Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  Where your equations break down is the fact that you think humans are equal to animals is subjective. |
It is my opinion that animals should have the same rights as humans, in as far as protecting them from exploitation and ownership. I am quite aware that animals do not have that right now. Rights are bestowed by man because rights are a man-made construct and therefore only he can extend rights to others for rights rest on the legal judicial and legislative powers of man for he governs.
What "is" does not "dictate" what can be in the future. Democracies allow for shifts on the spectrum of beliefs that cause new laws for protection to come about. Since I am an Animal Rightist I work for the process that will bring rights to animals -- just as Abolitionists worked for the process they hoped would bring protection and rights to blacks.
All laws begin with an opinion that something either should or should not be and then put forth by someone. When it is there opinion before becoming law, it is their subjective thought on the matter. Indeed, it remains a subjective thought even after becoming law for it an opinion is subjective regardless it being codified or not. There is nothing wrong with the word "subjective" and it decides nothing on what can become so.
Quote:
Just stop jumping to the most radical comparisons, and you should be fine.
You apply "my reasoning" to that of moral degenerates through insubstantial, tangential comparisons.
|
Comparisons have always been acceptable in debate
to outline reasoning no matter how radical they are or embarrassing. Some people can`t seperate the examination of their reason from the content of their character. Do that, and then you are, or could become a better debator.