Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: all rights are property rights

Results 1761 – 1780 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Use salt as needed... Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?" You stated previously that we'd be "merely animal" to follow that notion, but maybe you'd now say it's situational? Or were you referring to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) That is exactly what we are doing when we say the lion is amoral. We are saying that our morals do not apply to it. That's where the breakdown in communication is happening. You appear to be operating with a different definition of "amoral" (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Yes, you're right. My imprecision. What I meant was: "We are saying that morals do not apply to it." Mea culpa, mea culpa. James (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Perhaps it is time it was brought into the 21st century? Much of it is based on the English bill of rights which dates back to 1689. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) That's vandalism, which isn't quite as nonviolent a form of civil disobedience as some other ones, but it's small potatoes, I suppose. Actually hitting someone might be a bit of "assault", though. (...) I'm with you on this, Dan. Their FAQ (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) How well do humans understand morality? I doubt animals would have the same idea of morality as humans, heck even different humans have different ideas... (...) Type "pit bull attack" into your favourite search engine. Do these animals know (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) I think that until we have clear evidence that animals understand morality, we have to assume that they probably don't. Even if an animal does lots of nice things, I wouldn't call it moral unless it had the ability to decide to do not-nice (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.984)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Good examples! Dogs are pack animals, it is true. Is that sufficient to explain these behaviours? I don't know. Saving one's meal ticket would exhibit forethought. Do dogs have such? The conventional answer is that they don't, so that's not an (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) <snipped some stuff here and there> (...) Same could be asked about women with motherhood (motherly instincts). How much is learned, how much is hard wired? Most people disagree but I really believe that people are hard wired with so many more (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) The question is, what constitutes proof of morality? Prove to me that you have a concept of morality. Perhaps morality itself is instinctive, even? Once you can draw the hard line between instinct and intelligence you've made a tremendous (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) I whole-heartedly agree. However, in order to argue that animals do NOT have it and that humans DO, something must be different. But I don't argue that. Accepting the premise that animals DON'T, I hold that at some point, morality (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Before someone points out my error, I'll just correct myself here. It can be argued, and come to think of it, I think should be argued that self-consciousness is the prerequisite (sp?) of which I was speaking-- I merely was assuming a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Hmmm. Maybe. But I'd use the example of Newtonian physics to say even though it doesn't hold in extreme conditions, it's generally "good enough" for everyday life. Maybe that also holds for this situation... ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Working the analogy a bit more, Newtonian physics is valid in a certain regime. The "extreme conditions" where it is invalid are outside that regime. Set the boundary conditions correctly and everything's fine. Can we do that here? (I tend to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Really? I'll propose the following: "Might makes right" - Application: killing animals for food - Boundary: - Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions Ex: cows, chickens, fish - Outside bounds: animals are "aware (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) As far as I know, pigs are not self aware either. The only animals I know of that have been "scientifically" classified as self-aware are humans, dolphins and a couple species of great ape. Is there a correlation between intelligence and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) While I agree that that is true in practice, the reason behind those social taboos is a moral reason, I think. So while it actually does violate both our morality and a social taboo, the actual reason behind it is purely moral, I (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) This, once again, is the false dichotomy at work. Are you not asking that a line be drawn as a crossroads between sentient and non-sentient (ie: crux)? It was my impression that you'd already agreed no such line could be drawn, even though a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Ah- I would are similarly. I.E. that a line does exist yet is next to impossible to find accurately. (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.983)

More: Next Page >>