Animal rights?

[Player]

There was a large thread time ago,

Animal Rights

That is the point that cuts through this whole animal rights are equal to human rights argument. Humans do not even grant the full panopoly of rights to other humans who are incapable of exercising them such as the mentally deficent and children. Mentally capable humans may disagree with rights but they are at least capable of understanding and comprehending the system of rights. An ape or any other animal cannot understand that. Yes they may defend their right to life but that does not mean t…

I would love some answers from the animals-can-be-owned group;

¿How can you called your property something that runs away and attacks you when you try to use it?

There are only two options,

1. animals con be owned by humans, therefore unlimited torture and barbarism is perfectly ethical and right.

2. animals can not be owned by humans because they already have an owner, themselves.

The evidence (they control their body, their movement, have a brain similar to us, some have kid-level reasoning capabilities, some have consciousness, identify in front of mirrors, mourn their deads, have almost all of the human emotions).

So, beetween a rock or sand that can be owned and a human slave imported from africa that doesn’t speak ‘human languages’ (that’s what was said not long ago, less thant 200 years)…

I do think that at least those animals closer to us like mammals and birds are self-owned entities.

Everybody here knows that an animal cannot be in the same category as a rock, and those who that are either lazy intellectuals or too ashamed to come forward.

The way to go is very easy, liberalism as always, live your life and let others live theirs and if you are attacked, defend yourself.