Should nonhuman persons have the same rights we do?

[John Galt]

[exploited]

@leftneckredwing

What do you mean? Humans are notorious for killing the mentally and physically handicapped and female infants throughout history. Not doing that is an incredibly new development, and that only happened by codifying certain legal rights and then demanding through legislation that they be respected.

So you are now arguing that our mental capacity and tool use gives us rights. It has changed from species to nature to mental capacity, really whatever basis is most convenient for your trolling at the time. Guess what? Intelligent animals build tools and teach their kids how to do the same. Some of the tools are far more sophisticated than could be built by your average five year old human.

One has rights, one doesn't. Why?

This is where you change the basis of rights to species again.

[eynon81]

[lnrw]

[eynon81]

[Homer]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

You have done no such thing. You have pointed out that animals haven't built certain tools, that they don't write, and a bunch of other observations, none of which are relevant to determining whether they have rights or not... Unless you are arguing that intellectual capacity is the basis of rights, in which case you'll be forced to take Galt's position that the mentally handicapped and minors don't have rights.

So which is it?

Does a retard have the right to life? Does an infant? Answer carefully.

[eynon81]

[Philly]

As a species, I think we are more entitled to the rights we conceptualized and created than other animals. I'm a humanist.