Anthropocentrism and Animal Rights

ForTheLastTime · #**101** 03-05-2008

As for the "rights" that you're talking about NiceGuy, and when they should be given to children, obviously at birth (though I may argue prior to that) they are entitled to life and liberty, though they do not come with the ability to utilize their rights as rational human beings, they are entitled to the more basic rights such as mentioned, life, a healthy upbringing, etc

Now to entitle animals to life is very hard to do since we, as animals, must consume other animals. To draw the line on when we should and shoudln't kill animals is utterly impossible, seeing how so many foods are from other animals.

E Nomini Patri · #**102** 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrbas

I see, so what would you define as "human"... or better said, what is the definition of human/humanity/man-kind?

Humans belong to the species "Homo sapiens." It is the morphological and physiological features of your body that determine which clade you belong to. Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.

Our highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection, along with our lack of prominent body hair (we have more hair than Chimpanzees, but it doesn't grow very thick on 90% of our bodies) and bipedalism separate us from our relatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrbas

On the last definition of "animal", i see it says "must ingest & digest other organisms... to sustain themselves"... Did you catch the post i made earlier about this (NiceGuy replied) regarding environmental ethics or whatever? Technically speaking, could we, as animals, not live off of bread and water alone (which i assume are neither sentient or "living")?

We'd die if we consumed strictly water. Bread is made from harvested plants so other organisms are still ingested and digested.

**NiceGuy** · #**103** 03-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForTheLastTime

As for the "rights" that you're talking about NiceGuy, and when they should be given to children, obviously at birth (though I may argue prior to that) they are entitled to life and liberty, though they do not come with the ability to utilize their rights as rational human beings, they are entitled to the more basic rights such as mentioned, life, a healthy upbringing, etc

Now to entitle animals to life is very hard to do since we, as animals, must consume other animals. To draw the line on when we should and shoudln't kill animals is utterly impossible, seeing how so many foods are from other animals.

God you're dense. I already refuted that. Never did I say we couldn't eat animals. Act out of necessity. It's not impossible, you're just stupid.

And if you keep making second accounts, 1v1, I'll ban your IP.