Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 1941 – 1960 of about 12000.

Search took 0.03 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Go ahead, make my day!
(...) Well, since you keep bringing Texas up, I thought I would give you a little reading material.... SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.569)

		Re: National vote on handguns?
(...) Not sure where you're coming from, but where I'm at it's legal to shoot first and ask questions later when an unidentified person is in your home. Granted, there have been a couple of unfortunate "mistakes" where a family member has been taken (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I'm saying that I agree with Larry. Do you think I'm disagreeing? What are you looking for here? (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Funny, my dictionary here at work (The American Heritage 3rd edition) gives this definition: Neither moral nor immoral Try dictionary.com and see what you come up with. (or should I do the legwork for you?) Tell you what, I'll mail you my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) My statement is exactly what it is. I try not to put hidden meanings behind my words. It keeps life simpler. -Duane (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Yes, I have asked it already, and yes, you've tried to answer it-- however, I either did not understand your response, or I find you to be in error for ever disagreeing with Larry about the issue. So, either please clarify by answering the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		Re: National vote on handguns?
(...) Here’s where I got this: (URL) I say more? 18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

property
(score: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Uh, no, by the definitions you gave (and my understanding also) amoral does not specifically relate to _our_ (human) morals, but _any_ morals. (...) ROSCO (Never let it be said that I let this thread die!) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		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: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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)

rights
(score: 1.569)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Are you saying the dictionary larry quoted is wrong? Are you saying the one I quoted is wrong? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 1.569)

More: Next Page >>