 | | 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)
|
