Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:14:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3496 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott A wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > I've read it. You are being your normal obfuscating self.
>
> Tom,
> I can't remember the last time I read a constructive post from you in this
> group.
This, coming from you, is beyond laughable. You are the biggest contributor of useless
noise to this group of anyone I've seen to date.
> Scott A
>
> >
> > If you can't keep your story straight within a single post, why should we trust
> > anything you say whatsoever across an entire thread or more?
<ScottA>
What's the matter? Not going to answer? Why not, afraid to?
</ScottA>
> > Scott A wrote:
> >
> > > Tom,
> > > try reading the whole thread before you jump in with your one-liners.
> > >
> > > Scott A
> > >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > > Scott A wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't all morally conscious
> > > > > > > > creatures pass moral judgement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By doing so we infer our morals on them - rather conceited I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, so all morality is conceited? If not, please clarify.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, inferring ones own morals on others is. If an individual makes a
> > > > > donation to a charity they deem worthy - good for them. But it is wrong of
> > > > > them to pass judgement on me for not doing the same.
> > > >
> > > > So inferring ones own morals on others is conceited, but inferring "your
> > > > society's" is not? Why not?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > If not, then what's the point (read use) of
> > > > > > > > having a moral judgement? If so, then what standard can we judge against
> > > > > > > > except our own?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The morals of the societies we live in - not our individual morals.
> > > >
> > > > So soceity is conceited? If not, why not? If inferring an individual's morals on
> > > > another is conceited, why is inferring a society's morals on another NOT
> > > > conceited?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
> > > >
> > > > Rather conceited, don't you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "I don't thin that word means what you thin it means."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Stangl
> > > > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > > > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > > > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > > > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
> >
> > --
> > Tom Stangl
> > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
| Netscape Communications Corp
| A division of AOL Time Warner
| iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
