Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 2201 – 2220 of about 12000.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) No I am not. I am trying to do better at ignoring you, or at least ignoring you when you are at your silliest... What possible value add is there in a comment like "do I use voodoo dolls", I wonder? And I am sure everyone else is wondering it (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Why are you concerned? Do you want to make sure that your name is in the book? I've never met anyone else who can get stuck on such simple things besides you. You ask rhetorical questions and actually expect an answer.... (...) -Duane (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced to guess, as (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Yes, I do. However, I do not understand how that answered the question. Were you saying "None of the above"? What were you saying? Should I just infer what you were talking about? I asked for clarification. (...) That is a re-quote, not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Technic sidebar thingie
(...) Are you stalking me?!? Ah yes, I remember claiming to be perfect, It was a Tuesday and it was raining, not hard, it was a gentle rain... Try I do not post pictures of what I build because it is not a big motivation of mine and I currently do (...) (18 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) Yes, Ross, you made that perfectly clear. What you haven't made so clear is WHY you think that for no apparent reason. (...) Because I have no evidence to the contrary. You are obtuse. (...) Is that why you know so much about him-- because you (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) OK. Let's try this from the other direction, kiddies. The populace that still reads Lugnet is a group of people. It contains many subgroups, for example: The people that still read lugnet.org.scibrick The people that still read a few groups (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) He's not necessarily in the "still reading" subgroup category. He could've been just popping over to LUGNET when he got "pinged" by a regular reader, or after a major event like an ILTCO convention. Which is exactly what I suspect is the case. (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

More: Next Page >>