyday life. Maybe that also holds for this situation... ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Working the analogy a bit more, Newtonian physics is valid in a certain regime. The "extreme conditions" where it is invalid are outside that regime. Set the boundary conditions correctly and everything's fine. Can we do that here? (I tend to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, for one, I tend to be somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to this kind of thing (philisophical). If I can tell something *does* break in extremes, I can tell it's not "perfect". And sure, that means (for me) that I accept almost (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Use salt as needed... Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?" You stated previously that we'd be "merely animal" to follow that notion, but maybe you'd now say it's situational? Or were you referring to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this: (URL) view that as being negative. (...) Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Are Newtonian physics really valid? Is it not just that the errors are so small we can live with them? Scott A (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) No, because I don't know of *any* boundary conditions where it would hold, contrasted with the many boundary conditions where "don't yell at your kids" is invalid, and the few boundary conditions where "free speech" is invalid. (to your (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Really? I'll propose the following: "Might makes right" - Application: killing animals for food - Boundary: - Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions Ex: cows, chickens, fish - Outside bounds: animals are "aware (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Disagree that this is an application of such. Let us postulate that I own clear title to a piece of real property for the sake of what follows, to avoid the (legitimate, in my view) questions of was might involved in acquiring title. These (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) The fact we do eat cows, chickens & fish and not humans, dolphins & chimps is more to do with social taboos that it is our morals. A dog is no more self aware than a cow in my opinion - but I don't see them on the menu (near me). Pigs are one (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) You do not have to unmake that particular omelette, only share it. Knowing your stance on property rights, I am amazed you are so lax on this{1}. Or is the whole basis of your reality based on an action of "might makes right" - even *if* we (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) As far as I know, pigs are not self aware either. The only animals I know of that have been "scientifically" classified as self-aware are humans, dolphins and a couple species of great ape. Is there a correlation between intelligence and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Aha... now we've reached a potential crux. What do and do not have rights? Does a dog? How about a baby? Does a retarded human? Cro-magnon man? (...) Alright, I guess I'd dispute this, but only insofar as I think animals have rights. I just (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Just as a quick note, I'm not sure I've given such a definition, other than by example ("I know it when I see it", or so I think). I'm open to someone trying to give one, I suspect it's a thorny problem. (the circular definition "you're self (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) While I agree that that *is* true in practice, the reason *behind* those social taboos *is* a moral reason, I think. So while it actually does violate *both* our morality *and* a social taboo, the actual reason behind it is purely moral, I (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) within any moral framework? Or do you mean to say that we simply don't know if that framework exists or not? If the former, I think your disagreement with Larry is potentially flawed. If the latter, then your agreement with Chris's initial (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) This, once again, is the false dichotomy at work. Are you not asking that a line be drawn as a crossroads between sentient and non-sentient (ie: crux)? It was my impression that you'd already agreed no such line could be drawn, even though a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I agree that the boundary may not be as sharp as some may prefer. But is there a distinction? That is, are there things that do not have rights, in and of themselves? I'm in the camp that holds that there are. Rocks don't have rights, in and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Didn't I explain this before? I'm asking Larry where the line he's imagining is, not saying anything about what I believe with that statement-- And again, *IF* one asserts that animals do *NOT* have rights, *and* that humans *DO*, at some (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: . I'm asking Larry where his line is, because I believe his (...) I'd agree that there needs to be a line or gray area or something. I sense I am about to well and thoroughly wrap myself around an axle (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) That's my view as well-- they've got "rights" but their rights aren't nearly the same set of rights as we ascribe to humans. They're very diminished. (...) I'd say the latter. We have an obligation out of our own moral senses. Without such (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Sort of, but you seem to keep forcing the choice to be made between only two options in a field of possibilities. (...) Not necessarily wrong, but the attempt is misguided if it seeks to form a hard distinction where none exists. You're (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I never said they *must* emerge in their "fully developed" state-- only that they must, at some point, be considered "self-aware" at some *point*. And again, that's only assuming that at one point they *DON'T* exist AT ALL, and at another (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Long as its a 12 long technic axle so it can bend a bit.... 8?) (...) I think this is all consistent with my (current) view that we don't have any "fundamental" rights. They're all derived from our (collective) experience over the ages of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see. That's what I get for jumping in mid-stride. I was approaching the issue as if you were espousing your own view, rather than pointing out the implications of an opposing view. Oops. (...) I would sum up by saying that it is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah- I would are *similarly*. I.E. that a line *does* exist yet is next to impossible to find accurately. (...) Neither do I really-- that's why I said it only works if you define it differently. I really rather like the hot/cold example better (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: : (...) To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess! The difference in our view seems to come down to this: I support a "transitional range" within which distinction is made between one state and another (be it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Very disappointing. You guys never insulted each other either. :-) Try to do better next time Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Ok, I noticed something odd while mulling over the topic on my way home last night... While I admitted elsewhere that I agree to a certain degree of immorality for eating meat, but that it was negligible, I'm actually not sure that's the case-- at (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Interestingly (or maybe not--you tell me), something analogous happened to me a few years ago during a one-on-one meeting with a Scientology "Advocate" (or whatever their brainwashers are called). Eventually I got sick of the crazy rhetoric (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was quite clearly a sign from God that Scientology is in fact stupid. DaveE (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Blasphemy! Who will protect us from Xenu (not The Warrior Princess) if not L. Ron? Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Gasp! You've read the super-secret extra-litigation copyrighted Operating Thetan documents? Don't you know that you can't properly appreciate those until you've been Declared Clear? You'd better take back that Undeserved and Inaccurate (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) He'd tell you that you actualised your desire and voila, a bus. Or something like that. Warning, be very careful discussing this particular, ahem, well, whatever it is they are. I hear they have some majorly powerful lawyers and I'd rather (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I'm certainly not saying Scientology is a cult. I would never say Scientology is a cult. Anyone who would say Scientology is a cult is nuts. No sir, Scientology definitely is no cult in my book. (...) Actually, while it's not high cinema, I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Forget the magically appearing bus-- what I find totally amazing is that you actually spent 90 minutes with a Scientology recruiter! What did they do, bar the door shut? Maggie C. (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was a combination of things. I think I've demonstrated by now that I can't help leaping into the argumentative fray, so when the opportunity presented itself to go head-to-head with an apologist of such a... litigious cul--I mean, religion, (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I say if you must eat them, at least kill them swiftly before tossing them in the boiling water. Why miss opportunities to be humane? It's good self discipline and shows character, in my opinion. For example, when an old and sick or dying pet (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Honest question-- is this possible? I know that killing lobsters "incorrectly" makes them poisonous to eat. (...) Completely agree. However, since I don't kill my own cows, I feel quite morally distant from the act of their death-- But I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) For the sake of staying within what I consider dubious givens, I would say that it was impossible for you to acquire ownership of sentient (the real meaning, not your vernacular one) beings (cows) without excercising some kind of 'might makes (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Hmm, since we've been playing with taking interpretations to extremes to see how they work out, a technique which I wholeheartedly endorse... - Can you justify your ownership of anything metal? The metal was "found". - Can you justify your (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Sure you were. Weren't you purposely neglecting to consider the source of the food? :-) Chris (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ownership (was: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?))
