I would like to point out the major flaw in Mikes 'logic'. He states: " However, rights are not dependent on a being's ability to feel pain, but on a being's ability to think." SO, you have bested Dr. Doolittle and can 'converse with the animals' now, eh? How else could you determine positively that cats, dogs, cows, horses (Go watch the movie 'War Horse'!), dolphins, whales, and rats DO NOT THINK!?! Why are rats a favorite subject for maze experiments that GAUGE REASONING!?! You also state you 'don't condone animal abuse' but in the preceeding paragraph you give the green light to DEATHMATCH BLOODSPORTS! Do I have to make a public statement and put it on social record that I do not want to be eaten, or is it a 'given'? They why does my dog have to? Ed

I like this topic because it has enough emotion attached to it to make it interesting. I think it's important to distinguish between those farmers who raise animals with love and compassion and exchange with their animals the care of food, healthcare and a safe place to procreate, for the ultimate sacrifice of their bodies at the end of their life cycle. I think it's important to remember that not every farm is a Foster's farm or mega feedlot. To lump every farmer in with the bad mega corps isn't fair. There are plenty of people who harvest their animals with compassion and fairness. Also, it isn't easy to get complete nutrition from a plant based diet. Many people believe in the work of Dr. Weston Price, who encourages a diet of whole foods that include healthy animals. I have lived as a vegetarian, a vegan, and an omnivore, and I can say, only speaking for myself, that I feel significantly healthier and stronger when animal proteins are in my diet. I also think that it's dangerous to mix topics like eating animals for sustenance and vivisection. I don't have very strong feelings for animal testing, I think that it mainly constitutes torture. But grouping that behavior with all farming, including those small farmers who go out of their way to care for their animals, is doing everyone a disservice. And comparing rats and dogs to farm animals is not really helpful to the argument. No offense to any Chinese readers, but nobody's eating those animals here. We are really talking about a handful of domesticated species that we as humans raise for food. Now, what is the point of life, in general? Basically, eat, sleep, procreate. We have taken a few animals that may or may not have done amazingly on their own in the wild, and we have hitched their wagon to ours. Their survival as a species depends on us. That relationship has some good and bad to it. They are basically our indentured servants or slaves, but their genes get to survive as long as ours do. To say that animals deserve human rights is kind of pointless. No other animal species gets this type of guarantee from any other animal. They eat each other and kill each other in pretty nasty ways. I'd personally rather get shot between the eyes than eaten alive. The deal they get from us is continued survival at the minimum, and depending on the quality of their slave masters, the scale is pretty wide for how good their quality of life is before they are harvested. In the wild, they would get no guarantees, and could be one of the hundreds of species that are becoming extinct almost daily. And really, if you think about humans as domesticated animals also, that's really the deal we have with our overlords. Don't believe in human slaves? Do some more research. Start in china. Look at your iPhone. We are all slaves, but our overlords in America are basically like the small organic farmers who raise small amounts of livestock in very humane ways and harvest them in humane ways while improving the quality of their land through healthy soil life. The main point here is don't over generalize. For the most part, every one is right, but this issue isn't cut and dry, black and white or simple. It's nuanced and needs to be treated as such. The people who treat their animals right need to be recognized for doing so, and those who mistreat animals, should have their actions be shown, so that people can decide who to support with their wallet votes. Peace.

