(11-13-2014 04:06 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 02:28 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:33 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  As far as trees, well some of them are protected in parks and National Forest.

The government assigning something a protected status is not the same as it having it's own rights. ONLY humans have rights. We protect all sorts of things. We protect historical documents. We protect classified information. Do they have rights?

Can you not admit that animals and trees do not have rights? Only humans have rights?

Rights endowed by our Creator?

My own belief about our Creator (IMO) is that He told Humans to steward His creation. But he didn't give the Creation rights.

Our Declaration of Independence, indicated that it's authors believed our Creator created all Men (mankind) equally and that He gave them inalienable rights. Nothing was mentioned about kitties and puppies.

A.) say I have two children, which one would I love more?

B.) Man's interpretation of our Creator's word.

(11-13-2014 06:43 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 04:06 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 02:28 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:33 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  As far as trees, well some of them are protected in parks and National Forest.

The government assigning something a protected status is not the same as it having it's own rights. ONLY humans have rights. We protect all sorts of things. We protect historical documents. We protect classified information. Do they have rights?

Can you not admit that animals and trees do not have rights? Only humans have rights?

Rights endowed by our Creator?

My own belief about our Creator (IMO) is that He told Humans to steward His creation. But he didn't give the Creation rights.

Our Declaration of Independence, indicated that it's authors believed our Creator created all Men (mankind) equally and that He gave them inalienable rights. Nothing was mentioned about kitties and puppies.

A.) say I have two children, which one would I love more?

B.) Man's interpretation of our Creator's word.

A.) Whichever one YOU choose. It's up to you if you want to prefer one over the other.

B.) It wasn't an interpretation of any Creator's word. It was the stated justification for a rebellion that involved a ensuing war against a monarchy.

Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

Why can't you admit there are other "laws" than man's? Are there "rights" without "law"?

(11-14-2014 05:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

Why can't you admit there are other "laws" than man's? Are there "rights" without "law"?

Great Scott. What a can of worms (and their laws) that would open up-- allowing other species to dictate to us (not sure exactly how we'd accurately interpret their intent, however) what rights they have which we need to adhere to.

You can't be serious?

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

(11-14-2014 06:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

(11-15-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 06:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

(11-16-2014 12:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 06:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Actually, they do. They don't exist in the same way a person's do but they do have them.

Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

(11-16-2014 12:37 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 06:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:43 AM)G-Man Wrote:  Actually, they don't. If you think I'm wrong, show me where that's at in our Constitution. For that matter, show me any law in the U.S. that confirms rights on animals.

And please don't interpret rights into a law that says something about not abusing animals. There are laws against abusing many types of property. But the property doesn't have "rights".

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

I honestly don't believe rights exist...period. It is just more schit we made up to make our lives seems worthy. We are animals and we just happened to be the one that evolved the the highest degree on this planet. So..We get to make the rules by force. Nothing more to it than that. Just natural selection in action.

(11-16-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:37 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 06:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

They do.

See, Animal Welfare Act. Those are rights, given and recognized.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that you do not know what a right is in the first place.

The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

(11-16-2014 02:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:37 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  The Animal Welfare Act isn't about animal rights. Like it or not, it is a standards of treatment of merchandise act.

You see, animals can be sold, traded, experimented upon, killed and eaten.

Unless something has the inalienable right to life, and the ability to attempt to control it's destiny, it has no rights.

Feel free to try again to find a law that confers rights upon animals.

Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

They do, they do not have substantive rights but they do have a form of process right.

Again, you just don't know what a right is, or the different forms they can take.

(11-16-2014 02:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:37 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Read my final point in my previous post; and then read it again.

You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

They do, they do not have substantive rights but they do have a form of process right.

Again, you just don't know what a right is, or the different forms they can take.

A right is made up of two things: the freedom/ability to exert one's will in order to potentially influence an outcome; AND the cognitive ability to contemplate how to best exercise this ability. The only exception is for rights extended/presumed upon humans who aren't sentient. Then the rights are inferred, due to the cognitive inability to exercise them autonomously, by the person who cannot perceive (whether temporarily or permanently).

