Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

where did I get the idea that I have rights that animals don't have? Did I say that? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you don't ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

where did I say it? You said I did, back it up. Where did I say it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are having your kid commit mass murder in the backyard.
Equal rights.

 

:bugeye: you eat animals
equal rights you freakin hypocrite

and its odd how you get from my kid killing bugs to me saying your whole rights rant.

 

Yes, I am. And so are you.

 

So what is the difference then ?
The difference is that you think you have more rights than animals have.
Or don't you think that ?

 

I fully agree with you there.

Humans seem to have this sense of "entitlement" which they do not seem inclined to reciprocate. I strongly object to the notion that I "own" my dog; yet I will say that "Daisy is my dog", but the fact is, to Daisy: I am her person. We respect one-another and accord each other rights and privileges.

When a coyote attacks a human child, it is most likely a result of the human doing something stupid or disrespectful (infringing upon his territory--which he doesn't own, but, well, you know); regardless, it is not necessarily inappropriate to retaliate, but it ought to be done in such a fashion as to simply make it so such an attack is unlikely to happen again. In some instances, it might be advisable to kill the bear, but in so doing one ought be mindful of the circumstances which provoked the attack: Was the person doing something idiotic or disrespectful? (Probably.) Did the attack come about as a result of humans being greedy and creating their ever-expanding developments and housing projects (for instance) further and further into the wild; which in turn creates an unstable and untenable environment for the coyotes and other creatures, so that they must diversify their usual diet out of scarcity and necessity? (Again, probably.) Unfortunately, humans are remarkably myopic and irrational creatures, and act out of their own self-interest and greed, fail to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

 

no I'm not.
If a deer came to my habitat and killed me and ate me...well fair is fair.
If the Japanese beetles of the world united, picked up my daughter and put her in a jar of turpentine...well, again, fair is fair.

I'm not gonna feel bad about using the survival skills I have. All animals do.

 

I don't think I have more rights. I think I have better skills. Skills that took millennia for my ancestors to acquire.
Do you think the sabre tooth tiger felt bad for eating early man?

 

Somehow, I don't see that happening.

 

no, but it's their right to do so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I deny that chickens are sapient, have a sense of self, are aware of their own motality, have culture or personality, have imagination, can think and reason, etc

Which they don't.

Only few animals can qualify as "persons"........dolphins, perhaps dogs and cats, and other primates. Maybe a few others.

Meat is the best source of protein, however. Soy bean is gross, and the protein isn't as good quality as, say, egg white protein for digestion.

No, you still misunderstand: the consciousness and intellect of livestock are no where near that of humans; thus, they lack many of the traits which give humans value.

I am not morally bankrupt, I simply do not happen to think killing mindless chickens to be wrong.

I disagree. Vegetarians, especially vegans, tend to be slimmer........but they also tend to have less muscle mass and have more difficulty getting proper nutrition.

Have you ever seen a vegan body builder?

This is because you don't like what he proposed.

I would disagree with you here.........it was consistent and defensible; as for "reasonable", what the hell does that mean?

If you put it that way.

Put it this way: the man believed that sacrifices were necessary and justified in order to create a more perfect German society, and that efficiency was necessary to do this, even if it is ruthless.

The problem is that you value 'humanitarianism' too much and automatically assume all killing is 'bad'.

What was your question? I've been answering every one of your points.

You, however, haven't answered my paper point.

 

Haha, sure you would think "fair is fair"..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, they don't have that right. They'd be hunted down and killed on the spot.
Deer do not have any rights.

Now if a human would go to a deers habitat and kiled and ate it, you wouldn't see anyone (let alone deer) hunt you down and kill you.

Where's the equality in that ?

 

are you calling me a liar?

 

Jeez...there are 30+ posts of you two going back and forth while still managing to say nothing. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

Norsefire:

You are making an awful lot of outlandish claims which run wholly contrary to the findings of ethology, behavioral ecology, and animal cognition studies.

I don't have time to get into it right now, as I need to go out and do some crap, but look up Donald Griffin, Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall, Konrad Lorenz, the "mirror test" (which is intrinsically flawed by virtue of it's sole reliance upon the sense of sight, but is still valuable nonetheless), etc.

 

You got it.