Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 1881 – 1900 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Well, I'm an athiest, so I just internally translate anything to do with God into a similar sentence something like "my belief". So god-given rights would become something like "the rights I believe in" (roughly speaking). I think athiests (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.573)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
Richard, I am very sorry about this debate dragging on but I cannot, with clear conscience, allow certain blatantly Zionist remarks to slide. The moral issue I've maintained is "who invaded who" and "who is oppressing who" and I'll add "who is (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.573)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" given to those higher up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.573)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
(...) But you obviously favor the Israelis, right? Okay, let's consider the Zionist story regarding Israel as the "home of the Jews" and their claim to distant Semetic bloodlines (fraudulent, by the way). Considering Judaism is a Semetic religion (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.573)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: : (...) To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess! The difference in our view seems to come down to this: I support a "transitional range" within which distinction is made between one state and another (be it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Aha... now we've reached a potential crux. What do and do not have rights? Does a dog? How about a baby? Does a retarded human? Cro-magnon man? (...) Alright, I guess I'd dispute this, but only insofar as I think animals have rights. I just (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: A question of remembrance...
(...) Got me... I did not know that. Pick some other tiny country as the root of the example then... one that does have a tiny army. How about if we use the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, because that's obviously fictional. This is a fictional example, (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) Good post, good point, good debate fodder, Tim. I'm ambivalent, I do think that maybe "cool kids" may be a bit TOO judgemental... but dodgeball (I was always picked last and usually out first (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing immoral about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.572)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) fact (...) whoever (...) Your emoticon implies that you're kidding. I'm not. I think your statement cuts right to the hear of what our rights actually are. But the difference I was pointing to is that we don't invest rights in certain classes (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
(...) No, and that is not what I did. (...) I think I did. I _still_ think you are wrong. I do not feel that Israel "administers justice fairly" or respects the "rule of law". Eric Olsen agreed with me on this: (URL) chose to muddy the waters with (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and assuming we are still (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Here is my take on the subject: From my dictionary here at work "Right (noun) - Something due to a person or governmental body by law." There are other definitions, but I feel that this one is the most relevant to the discussion. By this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Flag Burning
(...) Carried out in a safe, non polluting manner, on property that is controlled by someone granting permission and using a flag legitimately purchased, burning the flag is protected free speech. It's not a statement I would care to make but it's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Unless you are amoral, the fact that you can kill someone does not mean, in and of itself, that you have the RIGHT to do so. It merely means that you have the ability to do so. Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I don't see this as a case of avoiding the point. I don't see any point in Lar (or anyone) rushing to answer these questions - I don't feel they have any real answer, they're kinda rhetorical, intended to get people to think about where rights (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.571)

		Re: Go ahead, make my day!
(...) It's interesting reading. The defense of property part is what I suspected it might be - even though that is couched in "reasonable belief" terms and "can't get the property back" terms, tackling a guy running off with your stereo is fraught (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force. (...) If you initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book. (...) See above. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

More: Next Page >>