Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 2241 – 2260 of about 12000.

Search took 0.03 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		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: 0.415)

		Re: malicious behavior
(...) (this is such a joke, I am just having fun in the way I transcribe the events) Righgght! Brilliant, and upon further research one can plainly see, that another party, usual suspect, utters a complaint unto Eric Sophie's person, there by (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all
(score: 0.415)

		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: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Thanks, Dave.I think this pretty beautifully illustrates the fundamental difference between Scott and myself, and between our debating styles. (charitably extending the term in one case) And it may illustrate why it irks me greatly when people (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Hah! Beautiful work, Dave! (...) Yes, Dave is right-- it seems evident here, Scott. I know you guys always disagree and you'll never convince each other to see an issue the same way so just agree to disagree. The world does not revolve around (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.415)

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

rights
(score: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		Re: New Web Page
Hi again, (...) I try only to make stuff up when it's inconsequential. ;) My "field" isn't early US/18th C. Britain, it's later, so all I have is ancillary knowledge and methodological things. I'm in agreement with the "they had different worries" (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
(...) 10 years! he should have got twenty, he was already on probation, He probably would have done it evetually and locking him up hardly counts as a loss to society! I think what society gains from the removal of the risk he posed far outways any (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth. (...) You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are the role model they should aspire (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) What is you point? (...) To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything. (...) Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass? Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun? (...) Same as what? The same as you? Do you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

rights
(score: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

		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: 0.414)

More: Next Page >>