Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 2221 – 2240 of about 12000.

Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) He could also be still reading. (...) Why do you suspect that? (...) (URL) Oh I doubt it>. Of course that could just be someone impersonating him. (...) I never claimed to know about his Lugnet reading habits. (...) Or even moot. Yes, I do (...) (18 years ago, 16-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		Re: Tim's beef behavior
(...) Why bother? I was legally allowed to use them and given your typical behaviour I find it very unlikely you would volunteer to let me use them to poke fun at you. You can twist and turn all you like but what you did was morally wrong in my (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		Re: illogical behavior ;)
(...) Here's the thing--my justification for 'choosing evidence', if you wish to call it that, is like anytrhing else So here's a hypothetical situation-- Bob had a pretty 'transgressive' start to life. He had gotten into some unlawful mischief in (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I wasn't actually saying I do or don't-- I was just asking to try and probe Scott a little further. Socratic method, I guess... I'm not really exploring and/or defending my own standpoint with Scott yet-- I'm trying to figure out where he (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) First, you still haven't clarified what you were agreeing to above. Second, by saying that animals ar not moral, immoral or amoral you do not add to the discussion by not stating what you beleive. I interpret your stance as either 1)animals (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Good restatement. Good luck getting a straight answer though. I agree that we ought not to infer or impute human characteristics of animals unless they are demonstrably present. That's why I think of animals as amoral, because I tend to (with (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Figure it out
(...) You still as a fellow Lego Fan, took another LUGNET member's pictures repeatedly from Brickshelf to use in a mean spirited manner is completely uncool for what ever your reasons. Until You, Kevoh, Jude and Soren used my pictures to wage your (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) Once again obfuscation--my replies to your comments-- 'I’ve stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not. Just because people get a rise (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) The fact we do eat cows, chickens & fish and not humans, dolphins & chimps is more to do with social taboos that it is our morals. A dog is no more self aware than a cow in my opinion - but I don't see them on the menu (near me). Pigs are one (...) (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?)
(...) Are Newtonian physics really valid? Is it not just that the errors are so small we can live with them? Scott 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?
(...) 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: 0.415)

		Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
(...) It might be a way to curb that type of violence, yes. So why not show that type of violence in movies? Get it out in the open. Don't hide it from your children. Allow them to see the violence and have a chance to understand that it is wrong (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: illogical behavior ;)
(...) Dave, Your analogy is incorrect. It would be correct if Bob had done something in another town and then someone in the town hall had abused Bob for his actions in the other town, Bob had defended himself, James had said Bob was reformed and (...) (18 years ago, 15-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

all
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) OK, they were your points - I stand corrected. BTW : the questions you posed did remind me of an American stereotype we often see here. What I mean are those who say that they have "god given" rights. I always think that, in an agnostic (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

More: Next Page >>