> 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 human

> 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.