Vegetarianism

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Mercenary said: People Will tolerate the govt. tapping phones because it doesn't really affect them, but if an everyday right was stamped upon, people would be infuriated. Randomly farming through phone records doesn't directly affect anyone, but an act that shows the gov. is willing to invade our lives is a different story.

I agree, and disagree.

I am ready to revolt over tapped phone lines.

The sheeple mentality in this nation is repulsive anymore.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I also disagree with tapping phone lines without a warrant, but I'm not gonna stockpile weapons yet, just try to shake down politics in washington.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Exactly, the rights YOU believe animals should have.....

Well, a Movement has to be propelled by the beliefs its actors are putting forth -- eeeerrrr -- or there would be no Movement.

Subjective, not in the concern of the animals, or with their express desires even KNOWN.

One need simply observe that beings which feel pain have a desire not to be the target of it -- hence they move out away from its source if able to.

This is your fight, not the animals. The fight has no legs, because of it.

Totally irrelevant, for the animals stand to gain if rights are passed to protect their integrity of body from exploitation. You can deny it has no legs, but in the Animal Rights thread I have already posted links that show the concern that others in the industries have about The Movement for AR and the incremental steps which are under way and have been taken. I guess I could copy and paste it here, if you still refuse to see that they believe or worry that the threat is real.

If the argument for AR has no legs, then why the concern about it? I don`t bother myself with worries about things I see never coming to be. That said, "Me thinks the lady doeth protest too much."

People like me are growing in number as the Police State and Global Society emerges. To be droll, "Don't count your chickens, before they hatch".

Cute.

Many people, like myself, will willfully ignore laws that go against basic rights.

First seat belts, now smoking...oh what are you poor souls to do with all us activists widdling away at your precious rights built on arrogance and sense of self-entitlement? Be afraid, be very afraid.

BOO!

The more that are created, the bigger the lawless society will become, and eventually the end of the government that would impose such laws.

Paranoia knows no bounds.

Well, you haven`t taken to the streets and hills yet, OFE. I suspect as time rolls on and as the increments for AR comes slowly, you will fall in line as well -- as age tends to mellow people in their willingness to endure the spartan lifestyle of a soldier committed to a battle.

By the way, Chicagoans can`t even eat Foi Gras in the city limits anymore. LOL! Another part of America that has lost a right to put a certain kind of food at the expense of animals they enjoy into their stomachs. The Movement rolls on.

Thought I`d throw in a real world sample for you to chew on.

You and I are opposite on this issue. Rights are not infringible by government. Yes, they are now, but people like myself are working everyday to reverse these crimes by government, upon citizens.

Rights are of a nature that they are expandable by those who make them and have the power to grant them. Yours have only been infringed upon because they were wrongfully from the beginning infringing on anothers' being. But, good to see you admitting the process has you already trying to catch up since your side has fallen behind in whatever you perceive. Funny.

What you are doing is attempting to use the police and government (state and federal) to infringe upon the rights of citizens, to GIVE privlidges to animals that they haven't earned,

We are not attempting anything, we are actually DOING it, and making gains in the field little by little. We don`t mind earning it for them. It`s our effort and recourses to spend as we wish for campaigning for what we believe in -- in fact it is our RIGHT to do so. Oh, and just to remind you again, we are making gains. BOO!

nor do they deserve, at the exepense of citizens, with a trust in government to oversee and enforce it using force, against citizens. That is almost an open plea for war, with U.S. citizens who value their rights. I am simply saying that is what you will have.... a war.

I`ve always wondered about the mind of the kind of person predisposed to private militias. Now I am getting a glimpse.

If the collective values of the people come to a point where they agree animals should be protected with one AR law coming down the pipe at a time, then there will be no war for it will have become a gradual process of acceptance of the point -- an evolution in thought.

You need to tune your perception, not critique my delivery.

I perceive a lot of fear on your part.

I question your means, and alledge your methods are unconstitutional at their core. THAT is what is different about us.

ROTLMAO!

What is unconstitutional about campaigning and using the legislature and courts?

You see it as being acceptable to use force to enforce law that 51% of the people think is just. I do not, and for good reason.

Did I say 51% or did I paraphrase in a sense such as "general public" or large majority? I don`t think a 51% would be a wide enough margin for a mandate to grant rights to animals. It would have to be much higher, and I am sure that ammendments to the Constitution in the U.S., for example, would require more than that. C'mon OFE, be sharper than that.

