Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:03:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What don't you understand? And how did "none" answer the question? I'm still
> > > > > > > > confused Scott. Am I to infer your meaning? I've asked several times now for
> > > > > > > > clarification and you have not even tried.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The cambridge link didn't work for me. When I went here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=amoral
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I got these:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
> > > > > > > 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems to me that "moral", "immoral" and "amoral" form an equivalence class
> > > > > > > partition, that is, that every object, concept, action, etc, etc. can be
> > > > > > > partitioned into one of these three bins. If I understand Scott right, he is
> > > > > > > now (but not previously, see the contradiction Dave E originally posted)
> > > > > > > claiming there is another bin. He's not making it easy to follow him, but
> > > > > > > that's the gist of his argument as I understand it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I disagree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree. But I understand your point. Although the Cambridge link works
> > > > > > for me, we can use your dictionary (above). It is not that your rock is
> > > > > > "Lacking{1} moral sensibility" it is simply *unable* to have moral
> > > > > > sensibility. The distinction is not subtle. However, saying they rock is
> > > > > > without morals is in itself negative - although I doubt the rock cares that
> > > > > > much.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and
> > > > > amoral.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying the dictionary larry quoted is wrong? Are you saying the one
> > > > I quoted is wrong?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm saying that I agree with Larry. Do you think I'm disagreeing? What are
> > > you looking for here?
> >
> > I would have thought that was evident. Rather than just saying "I agree", I
> > thought your statement had more substance?
>
>
> My statement is exactly what it is. I try not to put hidden meanings behind
> my words. It keeps life simpler.
Forget hidden meanings. I shall settle for a meaning. ;0
Scott A
>
> -Duane
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
