 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