This is not a democracy, and it never was. Our rights are inalienable.

Animal Rights will reflect what the general will of the people will want them to be. As they grow pushing into the rights we have now, our use of animals will become marginalized as it will be wrong for one`s rights to infringe upon the others who also would have rights protection. We will have to accomodate them -- unless you take to the hills and become a deviant breaking the laws.

People who share your perspective are what in my opinion, is ruining this nation,....

Well, in MY opinion, people who share the hope for Animal Rights are instilling more respect for life in general into the nation, and respect for life and not causing suffering when it is not needed is a good thing. You believe the opposite. Fine. But, we are the ones pushing back traditional beliefs on the subject and making the changes and challenges to match our values. You are not. Your side is having ground taken from it and the trend continues. Your own view that the country is getting ruined is a clear admission that you are losing or have been losing the battles since you identify our group within and as part of the movement that is doing the ruining (i.e social change and expanding rights for animals).

[Osborn F Enready]

SHW said: Well, a Movement has to be propelled by the beliefs its actors are putting forth -- eeeerrrr -- or there would be no Movement.

That's more or less my point. This is a movement of "actors", and it is a movement for "movements sake" instead of for the benefit of the animals, or humans. It is a move for political power play, for the bidding of the use of force.

Its best not to create movements for movements sake, but it is definitely beneficial to stand behind movements that have their own starting and a beneficial end goal.

The animals are not fighting for equal rights.... they can't even perceive them, or respect them. This is a false fight for what some misguided groups EQUATES as beneficial for animals to themselves, subjectively, but they know no more than any other group about what animals really want.

SHW said: One need simply observe that beings which feel pain have a desire not to be the target of it -- hence they move out away from its source if able to.

Nature IS pain, are you going to change nature too? Protect the world from pain, physical or emotional?

LOL

SHW said: If the argument for AR has no legs, then why the concern about it?

Because of the method in which the argument is being proposed. It is being proposed as rational thought, and pondered as if it may be a possibility.

It clearly is not rational thought, and its enforcement would broach individual rights, which makes it an enemy of mine. Animals have things such as "natural enemies", as do I. I am threatened by those who threaten my well being, my survival. Nanny-statists, fascists and sheeple threaten my survival, and their own, they just aren't enlightened enough yet to see their own demise through their illogical path that nature simply won't allow.

Once thoughts get converted to action, stances must be taken. I have taken my stance, because the actions that are taking place are setting bad precedent, and drawing the republic further away from its goals and intentions, as well as encouraging it to step beyond its bounds, because the people have lost the concept of the threat of the state, shamefully so.

Over history, these lessons of state power always result in failure.

SHW said: First seat belts, now smoking...oh what are you poor souls to do with all us activists widdling away at your precious rights built on arrogance and sense of self-entitlement? Be afraid, be very afraid.

It is you my friend who should be afraid, because you are the fuel to the fire which consumes all great nations eventually, which is anarchy, due to government over-reaching toward empire, resulting in revolt and anarchy, which leads to a new government. I have no fear of the reset button, but you are the one who claims you "despise" death, senseless killing and war.

Why add fuel to the fire you despise? You expose yourself as the hypocrite you are.

SHW said: We are not attempting anything, we are actually DOING it, and making gains in the field little by little. We don`t mind earning it for them. It`s our effort and recourses to spend as we wish for campaigning for what we believe in -- in fact it is our RIGHT to do so. Oh, and just to remind you again, we are making gains.

Gains toward revolution.... I salute you. That only helps my cause, to show how far out of constitutionality the system has become.....so by all means go marching on soldier, push the envelope until it caves in around you.

I am prepared for the consequences, I don't think you have a clue what they are.

SHW said: If the collective values of the people come to a point where they agree animals should be protected with one AR law coming down the pipe at a time, then there will be no war for it will have become a gradual process of acceptance of the point -- an evolution in thought.

If you equate evolution of law, and perversion of law, one and the same, yes, I guess.

What nation were you born into?

Obviously not American I am guessing?

SHW said: I`ve always wondered about the mind of the kind of person predisposed to private militias. Now I am getting a glimpse.