All "proofs" flow from the premise. Marc stated his premises and his proofs flowed from them. Mike's argument at it's core is not that Marc is wrong but that Marc's premises are wrong. Then Mike states his premises and naturally his proof flows from his premises. An example is Mike's statement "However, rights are not dependent on a being's ability to feel pain, but on a being's ability to think." He then offers as proof of his statement that John Locke also concluded likewise. Then, having "proven" his statement (premise) he proceeds down the path that naturally ends showing that he is right. In many years of these kinds of discussions of 'rights' I have concluded that most people are wrong in where they believe rights come from. Rights always come about thru a process called AED. Assert, Exercise, and Defend. And this process can be done on behalf of others. I will expand on AED but first want to make it clear that because animals are so severely disadvantaged in any fight between them and Man, animal "rights" for the most part will only exist when man creates them, thru AED, on behalf of the animals. Neither man, nor animals have any inherent rights. So, what is AED and how does it work? Any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend, hence AED. AED is specifically intended to dispense with the notion of rights that you are born with. i.e. inherent rights or however you wish to characterise starting from a premise that is not open for debate or question. The only "rights you are born with" are those that your parents and/or the society you are born into have agreed that you have by virtue of being a member of that family/society. And you really only have them if your family/society engages in AED to secure them, you don't have them because they are written down somewhere. While we can say you are born with them, which makes it sound like they are inherent, the actual situation is your family/society has chosen to extend them to you. They are not "god given/inherent" but are family/society given and are maintained thru AED. Use the example of the government spying on you...the constitution says you have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects...but for all practical purposes, that right is gone because we cannot stop the government from violating it, even though it is still in the Constitution and the very people who swore to uphold said document are violating it every day. As we see in the court cases, it's a constant war waged by each side, the gvt versus the citizens with each applying AED. So, any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend (AED). That means I have a right to life only so long as I can AED against someone who feels differently. You might recognize that as war. At that point, since I no longer have a right to life, is it true that person did nothing wrong by taking it? Now we have left the AED framework and moved into Philosophy and the area of right and wrong. Questions of right and wrong may well be underpinnings of why people and society choose what they will AED but right and wrong are not part of AED. We can use founding of the USA as an example of AED. Neither the Declaration or the Constitution were intended to be a list of every single right people had. The founders specifically talked about this issue and it's clear from their writings that they did not intend the list to be all inclusive. As to things being "self-evident", that's well and good if you are looking for something that sounds good but there is no such thing as self-evident or inherent rights. You are born with zero rights. Any rights anyone has are only those rights they, either as an individual, or as a member of a society, can assert, exercise, and defend (AED). AED is an adjunct to the concept of "might makes right". There are least three pertinent meanings to the word "right" and people mix them up and misapply/misunderstand the usage of the phrase "might makes right". right = setting things that are akimbo back on track, such as fixing a collapsed roof,i.e. setting things right. That would be one case of "Might makes right". Someone "strong", i.e. someone with "might" would do the fixing. This is the "It's ok, everything is all RIGHT now" usage. right = something we are able to do in the face of opposition where the opposition is not allowed, or is actively prevented, from stopping us. Burning a flag would be an example. Here the might of society or the state or simply the other people in the room are used to keep at bay those who would stop us from doing the burning. This is the "I have a RIGHT to do that!" use of the term. right = the moral dimension. Some things are morally approved of, some are not, i.e this is right, this other thing is wrong. This is the "What you are doing is offensive to my Islamic beliefs, it's just not RIGHT, cover your face!!." usage. So the phrase =Might makes right= can be used in discussions of any of those aspects of "right". And in discussions, often the wrong aspect is argued. The second and third that I listed are the two most commonly used interchangeably in discussions leading to confusion of what is being discussed. At the end of the day, the Assert, Exercise, and Defend, AED, concept clarifies exactly what's in play. You think you have some inherent Right? Prove it. Assert to me what right you think you have. Now go Exercise it. Can you exercise it when someone else says "stop that"? If you can't DEFEND your right and CONTINUE to Exercise it, then you don't have it. This clarifies the common situation where you ostensibly have a right, on your own property for example, to dig a hole, put a candle in it, light it, and watch the tiny little flame. Apply the AED test to this and I think you'll see how AED shows that if your neighbor objects you win the argument. Now try the same thing on the neighbor's property and apply the AED test to the situation and see if you still have the "right" to do this. The answer can vary depending on the neighbor!! Now look at something more significant that you do and that you ostensibly have a right to do and at each step see how the AED test works out. If the police stop you at a roadblock what "rights" do you ACTUALLY HAVE AT THAT POINT IN TIME? Sometimes the literally correct legal answer (if you aren't being detained then legally you are free to go,... can you do that with three cops surrounding your vehicle....) is at odds with the de facto answer AT THAT TIME. The key here is that at the roadblock you may have lost your rights due to the MIGHT of the police. Once they let you go have you meaningfully regained the right? When there is no challenge against the right which you must then DEFEND there is no significant meaning to the idea of having a right. In the absence of Exercise and Defend ALL rights Exist. This shows the importance of the Exercise part of AED. If you aren't/can't exercise a "right", you don't have it in any meaningful sense. Whenever you think you "have a right to..." apply the AED test and see if you actually do. You will find in the end that "might makes right". If you (or society on your behalf) have enough *might* you can acquire/use any or all of the three dimensions of "right" I defined originally.... Just look at US foreign policy.....