To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11519
11518  |  11520
Subject: 
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:34:18 GMT
Viewed: 
4059 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > 
> > > > (arguably I'd even lump moral and immoral together for the purposes of
> > > > partitioning and go down to two classes. There are things that morality is
> > > > relevant to, and things that it isn't. There are no other possibilities)
> > > 
> > > I can go with that. Moral and immoral both imply that the relevant thing has
> > > morals, accepted morals or morals which go against custom. Either way, it's
> > > still a moral. Whether it's moral or immoral is a matter of perception.
> > > Amoral on the other hand means that the relevant object has no morals
> > > what-so-ever.
> > 
> > Interestingly, my thesaurus give these replacements for “amoral”.
> > 
> > Unprincipled
> > Unethical
> > Dishonourable
> > Unscrupulous
> > *Immoral*
> > 
> > Scott A
> > 
> > 
> 
> Funny, my dictionary here at work (The American Heritage 3rd edition) gives
> this definition: Neither moral nor immoral

I do not speak American English. ;)

> 
> Try dictionary.com and see what you come up with. (or should I do the
> legwork for you?)

I think Larry did that last week did he not? Look here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11397

If 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 you
disagree with me.

> 
> Tell you what, I'll mail you my dictionary if you'll mail me your thesaurus
> and we can compare.

There is no need. I have some trust in your ability to read.

Scott A

> Then we can debate what the "true" definition of "is" is
> while we're at it. When we've figured that out, we can send our results to
> Bill Clinton.
> 
> -Duane
> I think my can of "Troll-be-Gone" just went empty.



Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR