I SURE AS HELL_DON'T BELIEVE_AWB PLAN DROPPED

Gordie wrote:

That was inan article that was written by Gordie.

Click to expand...

Ok, now I get what you're saying. However, it isn't my problem you suck at quoting articles so it ends up looking like YOU were the one making the comment ON the article, and then go on to say that YOU wrote the article. :quirky

Click to expand...

Oh, and animals should have rights.  They're as much of a living thing as you are.  Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

AWDstylez wrote:

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

No they don't. They shouldn't be treated inhumanely, but to start giving animals rights is just a step from saying that trees, or dirt, or water has rights as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like it's my fault that you have comprehension problems.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Trees.....have rights? Well, you better stop living in your house, using paper (of any kind, so wipe yourself with leaves or your hand), and basically living without wood products of any kind, cause you wouldn't want to infringe on the "trees' rights", now would you?

You go ahead and do that, have fun. The rest of us, outside of the looney bin, will live with the fact that we kill poor, poor trees everyday for our convenience.

I knew you were a nut, but the depth of your mental retardation wasn't even on the scale I was using. I now know just how totally and completely STUPID you are. :quirky

Click to expand...

Or not......by turning a tree into paper, you are killing it. What rights do trees have if they do not have the right to stay alive (one of the most basic rights)? You are digging yourself a deeper hole every time you post. I'm waiting for a serious answer. Or you can just continue to lose credibility (if you have any at all) at an exponentially increasing rate.

Click to expand...

Animals clearly do not have a natural right to do anything which they are incapable of doing due to lack of human form, and this precludes most of the rights the constitution protects.

However, while an animal has neither a constitutional nor a self-evident natural right to, say, carry and use firearms (being incapable of doing so), the fact that the animal is alive does evince a natural right to not be killed without some valid reason (this is the same logic by which nature is used philosophically as the source of rights).

Now, being that animals are not capable of understanding human conceits like society, you are free to treat them accordingly. Thus, if an animal trespasses on your property and eats your crops, you may kill it without asking it to leave first, or having been threatened with potentially deadly bodily harm. Thus may you eat an animal for food without justifying the act as self-defense before a court.

However, no amount of religion or anthropocentric "logic" will ever make the needless killing of an animal "for fun" (as some people are occasionally inclined to do) anything other than an act of aggression against what I would point out is one of GOD's living beings.

Then again, I don't believe in God.

Click to expand...