Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou only use what others can do for you. Because you have no original thought.
Gkpeter -
[b]One of the criteria for "rights" was the concept of rational thought, whether it be the ability, or perhaps making a rational thought.
The capacity for rational thought is part of Bbarr's definition of what a person is, which is something with rights, again according to Bbarr's arbritrary definition.
Whether or no ...[text shortened]... derstanding of Bbarr's argument I believe.
Please note, I don't use his definitions myself.[/b]
Originally posted by StarValleyWySVW, you are an uncritical, illogical old fool who is way too full of himself for his own good. In the future I will probably ignore a number of your posts, because no matter how thoroughly I demonstrate the flaws in your arguments, you persist in throwing them out there unaltered, ignoring my criticisms except to throw baseless insults.
You only use what others can do for you. Because you have no original thought.
Just wanted to let you know! 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNice.
SVW, you are an uncritical, illogical old fool who is way too full of himself for his own good. In the future I will probably ignore a number of your posts, because no matter how thoroughly I demonstrate the flaws in your arguments, ...[text shortened]... cept to throw baseless insults.
Just wanted to let you know! 🙂
You again give no examples.
Good on you. Idiot. If you post an example, then I will respond. But to respond other than to state my opinion of you as an "idiot" makes no sense. So.
See my post on being Bullet Proof. You actually care to be a mighty chimp. I do not. Dare to gamble the odds of who will win this argument?
More to the point... You are stupid because you make fun of all in the other chimp tribe, based not on logic, but on your schmoozing. You let all know which tribe you belong to and hope they see you as a virile chimp. I see you as a limited piece of crap. Along side the trail. So sue me.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAThousandYoung-
The capacity for rational thought is part of Bbarr's definition of what a person is, which is something with rights, again according to Bbarr's arbritrary definition.
Whether or not a being actually has rational thoughts has no relevance to Bbarr's argument, I don't think. The capacity to have them is what matters to him. Also, what the rights ...[text shortened]... derstanding of Bbarr's argument I believe.
Please note, I don't use his definitions myself.[/b]
Thanks for the reply. I am absolutely sure I am misunderstanding bbar's argument. I just have a hard time seeing why a "criteria" for certain "rights", being rational thought is a criteria at all when it appears to have no relevance whatsoever. I am well aware that he was referring to right of life, however, the argument can be applied to other rights too.
Another question I have been thinking of is how important is a mode of communication for "rights?" If you have no way of communicating, are you a person or do you have "rights?"
Thanks
