Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 1921 – 1940 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?
(...) This, coming from you, is beyond laughable. You are the biggest contributor of useless noise to this group of anyone I've seen to date. (...) <ScottA> What's the matter? Not going to answer? Why not, afraid to? </ScottA> (...) -- \| Tom Stangl, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in childrens books. (...) I can't find the post you refer to. (...) No, inferring ones own morals on others is. If an individual makes a donation to a charity they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) So inferring ones own morals on others is conceited, but inferring "your society's" is not? Why not? (...) So soceity is conceited? If not, why not? If inferring an individual's morals on another is conceited, why is inferring a society's (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) I agree that the boundary may not be as sharp as some may prefer. But is there a distinction? That is, are there things that do not have rights, in and of themselves? I'm in the camp that holds that there are. Rocks don't have rights, in and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Not willing to answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Shock : Larry does not want me to! (...) Just what am I dodging? (...) And there are those were you are just plain unwilling to justify yourself – do you deny that? (...) hmm "gut feeling". If your view is just a "gut feeling", perhaps you (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Tom, try reading the whole thread before you jump in with your one-liners. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Really? Do you understand what "none" means? (...) Duane, read what I wrote again: "Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in childrens books." (...) fact the lion's. (...) Irony. (...) I can not comapre my (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
I've read it. You are being your normal obfuscating self. If you can't keep your story straight within a single post, why should we trust anything you say whatsoever across an entire thread or more? (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.570)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) You need to be clearer then. (...) I have answered this already. (...) You are missing the point. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Tom, I can't remember the last time I read a constructive post from you in this group. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Because I find his comments very odd. No big deal. (...) You have never "met" me. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) My voodoo doll comment was a jest - I hope you did not take it serious? But I did view yoru original comment as a little ominous. A little Coercive. A little paranoid. I find it stranger that you are not willing to explain it a little – (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this: (URL) view that as being negative. (...) Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I was asked if I thought A, B or C was true. I said "none". It is that simple. (...) I thought that, that is why I said "You are missing the point". :-) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: National vote on handguns?
(...) I know this was a throw-away comment, but... One could be against the notion of ownership and still be reasonable in owning stuff under our current system. I know someone who thinks that we should accept that we are at best stewards of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.569)

		Re: National vote on handguns?
(...) Just re-read the previous post. And the light came on, if a little late. Yes, whacking an intruder may put me in the legal spotlight. Yes, I may have broken other laws in the process (1). I'm willing to take that risk if it means that my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.569)

More: Next Page >>