送交者: apate 于 2005-1-17, 15:56:22:

回答: The topic derives from the discussion about 由 Enlighten 于 2005-1-17, 15:52:04:

i could be wrong but lets suppose you are making your "whatever is good for human is good is right" to justify environmental protection. however, this same argument can be used to justify the point of those who argue against environmental protection. if this is the case and if both sides are human beings, then following your logic, there must be some *higher* laws justiying both parties so that *something* is *unanimously* taken to be good for *both* parties and there is right to all them as well.

let me know what that *something* is. thank you.

understood?

• You are confused - Enlighten (952 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:12:25
  • don't want to waste my time here, but mark this: - apate (946 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:43:34
    • You are still confused - Enlighten (336 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:58:06
      • well... - apate (2795 bytes) 2005-1-17, 18:27:36
  • so. what's your vocabulary, without using - apate (292 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:29:17
    • It's a scientific matter, so use the language of science - Enlighten (154 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:41:15
      • ok - apate (860 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:53:21
      • "any" should be "all" - Enlighten (0 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:42:30
• correction - apate (135 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:58:11

加跟贴