[jammies]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Rights are a human concept to that I'll agree. However, many human concepts can be applied to animals. Pain, loyalty, fun, etc... You yourself apply rights to animals later on to animals when you say they have a right to not suffer unduly. .

No, I've said that humans have a duty not to cause undue suffering. That is not only not the same thing as animals having rights, it is part of the central point of my argument against such a thing, as animals have no such duty towards each other due to not being morally aware.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Wanting something does not dictate necessity. I want a porsche, does that make it necessary? Meat is not necessary for survival as millions of Vegans all over the world dictate.

Wanting something that is not a necessity is not immoral. It's not necessary to eat potatoes, either - does this mean that eating potatoes is immoral? Obviously not, so the immorality cannot lie in necessity.

Originally Posted by Sowa

You assume that switching to an all plant would take away food from other animals. That logic is flawed.

No, I'm saying that by merely existing every human on the planet necessarily kills, and the degree of killing is all we are arguing over.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Instead I believe in humans, the most advanced species on the planet, doing the most to make sure suffering for the rest of the planet is at a minimum.

I can't argue with this sentence, as long as you are talking about affecting only human behaviour.

Originally Posted by Sowa

You are confusing having morals with what is moral. Under your definition throwing a cat in a microwave would not be immoral because it is an animal.

No, under my definition a HUMAN throwing a cat in a microwave is immoral, but not because the cat has any intrinsic rights, but because the human knows that causing gratuitous suffering is wrong.

You are confusing having morals with not having them, and it's rather difficult to understand how that confusion can arise considering I specifically gave examples to the contrary, not to mention that conclusion not making any sense.

Originally Posted by Sowa

I agree, but this doesn't automatically infer lack of rights. At best your argument so far illustrates that animals have less rights than humans maybe comparable to the insane and/or mentally handicap.

This is logic is flawed. Foxes consume rabbits to survive their right to life is = to that of the rabbit. Humans are distinct from foxes because they can survive without the death of another animal.

This is entirely and completely incorrect in all ways and fashions through the history of this and any other universe containing humans.

You live in a building that animals were killed to erect; you eat food that animals were killed in the making of; you drink water that is purged of organisms before you drink it, sent from a reservoir that killed animals in its creation. Every product you use has undoubtedly killed more animals somewhere along its production, from the beetles that die when trees are felled for paper to the rodents that died in the building of the factory that made the monitor you are reading this on.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Again flawed as their right to life doesn't supercede ours or any other species.

Just a few paragraphs back you said the fox's right to live by killing superseded the rabbit's right to life, so which is it? Either the tiger has a right to kill and the human does not, or maybe... just maybe, the idea of the tiger having a "right" is what is the problem.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Obviously you have no insight to the factory farms. Also funny that you use the word "humane" to describe treatment of an animal.

I've been to a slaughterhouse and to feed lots, so I've probably more direct experience than most. As far as the word "humane" goes, since it is humans applying the treatment, I'm not sure what is "funny" about the term. If I was using to describe the behaviour of animals it would be funny, but that sounds more like a mistake PETA would make.

Originally Posted by Sowa

So this logic is also flawed. My dog who cannot pass on genes is much more secure than a cow. Not really aware of the plight of the passenger pigeon. However, there lives would have to be pretty terrible to compare to that of a cow that lives on a factory farm.

Passenger pigeons are extinct, and your dog might not agree with your assessment of the situation if it were asked and could understand the question.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Here you are affording cows some rights which contradicts your entire argument. Bullfighting also illustrates cows ability to survive and protect itself.

Again, I'm not giving cows any kind of rights, I am stressing the role of human responsibilities. You think I am giving out "rights" because you are stuck on the concept that animals have them, but I assure you that I have no such opinion and the continual misunderstanding of the difference between animal rights and human responsibilities is exactly what I am arguing against.