 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Not by my watch. If you were unclear on the issue you probably should've asked Larry what he meant by amoral. Otherwise, you must explain what definition you though Larry was using, explain why it's not what you're saying, AND explain the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Well I still think it is. I view moralising as rather sanctimonious. To say an animal is without them is negative - in my opinion. (...) Amoral is negative. (...) Evaluate comes to mind (...) Read Larry's message again. Assess the tone. What (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Again, I'm tremendously unclear. Please try and explain in more than 2 sentences. Try and summarize in a couple ways-- that might help. As near as I can tell, you mean one of two things: 1. You mean to say that we cannot tell if animals have (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I am saying I do not care about the lions morals. Saying a lion has no morals, is like saying it cannot drive a car - it is irrelevant. I view calling a lion “amoral” as negative, as it is saying it has not got what we view as being “good”. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