|
|
(...) I've been having a crisis of faith over the past several months and tried to bring it up unsuccessfully once before, but this ties into it. To get to the point, I'm having trouble justifying ownership. The entire notion of ownership actually. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Really? That's something I didn't know (but then again I dislike all seafood anyway so I know very little about it). Just out of curiousity, how does it make them poisonous? Is there some sort of drastic chemical change that happens when (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Frank: Try envisioning the greater ethic behind my statement about ownership and maybe you'll appreciate it more. I think by picking it apart and making it overly technical, you've missed the greater lesson. If you want to disagree with the notion (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ownership
|
|
(...) Really? I just thought it was just an extension of man's territorial nature (maybe no different than dogs pissing on trees to mark territory). (...) Yeah, at what point can it be called exploitation? I think there is such thing as collective (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Do you have any cites for this? You've said it a few times, it may be time to take a closer look. I feel the need for a bit of reading on this topic so if you have some site cites that you feel present the case in a reasoned way, that would be (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
>>In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: >> >>Seeing how horrid our agricultural practices are... (...) Then I'll rephrase it: "Seeing how horrid much of America's meat related agricultural practices are, in my opinion,..." Is that more (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think some crop growing methods may be suspect also. Certainly there are situations of overuse of pesticides, and monoculture growing is probably not ideal either, but there's certainly less to potentially get up in arms about. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Why? Just curious. Dan (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) They are one of the most extreme "animal rights" organizations. While I do feel there probably are some bad practices with animals, I don't think blowing up buildings, burning buildings, and other such destructive (and possibly endangering (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) PETA does this? That's news to me! I've heard of PETA protests where people threw pies and even animal blood on employees (mainly execs if I remember correctly) of fur makers and cosmetics companies that use animals for testing. Where did you (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It's not obvious to *me*. Always looking for the disagreement, eh? I ask for some reading material because I want to have an open mind and do some research and you conclude that I disagree apriori. (...) Not interested in *countering* it. I'm (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) That's vandalism, which isn't quite as nonviolent a form of civil disobedience as some other ones, but it's small potatoes, I suppose. Actually hitting someone might be a bit of "assault", though. (...) I'm with you on this, Dan. Their FAQ (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
I wasn't born yesterday, my friend. The way I see it, Larry, you have a computer and are smart enough to research the issue of animal abuse (or lack of) for yourself. The fact that you haven't yet (and you admitted this) speaks to your lack of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps I've lumped things together. It's something most of us do. On the other hand, I'm not so sure they "distance" themselves from ALF, they certainly mischaracterize the actions in this FAQ: (...) Or perhaps the not so harmless (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) What if it was an endorsement? Judge the motive before the deed. Sometimes certain causes lend themselves to extremes, so long as the innocent are not endangered. The worst fight I had in my life was when this guy threw my dog in my pool. I (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) You assume too much. I did that already, or something close to it. Didn't like the quality of sites I found, and thought I'd just (without any aspersions being cast, which is why I just asked outright instead of prefacing it with "I already (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) For the love of heaven, must we start a new thread as to define what a fact is? How about diatribe? Were there not enough facts given at these sites? The answers to your questions are often not right in front of you. Seek well and learn well. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I would assert that if you wish any success in encouraging people to change their views on the way animals are treated in this country that the onus is upon you to substantiate your claims. If the rest of us think that things are basically OK, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I don't think he was questioning the reasonability of your statement. He wanted you to cite some of the sources that you've used to come to that conclusion. Actually, I was reading the group yesterday when larry posted and went off to search (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think there's a real difference between burning down a supposedly empty building (the reports I've read weren't "empty" buildings, and destroyed not just the potentially abusive research, but also research which did not use animals) and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was trying to figure out how to say that, but I got hung up on how to actually do what you're suggesting Dan do. What about it? How would Dan, or I, substantiate claims of gross cruelty through negligence and intent? (...) Agreed. But do (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) How do you mean 'only' Frank? I mean, you could just type an email to your senator and figure that you've done your part. That would be an alternative action. But it wouldn't do anything. You could picket in front of the place. That would be (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I understand the motivation too, I think (who can be *sure* they