Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:58:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1331 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
:
> > I would sum up by saying that it is not all gray, and no *distinct* line
> > exists (ie: one that can be precisely articulated).
>
> Ah- I would are *similarly*. I.E. that a line *does* exist yet is next to
> impossible to find accurately.
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 "happiness/unhappiness" or
"rights/not-rights"), while you seem to support a "point or line" that moves
dependent upon a number of situational factors. The end result, I think, is
the same!
> 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 though,
> because it's so much more tangible.
heh. Maybe I should have said 63% good, 37% evil, for an even *more*
intangible example... 8^)
> I would argue that happiness and unhappiness *are* in the utterly specific,
> mutually exclusive. . . With respect to the specific *aspects* of the events,
> I would say that happiness and unhappiness *are* mutually exclusive.
Agreed. If we can cite a "point" for which only one emotional state is
possible, then happiness and unhappiness cannot coexist within that point.
Wow. We've been debating through a dozen and a half exchanges, and it
turns out we were agreeing. Kooky!
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
