> I don't find the idea of human rights silly. But to me, the only reason we have rights is because we have the capability to give ourselves rights. Animals don't have that ability, so they don't have rights. If a more powerful species than humans did those things to us, it would be wrong because we have rights. Again, because we give ourselves rights. These aliens should see that and not do those things to us. Animals don't have rights.

Who is to say that the animals did not give themselves rights, and that we don't see that? (actually, YOU don't see that, because I personally do)


>
> >Not a whole lot. sure, we're smarter, but then if you want to take that argument then it would be OK to hunt retarded people because they're not as smart as us and therefore have no rights. Shall I go on?. . .
>
> It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of imagination (as we imagine we have rights, so we have them). Retarded people still have imaginations and the ability to think.

Animals imagine they have rights too. They just aren't capable of communicating this to people because they don't speak our language. got news for you. . .in my alien example, chances are bloody likely that we wouldn't be able to communicate with them either, so they wouldn't see our rights either. Additionally, Koko the gorilla has proven that animals can imagine and think for themselves. After learning sign language for various objects, she showed an untaught ability to sign for things that she wanted - -not just food, but things like her cat, her toys, her irritation at her trainer for various things, etc. Koko clearly sees she has rights, and is lucky enough to be able to communicate them. Just because you can't understand the language doesn't mean the other animals aren't communicating them as well.



>
> >
> > If it benefits mankind in some way, I see no problem with harming some animals.
> >
> > A rather egocentric viewpoint. What's the difference between that statement and someone saying "if killing you benefits me, there's nothing wrong with it?"
>
> Again, I have rights, animals don't. Another person killing me would be infringing on my right to live. Killing an animal would not be infringing on its rights, as it has none.

See above.

>
> >
> > Your argument seems to be stemmed around one central issue. If it gives you pleasure, you show it mercy. Otherwise, screw it. This isn't a very stable platform from which to make an argument.
>
> Basically, that is my philosophy. If it gives me pleasure, and it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights, it's fine.
>
> >
> > But I don't think hunting is wrong or unethical.
> >
> > You don't think it's unethical to go out and shoot dozens of deer just for fun? Well, I suppose Dahmer didn't think it was unethical to eat people. Does that make it right?
>
> Yet again, people have rights, deer don't. I find it disgusting that some people find joy out of shooting deer for fun, but I don't find it unethical.

Yet again, see above.


>
> >
> > > I enjoy going fishing, because fish taste good >and I don't feel bad about killing them.
> >
> > Ahh. So now animals have two conditions to meet in order for you to be benevolent with them: They must please you, and they must not taste good.
>
> No, that has nothing to do with it. If they don't have rights (which they don't) and killing them isn't infringing on a person's rights, it's fine. Taste has nothing to do with it.
>

How about prisoners? They are considered not to have rights. What about people in comas? They can't imagine rights either, yet orderlies get in trouble for raping/hurting them all the time. Why? According to your philosophy, they can't think, so they don't have rights.



> >
> > The only way I would object to hunting is if it were an endangered species, because that actually affects the entire ecosystem, which of course includes people.
> >
> > Again, something which benefits you is the only thing that you show mercy to.
>
> Right. So long as it doesn't have rights.
>
> > >
> > > Also, another thing that bugs me is that I've heard from time to time something like this: "If you were to kill off all the gnats in the world, the entire ecosystem would collapse; but if you were to kill off all the people, things would only get better." First off, the entire ecosystem wouldn't collapse, but yes, it would get worse, and people do in general pollute the environment and make it worse, so I get the general point. But to me, making this point as one defending environmentalism seems to be missing the point. I do my part to keep the environment clean, but for the reason that a poor environment harms mankind. To me, environmentalism purely for the environment's sake seems silly.
> >
> > Again, this is rather egocentric and unlikely to gain much respect for your argument if you try it on people.
>
> And again, people have rights, so it's completely different.
>
> > Bran"stirring up the controversy even more"don
>
> Char "if it doesn't have rights, do what you please" on


Bran"it bloody well DOES have rights"don