understand the motivation of others?). But I cannot condone force initiation. We must exhaust the rule of law first before we get that extreme. I share your concern about farming (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) It happened when I was 16 years old. I was living in Michigan at the time and in the summer I made a trip to visit my family in California. Since my friends helped me get the pool running that summer, my mother agreed to let them swim there (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I think the mechanism being used so far (undercover employees reporting what they see) seems to be working fine for identifying problems. I am satisfied that this problem exists, just not as of yet clear on how endemic it is, nor clear that my (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) Dan, I'm all for how you handled that. 100%. But don't delude yourself. What you did settled your internal justicemeter. It tought the thug nothing about respect for animals. The best it could have possibly done was taught him that some people (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dog in pool incident
|
|
(...) I'm not deluded about it now. Perhaps I should say that I felt that way AT THE TIME (i.e. I thought I was teaching that jerk a lesson). I realize now as an adult that beating him up didn't somehow convince him to be a better person. More than (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) You have asked this already. I have answered it already. (...) I think we tend to group socially with those who have morals which match our own. (...) Your own values are your own. We are all individuals. (...) A great deal. (...) Yes (...) It (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Perhaps it is time it was brought into the 21st century? Much of it is based on the English bill of rights which dates back to 1689. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) "Meat related agricultural..." Seems a little vague to me, but I think I understand what you are getting at from the rest of the thread. You'll also have to bear with me since I am at work and am unwilling to go to either site while at work. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Yes, I have asked it already, and yes, you've tried to answer it-- however, I either did not understand your response, or I find you to be in error for ever disagreeing with Larry about the issue. So, either please clarify by answering the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I think we should not compare our morals with the lion’s decision making process. (...) i think "judge" is rather strong a word. (...) If they wanted you to - yes. (...) The consequence is that it annoys them. (...) Why do you neet motivation (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) That is *exactly* what we are doing when we say the lion is amoral. We are saying that our morals do not apply to it. That's where the breakdown in communication is happening. You appear to be operating with a different definition of "amoral" (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Uh, no, by the definitions you gave (and my understanding also) amoral does not specifically relate to _our_ (human) morals, but _any_ morals. (...) ROSCO (Never let it be said that *I* let this thread die!) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right. My imprecision. What I meant was: "We are saying that morals do not apply to it." Mea culpa, mea culpa. James (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So. You admit you were wrong to disagree with Larry about his assessment of your position as being that the Lion was amoral? (...) Do you think "judge" is incorrect? Please suggest a better word. What is it that family/friends may do with (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Have you read my respnse to Dave on this? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) no. Calling it amoral compares it to us does it not? (...) no. (...) If you mean murder, by anyone's moral code this is wrong. I expect even murders know it to be wrong. (...) What is your point? (...) Yes, but I do not have to stop myself - I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Which response, to which Dave? Precision is good. Do you agree with my summation below? If not, could you give what *you* think Chris meant, and what *you* think Larry meant? From looking through, it is very obvious that everyone who has (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Not by my watch. If you were unclear on the issue you probably should've asked Larry what he meant by amoral. Otherwise, you must explain what definition you though Larry was using, explain why it's not what you're saying, AND explain the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) By referencing the dietary constraint issue, are you talking about my ethical stance on vegetarianism? You are claiming that there is a difference between protecting lives and dietary restriction, but my dietary restriction does protect lives. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Including me I think. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No. Not at all. I meant consumption levels. I used to share an office with a guy who has utter contempt for anyone who is more than a pound overweight, gay or a Catholic(1). I was thinking of him when I wrote the text. He lives in the USA (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Well I still think it is. I view moralising as rather sanctimonious. To say an animal is without them is negative - in my opinion. (...) Amoral is negative. (...) Evaluate comes to mind (...) Read Larry's message again. Assess the tone. What (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Again, I'm tremendously unclear. Please try and explain in more than 2 sentences. Try and summarize in a couple ways-- that might help. As near as I can tell, you mean one of two things: 1. You mean to say that we cannot tell if animals have (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I am saying I do not care about the lions morals. Saying a lion has no morals, is like saying it cannot drive a car - it is irrelevant. I view calling a lion “amoral” as negative, as it is saying it has not got what we view as being “good”. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