Its quite simple, and it has little to do with militias. It is called a backbone, to refuse being FORCED into submission by an unjust government, whatever the cost. The same mentality that fuels national armies, to suicide bombers.
Resistance, to injustice, regardless of who is pushing it, regardless of the force being used to satisfy the agenda.

SHW said: I perceive a lot of fear on your part.

Rightly so. Anyone who doesn't fear the power of the state is naieve at best, ignorant at worst. History shows a clear path of state injustice, in all nations, and anyone with half a brain and access to a library or the internet can teach themselves the truth.

You are a tool of the system, and you are asking people to become bigger tools than you yourself are willing to be. The funniest part, you discount the thought, if it ever occurred, that you were a tool at all.

SHW said: What is unconstitutional about campaigning and using the legislature and courts?

Your goals, which is using the Constitution against itself, to dismantle the core of its intentions and design.... effecting a republic of individual responsibility, where the government is controlled by the people, yet limited as to the amount it can enter itself into individual lives.

SHW said: Did I say 51% or did I paraphrase in a sense such as "general public" or large majority? I don`t think a 51% would be a wide enough margin for a mandate to grant rights to animals. It would have to be much higher, and I am sure that ammendments to the Constitution in the U.S., for example, would require more than that. C'mon OFE, be sharper than that.

I am, I see right through the BS of the movement you support, to its core goals.

SHW said: Animal Rights will reflect what the general will of the people will want them to be. As they grow pushing into the rights we have now, our use of animals will become marginalized as it will be wrong for one`s rights to infringe upon the others who also would have rights protection. We will have to accomodate them -- unless you take to the hills and become a deviant breaking the laws.

I refuse to speculate on what will come of me should this trend toward unconstitutional law continue. I simply can state that I am prepared, and being outside the law is no crime when laws are criminal in basis, which is what you are pushing for.

Liberty is only yours if you claim it, use it and protect it. Laying down to government demands has little at all to do with liberty, except in the minds of fools.

SHW said: Your side is having ground taken from it and the trend continues.

And you are quick to discount, and ignore why that is. Policeman die everyday for the "battles" you have won pushing paper in a courtroom. Do you think they thank you for it? You obviously haven't been reading much about the failures of prohibition, and what it has cost in blood and money to the societies who choose to use force to enforce unjust laws.

We have had hope you sheeple will come around, and realize your own faults before you drag us all in past the point of no return. That hope is being evaporated literally, everyday with every turn of events. Humanity is showing its true weakness more and more everyday, and that is short memory and an inability to learn from history.

Every victory you have won so far, can be erased by the first battle call once the citizens think the government has overstepped the line.

That is why I laugh....

In shame of what has become of rational people, once they are allowed a few decades of peace in a world of violence. Comfortable placation, insulated by propagandized warriors fighting the wars you have no courage to fight, but all the courage in the world to push for with pen and paper.

Be proud..... :rolleyes:

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You think rights can be "given", and they can't.

Sure they can. "Rights" do not exist in and of themselves in the Universe. They were created by man therefore man has the ability to bestow them upon whichever creature he decides to. The fact that it is an unpalatable choice to you does not make it not able to happen. Though, I guess in your world you feel rights can only be expanded to include other beings if you agree with them.

As much as you would like that to be the case, it simply is not.

For example, blacks EARNED their right to be equal, there was no warm plate heated for them. They had to fight cultural stigma, and prove they were equal with ACTION. A shame it took that, but it did. They earned equal rights with blood and tears, lives and labor.

Blacks earned their civil rights, sure. However, they did not earn their right of freedom from ownership i.e. slavery for themselves. That was won for them by others. You seem to choose a starting point that fits your argument at the expense of honesty, or perhaps just out of ignorance of history. You tell us which one.

Our laws against animal cruelty are to help protect the fragile society that we have, and reflective of our value for all living things, which has been growing as technology has allowed us to look away from killing to support life.

Well said. Those values are growing and continue to change to offer more and more protection to animals. Each protection law takes another person`s pleasure they derive from their exploitation. We don`t mind you rationalizing the gains in protection laws for animals, calling it against cruelty for the sake of society, so long as they are more and more protected.

Today foi gra, tomorrow veal, and later on more and more restrictions on what the consumer has to choose from when it comes to depriving an animal of its life for pleasure. And, that will come about more and more in the future for some of the same reasons you gave above which I have bolded. I am glad to see you finally admit it.