Animals have "drives". They don't think or plan in advance. They react only. They only have half of what is needed to possess rights. Humans make plans, so they have both parts of what is needed.

Also, regarding how "rights" are derived, they are "God ordained," i.e. given to manking by God. Animals didn't get them and don't have them.

(11-16-2014 09:17 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 12:37 AM)G-Man Wrote:  You failed in your premise to make a point about a premise. No need to keep re-reading it.

There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

They do, they do not have substantive rights but they do have a form of process right.

Again, you just don't know what a right is, or the different forms they can take.

A right is made up of two things: the freedom/ability to exert one's will in order to potentially influence an outcome; AND the cognitive ability to contemplate how to best exercise this ability. The only exception is for rights extended/presumed upon humans who aren't sentient. Then the rights are inferred, due to the cognitive inability to exercise them autonomously, by the person who cannot perceive (whether temporarily or permanently).

Animals have "drives". They don't think or plan in advance. They react only. They only have half of what is needed to possess rights. Humans make plans, so they have both parts of what is needed.

Also, regarding how "rights" are derived, they are "God ordained," i.e. given to manking by God. Animals didn't get them and don't have them.

Your entire post just confirmed that you don't really know what a right is, or the various forms. That's right back to my original post.

Rights take many form.

(11-16-2014 09:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 09:17 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There it is, highlighted. You clearly missed it.

Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

They do, they do not have substantive rights but they do have a form of process right.

Again, you just don't know what a right is, or the different forms they can take.

A right is made up of two things: the freedom/ability to exert one's will in order to potentially influence an outcome; AND the cognitive ability to contemplate how to best exercise this ability. The only exception is for rights extended/presumed upon humans who aren't sentient. Then the rights are inferred, due to the cognitive inability to exercise them autonomously, by the person who cannot perceive (whether temporarily or permanently).

Animals have "drives". They don't think or plan in advance. They react only. They only have half of what is needed to possess rights. Humans make plans, so they have both parts of what is needed.

Also, regarding how "rights" are derived, they are "God ordained," i.e. given to manking by God. Animals didn't get them and don't have them.

Your entire post just confirmed that you don't really know what a right is, or the various forms. That's right back to my original post.

Rights take many form.

Right.

Rights are whatever you want them to be? YOU get to tell me what they're NOT, or how I don't understand them, and yet you can't define them. Why don't you tell me where God is NOT located, while you're at it? About as meaningful a point you'd be making.

If you can't define them, then don't tell me I don't know what they are.

(11-16-2014 11:01 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 09:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 09:17 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Yes. I see it for the third time. And it still is a red herring for the third time. You can't prove animals have rights. Just admit it.

They do, they do not have substantive rights but they do have a form of process right.

Again, you just don't know what a right is, or the different forms they can take.

A right is made up of two things: the freedom/ability to exert one's will in order to potentially influence an outcome; AND the cognitive ability to contemplate how to best exercise this ability. The only exception is for rights extended/presumed upon humans who aren't sentient. Then the rights are inferred, due to the cognitive inability to exercise them autonomously, by the person who cannot perceive (whether temporarily or permanently).

Animals have "drives". They don't think or plan in advance. They react only. They only have half of what is needed to possess rights. Humans make plans, so they have both parts of what is needed.

Also, regarding how "rights" are derived, they are "God ordained," i.e. given to manking by God. Animals didn't get them and don't have them.

Your entire post just confirmed that you don't really know what a right is, or the various forms. That's right back to my original post.

Rights take many form.

Right.

Rights are whatever you want them to be? YOU get to tell me what they're NOT, or how I don't understand them, and yet you can't define them. Why don't you tell me where God is NOT located, while you're at it? About as meaningful a point you'd be making.

If you can't define them, then don't tell me I don't know what they are.

I actually addressed that, see bolded.

The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

(11-16-2014 11:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

Do the Hadza have rights?