 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) You need to be clearer then. (...) I have answered this already. (...) You are missing the point. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) What don't you understand? And how did "none" answer the question? I'm still confused Scott. Am I to infer your meaning? I've asked several times now for clarification and you have not even tried. (...) That's probably because I can't tell (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) I was asked if I thought A, B or C was true. I said "none". It is that simple. (...) I thought that, that is why I said "You are missing the point". :-) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) The cambridge link didn't work for me. When I went here: (URL) got these: 1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong. Seems to me that "moral", (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I disagree. But I understand your point. Although the Cambridge link works for me, we can use your dictionary (above). It is not that your rock is "Lacking{1} moral sensibility" it is simply *unable* to have moral sensibility. The distinction (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and amoral. Do you believe that things are either moral or immoral (to varying degrees), with no room for an amoral definition? Or is there a fourth definition in there (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Totally not following this. If something is unable, it clearly lacks. In what way is amoral an insufficient category to contain rocks, amoeba, grass and sheep (positing sheep are not self aware)? (...) If there is he hasn't given it. I would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | | (...) Lacking, in my mind, means that something is able to have - just in a deficient or reduced manner. Unable is just that - without the ablity to have. The ability didn't exist in the first place. Like I said, I can see the distiction. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Interestingly, my thesaurus give these replacements for “amoral”. Unprincipled Unethical Dishonourable Unscrupulous *Immoral* Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Funny, my dictionary here at work (The American Heritage 3rd edition) gives this definition: Neither moral nor immoral Try dictionary.com and see what you come up with. (or should I do the legwork for you?) Tell you what, I'll mail you my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I do not speak American English. ;) (...) I think Larry did that last week did he not? Look here: (URL) you read it, you will see it was actually in a reply to YOU. It is a few messages above this one. Next time, take the time to think before (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I do not think that "lack" is strong enough to suggest that. But, even if it is I still think it is negative. (...) I have. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Are you saying the dictionary larry quoted is wrong? Are you saying the one I quoted is wrong? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) I'm saying that I agree with Larry. Do you think I'm disagreeing? What are you looking for here? (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I would have thought that was evident. Rather than just saying "I agree", I thought your statement had more substance? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) My statement is exactly what it is. I try not to put hidden meanings behind my words. It keeps life simpler. -Duane (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Forget hidden meanings. I shall settle for a meaning. ;0 Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