Simply saying we should respect life by NOT creating undue pain to animals, is much different than saying animals have equal rights, and should be treated as equals.

Any pain inflicted by us on them is "undue" for viable alternatives exist. I suggest civilization would not collapse if animals were granted the right to integrity of body. Where is your data suggesting it would, since you seem to be asserting that, or that we all become 'victims' of the state with no rights left?

Is that your fear, that the human species will come to a complete halt, or is it just that you are afraid of not being able to choose to pleasure your pallate with roast beef?

Fear and paranoia co-exist, you know.

Our system is based on an inherant value for life, which is why we frown upon UNDUE pain and suffering of any living thing.

That is right, again. You are repeating yourself in support of my argument. You just don`t realize it. The pain we cause to animals for our consumption is "UNDUE" i.e. unecessary for we can eat quite healthily on a vegetarian diet.

Animals are still food though, and you WOULD think so if you were stranded on a raft at sea with no food and water, and all you had to eat were fish, and all you had to drink was spinal fluid from the fish you caught, and the nary fresh rain water you could collect.

Well, Osborne, we are not on a sea raft in your hyperbolic analogy. We exist within a modern world with all the advantages and more moral choices to make rather than the one your mind captured by fear thinks exists. But to humour you, the immediate and urgent need to survive at any given moment in a hyperbolic situation may cause a human to kill and eat another human as well. It proves nothing only that values change depending upon the situational constructs of the time -- and the construct of our modern societies allows us to chose the least causing suffering in diet -- vegetarianism -- because so long as that choice is availaable, to deprive animals of their integrity of body is "UNDUE" i.e. not necessary.

Your choice of words and childish analogy defeats yourself. LOL!

It has nothing to do with an ABILITY to feel pain. It has to do with ability to defend, respect and perceive rights.....

Chuckle...

Well, we will agree to disagree on this and continue to watch the proliferation of more and more protection for animals against your choice for using them for your pleasure.

It has to do with what society and their representatives want to reflect in their beliefs and values and they are the ones who can decide which beings they want to expand rights to.

That is being borne out because your side is losing, for society is granting them more protections. Just wait until the last and this generation of young adults start moving into legislative positions and the older judges, prosecuters, and legislators begin to retire and see a change of guard. A lot of kids have grown up with a lot more information on animal suffering in the last 15 years due to the internet.

And we are also equal in one other important way, you always neglect to mention..... WE BOTH KILL EACH OTHER FOR FOOD, if we have to, for survival.

Yes, and besides it being irrelevant, WE DO NOT HAVE TO! i.e. it is "UNDUE" because your "if" situation does not face the general population in today`s modern civilization <snicker snicker>

We are not in an urgent struggle for survival against the animals or nature. That is what you are always neglecting to mention because you want the pleasure of your pallate at the expense a life taken. Don`t fault me for pointing out your contradiction, you were the one who used the word "Undue."

Quote by: SHW They must and do not have a choice in the matter. You do not have to and most certainly do have a choice.

BS. That is simply untrue. We were BRED to kill, ...

What is "untrue" about it? Are you saying a person can`t choose a vegetarian diet and survive? Scientific research resoundingly is against you on that and our ability to choose.

As for "bred to kill..." are you saying our species has an instinct to kill? Human instinct is a hotly debated topic amongst even scholars. Again, OFE, you take too much liberty with your choice of words to cover a defense for arguments based on fear and paranoia.

As it is now, though it[the worth of government] is lessening quickly thanks to groups like yours,..

More admitting of the impact we are having, however, we will disagree that it has diminished the worth of government. In fact, the government expanding rights to lessen suffering is a good thing, and more so when it reflects the will of the people.

The worth of government is validated when it moves to act on what its citizens want -- citizens want more protection for animals and that has been the trend, even though it does infringe on the right for people as yourself to exploit them. No more foi gra for the few Chicagoans who pleasured their pallate with that! Veal is coming under more and more pressure as well.

... we as people have a CHOICE to be A PART OF SOCIETY, or simply individuals.

Looks like you are headed for the hills as a loner, or with your militia, with your musket and antiquated thinking. ROTFLMAO!

You want to remove the choice of individualism, by law.(force)

You say "tomato," I say "tomaato." I want to expand the rights to protect beings from exploitation that results in violation of integrity of body.

