Debate : 11375


Off-Topic / Debate / 11375	11374 \| 11376

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:46:35 GMT
Viewed:	1224 times

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: > Excellent. As I've advocated many times, taking something to the extreme is > the only way to test its validity. If it doesn't hold at the extremes, it > doesn't hold. 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 well) ;^P I think the context of the situation validates or invalidates action or condition, not in of itself. For example, yelling at a loved is not very nice, but in an emergency like a house on fire, you'll be yelling like crazy because of the tense situation. So, there's a certain grace extended to situational behavior. Kids using profanity is wrong to me but if a kid stubs a toe and blurts a few choice words, I'm not going to make a fuss. A side note about "rights": They change and evolve to suit our times and even selfish purposes. As far as I've learned, in feudal Japan it was the emperor's "right" to have any woman he wished, including married women. The "right" of course was backed up with force. But, didn't our revolution for the "rights" we demanded from England involve the use of force? So, the situation or context is what we base validity on, not the act itself. It can easily twisted too, and we have people like Hitler and Pol Pot as examples. I think believing animals do not have rights, that animals are somehow beneath us or our God given servants, is downright ignorant. WE are animals, that is a scientific fact. We live and we die. We eat, sleep, and bleed. We are not immortal. We ARE very sophisticated, but so is nature. Food for thought. Dan

Message has 1 Reply:

		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)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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

Custom Search