[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I can't argue with you because you would have stepped outside the realm of rational argument and rejected valid argument.

That assumes that the reasoning is the same. I'm not going to vivisect humans because they're humans, only part of which is the capacity to "suffer". You're still ignoring that rights are meaningless without responsibilities, which animals cannot hold.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

but they must be based on some type of logical thought process with some particular aim in mind otherwise you end up with a random set of rules based on emotion which leads to discrimination. If you want to set up a world based on emotion where homosexuals and people with different shades of skin are treated as inferoir then fine but I don't.

Hah. All rights lead to some form of descrimination, because giving someone a right takes away the (moral) capabilities of others. You can argue a utiliterian viewpoint all you like, with the proviso that you recognise that it is not universally true for everyone.

this is unacceptable hypocracy.

Hypocrisy, unless you're referring to a method of governence by self-contradiction. Be that as it may, I still fail to see the contradiction.

Coud you clarify this please. Is it a typo or did you mean to type 'it's not all that applicable to animals.'?

I don't see what's so crazy about saying "this distinction does not apply to this group". I may not agree with it, you definitely seem not to, but that statement makes perfect grammatical sense. Except "tho" instead of "though".

You did not give a reason why you think humans are better then animals, at least not one I have already dealt with in previous posts. If you do not back up your argument with your ideoligcal basis then I have to assume it is emotional, especially considering your tone.

"Dealt with?" You can't "deal with" a moral viewpoint. If I state that humans are better than animals and thus animals should be killed in droves to save the life of one human, then that isn't an emotional viewpoint because I consider humans to be superior to animals because I'm a human, and humans have an enormous number of capabilities that animals lack, ones which I consider essential to the whole process.

Unless you've proved that animals have the near universal capacity for higher reasoning, I don't think you've "dealt with" any chain of that reasoning.

We can do what we like but we choose to have a set of rules in place to govern everyone. therefore, these rules (in order to make them fair) should be based upon higher reasoning rather then gut reaction.

This makes no sense in context.

I never said that we can't

Suggesting that we ban something kind of does suggest that, in your ideal society, we couldn't do it.

Once again I shall state, that if animals cannot suffer then the idea of their rights is null and void otherwise we may as well give rights to trees and rocks.

We agree on one thing, at least.

Whilst this is true I do not think it is a good way of approaching the issue because it can (and does) lead to discrimination on feelings and personal opinion which is a very bad thing.

You think something is true but you reject it because it's inconvenient? Very intellectually honest.

Either morality is applied fairly and equally or it is not. If animals can suffer then it makes it just as wrong as testing on people and then choosing to continue to test on animals is just discrimination pure and simple.

Discrimination isn't inherently bad, you know. We'd never get anywhere if there was no discrimination between individuals because not all individuals are alike, just as not all species are alike. Your position is a gaiaic version of the commonly held, flawed, view of communism where doctors go work in the fields.

I advocated human testing. If it is fine to test on animals why not on humans?

We do test on humans. However, your average mouse tends to mature and breed a lot faster than your average human. There's a reason we don't use Sea Turtles in labs.

'We have certain rights because we say we have certain rights' is not an acceptable answer in my book. It lacks any depth and with it any validity. If rights are to actually mean something then there needs to be some intellectual basis for them otherwise they are just random nonsense.

Rights are a social construct. You have to accept that the arguments that go into them are also defined by the society from which they originate. There are human cultures where life and death of an individual is much less important than in the standard Western philosophy, and to them "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is arbitrary tosh. "We have certain rights because we say we have certain rights" is all that needs to be done. If we all agree that it is a man's right to have a slice of cheddar once a day, then that is a right in our society.

If the logical conclusion is that animals have rights then that should be acknowledged.

It's not, boo hoo.

It is highly logical though as it is greatest benefit to you to think in that way. What I have posted is not to my benefit in any way. that is the main difference here.

Oh please, you're not some great martyr for the cause, you don't even follow what you believe.