Things do have a way of bumping into each other. Hence, slaveowners lost their individual choice for slave labor by law and force. The rights blacks came about and bumped into the rights of slaveholders' right to what they defined as property at their disposal for exploitation. They had to give ground.

It [cocain drug usage and prohibition analogy] stands as being an inappropriate analogy.

It stands as one you couldn`t deal with because it gives your position up as false. Always better to declare and ignore such analogies rather than meet them head on. But, I do have to say I was tempted to just laugh and ignore your hyperbolic analogy on a raft. That was funny -- if not pathetically grade school level thinking.

I can shred your logic, but this isn't the thread for debunking your myths about drugs, and their prohibition.

It is not about "drugs." You don`t understand that analogies are offered to highlight and examine reasoning patterns. You fail to see how it gave your reason up for lack of reason.

[StrongHeartsWin]

SHW said:
We do. That is why we are not paralyzed by apathy and have organized to affect change.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready And as I said, you are BOUND to fail.....

If the trend in laws protecting animals and those joining the AR Movement we are seeing means we are on the road to failure, then I hope it continues. LOL! You seem to have a fondness of Orwellian doublespeak, OFE. Viewing reality could remedy that.

Why? Because I will die to defend my rights, from government infringement. You will not die to defend animals rights from infringement,...

You may not want to be too confident on what those in the movement are willing to do. All movments have the soldiers, politicians, and diplomats. I am too astute in a public forum such as this to admit to anything that could come back to haunt or implicate me.

Quite simple, isn't it? Now you see why I mentioned why your argument has no legs at all.

It is simple, but my above shows your view on what some in the Movement are willing to risk is quite wrong. And about legs, you may be right in a sense. We seem to be rolling along rather quickly. Maybe we have wheels, considering the many victories we have had in the last few decades.

SHW said:
Dusting out the old "Might makes Right," argument -- a bankrupt moral style of reasoning and justifying things for one`s own benefit.

No, its quite the law of nature.

Then if "might makes right" is the law of nature, then we are violating it constantly by having laws to protect the weak. Looks like society and the law is against you -- AGAIN. And the trend continues to expand protections for animals.

You can't deny nature.

I sure do not deny the existence of it and the brutal form it often comes in. But, man, through laws and his will, chooses to thwart it to seperate him as much as possible from the brutality of it and that includes limiting his own urges or mere desire to act for his own benefit at the cost of others. We have deemed it valuable to our selves to do so. The AR Movement propelled by vegetarians is extending that. That reality, as upsetting to you as it is, is in the process of coming to be more and more -- hence your increasing fear and paranoia. Your fear validates the fact of their continued successes.

Animals live by might makes right, do they not? Why is it injustice when we use their OWN system of "law", against them?

Because we need not mimic them in their limitations of choice. We have a broader spectrum of choice in what behaviour to display.

First you say animals are not people so we need not concern ourselves with the right to exploit them, then you say animals commit some acts amongst themselves so it is ok for us to mimic those acts eventhough they are not people -- meaning we should follow the code of the animal. I know you don`t want to admit it, or you do so in your word contradictions, but we have progressed to a point where we need not act like animals who are captured by their passions.

A child gives way to his passions, an adult is master over them with self-discipline. Your thought patterns and reasoning is one that embraces passions being master over us indefinitely -- the childish level of developement that is stuck and can`t mature. Some may call it stagnant growth.

What is injustice is this "equal rights" for those that don't deserve them, can't perceive them, and CAN'T respect them.LOL

LOL indeed. Tell that to the brain dead who are wards of the state so that we can cart them off to filet their flesh. I am imagining it may be as tender as veal. No reason to expect that they have rights according to your reasoning. After all, they can`t perceive them or respect them.

There are many stories of animals attacking humans, for a variety of reasons. To ignore them, is intellectually dishonest. It also shows the failure of your argument.......

It is plain comedic that you are so bankrupt in this debate that you cling to the anomalies of a few rare cases of animals eating kids for food in this modern world to justify what we do to the millions of animals today -- as if our survival is depending on retribution to them by killing them just because a few rare cases today have been of animals attacking and killing children.

