3 ms·

> If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything. That's another straw man. I could reply in the exact same way to you wanting to give ri

> If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything. That's another straw man. I could reply in the exact same way to you wanting to give rights to humans. Your argument for granting rights to humans is not based on the fact that we're alive and neither is the Animal Rights argument. You understand that - right? There is literally no one arguing that we should grant rights to animals on the basis on them being alive.

geggam 7y ago
Humans have rights, you dont grant them rights. Animals and plants do not have rights. You dont have the power to grant them rights. Animals and plants are food. Granny was right when she said people have it too good. Folks look around for things to do instead of just enjoying what they have.
- Falling3 7y ago
  As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. And Granny was wrong.
  - geggam 7y ago
    >As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. >You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement. >And Granny was wrong. The older I get the less I believe that. Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights. People are too separated from their food supplies aka have it too good.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      > Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. Human law is relevant to the whether we grant humans rights, the idea that which you took issue with. "Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. The pearl clutching really doesn't get us anywhere. > Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement. It is. I said exactly that. Humans are also food for humans. That's another factual statement. But you can't conflate descriptive and normative statements, which you seem bent on doing. > Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights. You could perform the same experiment with two humans - or we could look at instances like the Donner party. What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation.
      - geggam 7y ago
        >"Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. Natural law is where humans get rights (they are born with them), also the foundation of modern civilization. > What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation. What people do to survive is eat. What they eat is the entire subject you are arguing. Glad to see we agree humans eat everything. Now can you quit pretending animals have some right to not be eaten ?
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        Great posts in this thread, thanks.

geggam 7y ago

Humans have rights, you dont grant them rights. Animals and plants do not have rights. You dont have the power to grant them rights. Animals and plants are food. Granny was right when she said people have it too good. Folks look around for things to do instead of just enjoying what they have.

Falling3 7y ago
As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. And Granny was wrong.
- geggam 7y ago
  >As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. >You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement. >And Granny was wrong. The older I get the less I believe that. Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights. People are too separated from their food supplies aka have it too good.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    > Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. Human law is relevant to the whether we grant humans rights, the idea that which you took issue with. "Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. The pearl clutching really doesn't get us anywhere. > Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement. It is. I said exactly that. Humans are also food for humans. That's another factual statement. But you can't conflate descriptive and normative statements, which you seem bent on doing. > Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights. You could perform the same experiment with two humans - or we could look at instances like the Donner party. What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation.
    - geggam 7y ago
      >"Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. Natural law is where humans get rights (they are born with them), also the foundation of modern civilization. > What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation. What people do to survive is eat. What they eat is the entire subject you are arguing. Glad to see we agree humans eat everything. Now can you quit pretending animals have some right to not be eaten ?
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      Great posts in this thread, thanks.