Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:08:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3817 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > But that doesn't change the fact that you got caught in a direct
> > contradiction and refuse to admit it. You agreed when Chris said that
> > animals are amoral, and disgreed when Larry said that animals are amoral.
>
> Have you read my respnse to Dave on this?
Which response, to which Dave?
Precision is good.
Do you agree with my summation below? If not, could you give what *you*
think Chris meant, and what *you* think Larry meant? From looking through,
it is very obvious that everyone who has commented (except you) thinks that
you have obviously contradicted yourself.
> > (from: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11313 )
> >
> >
> > Chris:
> > > > Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with
> > > > morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is
> > > > therefore amoral. But not immoral.
> >
> > Scott:
> > > I agree.
> >
> > Chris: Animals are amoral.
> > Scott: Yes.
> >
> > Larry:
> > > > Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral.
> >
> > Scott:
> > > No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth.
> >
> > Larry: Animals are amoral.
> > Scott: No.
James
(still perpetuating folly, just like the next guy...)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