If my memory is correct you said something like coming into our villages and homes and eating our children. Then you go on to state there are many cases of such. Ok, I`ll bite. Begin listing the many cases like that that are happening around the world today. It shouldn`t be too hard if it is so "many" and a serious problem like you comically paint. Since the point rests on "many" I expect to see a lot of cases. I will make the bar easy for you to reach and ask you to show in one news day only 10% of the number of humans killed by animals that are killed by us in one day. And if you want to control for ratios and percentages for population, then go ahead and work on a formula and present it.

LOL.

SHW said:
There are many many statutes on the books to protect them. They just have not evolved to the highest level yet.

And you seem to misconstrue why they are there. We can see as reasonable people, why it is not beneficial to show contempt for life by ignoring its ability to feel and suffer.

They are there for that reason, and you seem to miscontrue the whole reason why they are there, being myopic and focusing on only one aspect of their existence.

First of all, I will tell you that most statutes on the books to protect pets or livestock were fought tooth and nail against by people such as yourself decrying individual rights and worries about what future challenges that may bring. Those laws were not just suggested and everyone said, "Yeah, let's pass that," and then it came to be. The status quo did not give ground innitially. And you, today, are merely a clone of those that resisted change for protections when the laws you now seem to say are fine were first posited. You fail to see that and have no fundemental understanding of how and what it took for the protections for animals on the book we have now came about.

Those laws are there now for the logical reasoning, compassion, the right for an animal to have a claim that usurps ownership laws, and the HARD WORK done by activists for animals that championed change in the law for their protections.

[StrongHeartsWin]

[quote=Osborn F Enready;320476]

You ignore completely the role religion plays into the fetus argument, and that is all that has allowed the argument to move forward at all......

Not ignored at all. It is a given. I usually don`t mention givens -- unless I think a person is not astute enough to understand them. Sorry I was mistaken on that point.

religion, much like your brand of activism, hinges on belief in the unprovable,....

It is quite "provable" that animals feel pain, can suffer, avoid it when permitted to do so, that we do not need meat in today`s modern society to survive, and that laws can be passed to protect the integrity of their bodies and exploitation from us. Nothing supernatural about that. If one of those is impossible to come about, then you need not worry and go happy hunting. Impossibilities are of no threat.

But, leaders in the industries of animal exploitaton feel all that is quite possible and they are preparing for the battles in court they know they will surely face from skilled lawyers for animals that will be out to prove them for change.

BOO!

ROTFLMAO!

You have got to be kidding me. Whites won rights for blacks huh? Tell that to Rosa Parks family, and the countless other blacks who stood up and often lost their lives to speak truth to power. White representatives only did it on the ACTIONS of the blacks they were standing on the backs of.

Again, you choosing a starting point that is convenient for you, but dishonest at best. Sure, Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights leaders and that movement won the rights that white Americans were enjoying in their basic freedom, but blacks did not win their own right to not be owned for themselves. Go back to the Abolitionist movment and the Civil War to see the actors that eventually brought about freedom by force and law.

The laws of nature are all that exist outside of mans society and law. Nature rules the entire earth, INCLUDING humans, but we change it to fit our needs...

AND VALUES!

Laws and governments don't protect you from nature, they are merely a poorly constructed insurance policy against the lesser forms of natural occurence, and some of the ills of man.

Of course they don`t. They protect us from the will of others that would like to or perhaps violate our integrity of body and cause us to suffer. It protects the weak from the strong amongst those who fall under it. And, that is precisely the argument for AR -- to expand the laws of protectons and rights so that animals fall under them -- and laws, being created by man and definitely alterable, are flexible enough to include animals without meaning an end to civilization or making a state of tyranny if they are backed by the will of the people.

[Osborn F Enready]

Let me reduce this to simplicity SHW, so we can skip the bantering semantics and hidden insults.

You, nor any other group of humans can speak for animals, since you have no concept whatsover of communication with them, do you? No.

You are not the animals "lawyer", nor do animals have a right to a lawyer.

You are not the animals "owner", as the animals according to you yourself, own themselves, which limits the argument to the animals themselves.

Animals cannot respect even basic rights such as property, or laws that protect humans from harm from other humans. There is no cross-correlation, therefore they can't possess that which they cannot understand, nor accept the punishment of violating those rights that are only limited by the mutual respect we have for one another as humans. (My rights are only limited by the rights of my equals, U.S. citizens)

Rights are inherant, born with, not granted.

*I am born with a mouth, which means I have a right to free speech, since I and I alone control my mouth, voicebox and lungs.

*I am born with a mind, which means I have a right to think and put those thoughts into actions, with respect to the rights of my EQUALS, which happen to be citizens of my nation.

*I am born with two hands, that have opposeable thumbs, teeth, legs and and mind to operate them with freely. This means I have a right to use them for labor for myself, or to others if both parties can mutually agree on a value of that labor. I have a right to labor and all that I take in trade for it.(property)

*I am born with a body that takes up space, in the physical world, which means I require space to live for nutrition support, dwelling and property aquisition(the fruits of my labor). This means I have a right to (own) property if I can find a person with property who will trade labor or goods I can aquire for it.

*To define the value of that property, I am required a defense, since all that has value is precious enough to defend. (life, liberty, property) Therefore I have a right to defense of my property. (self included) This is my right to defense.

*I as an individual, with a mind and body of my own, which I own, have a right to privacy. That privacy is defined through property, and defense of such property.

*I as an individual, am born with beliefs and values that are my parents. They raise me, nurture me, and prepare me for the world instilling their beliefs and values in me, and allowing me to form my own. I am theirs, until I become my own, by standards society or the parents themselves dictate. I have a right to believe whatever I choose, with respect to the rights of my equals, which are citizens of the United States.

These rights are in the Bill of Rights, and they are not of our "creator" in any sense but of nature itself. That is why that bill of rights is so valuable. It equates our natural essence, to laws that respect ALL people, not just people of a certain belief, nationalism, religion or value set.

It is however, limited to people, since people are all that can fully understand the scope, limitations and interaction that entails responsibility that these rights define.

Your argument is built up of "trickery" based on semantics, and faux arguments built upon semantic occlusions, open only to those with intent to subvert the law against itself.

Maybe, if you can get all meat-eating animals to stop killing and become vegetarians, we can talk, but until then, I reserve your argument for the trash can.

It is a folly of utopic, unrealistic thinking.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Rights were and are and will be taken away though.

[Osborn F Enready]

Not for me, or in my lifetime.

I think I know why you say that Merc, and in the long term I would agree that it is a possibility, but I wouldn't say a probability.

All it takes is for liberty to be supressed for a length of time, for people to again realize its universal value, that being above any material possesion or existence.

People are often quick in this modern age to entertain a perceived value of removing or infringing certain rights, but, time as always will bear the true consequence for their short-sighted, illogical means of affecting order and harmony that is not natural, or possible.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I dunno, this is the first era where a large amount of people had anything you could call rights guarenteed by the government.

[Johnathon]

Quote by: Gregory I know a few vegetarians, and I assume most of you aren't, but for the few who are... what is the specific reason for it? I know this isn't really a debate right now, but I suspect it could turn into one! Funny: VBForums

Here's my two cents. The thinking processes in the decision to be a vegetarian, or to be gay are very similair. For survival and economic reasons, humans were designed to be omnivores, and eat both plant and meat. Homosexuality, in this perspective, is quite the same. Male and female organs were designed to work together, obviously, for the sake of reproduction; and at least using my logic, one can conclude that being a vegetarian is a personal choice resulting in either one's journey to good health, over caring towards animals, or recreational purposes. For the right reasons, being a vegetarian is quite logical. Homosexuality is a tender topic, i know. However, it just isn't scientifically logical. So both vegetarianism and homosexuality are both to me, at least, scientifically illogical. I don't have anything against gay people, just the concept.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin People will always break whatever law there is on the book. Do you know of any law that is not broken by people?

Let me rephrase that:

Your movement will fail.

I don't care if your movement has been "growing"; So was communism in the 1930's. Want to know why people rejected communism? Because it imfringed upon their rights. I defy you to find me an example of people willingly giving up their own rights and privileges based solely on morality.

By the way, if your response to this is

Just because we are the first, doesn't mean we will fail.

Then the fact that you are backing the first movement of its kind does not constitute a success. Now please stop trying to project what you perceive as the future of your movement, because the subjective opinions of a few radicals is nothing but ad populum. The only objective (debatable) point brought up in this thread is the justification for eating meat.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Let me reduce this to simplicity SHW, so we can skip the bantering semantics and hidden insults.

It would be welcome. But then...