Man is a free will with natural rights, yes.First, it is Man who has moral sense and thinks things through.
Yes, most, probably all, other life are not free wills and do not have natural rights.As far as I know there are no other creatures with any similar sense.
And we treat them humanely. It's a matter of sympathy/empathy, not morality.However, there are creatures with sense, and also with behavior that is comparable, even if remotely, with our moral behavior. Conscious life shares a commonality.
So, in context, are worthless.The statements I made -- about rights -- do not depend on an animal's having or not having moral judgment.
No. You're mistakin' rights (in context, a moral matter) with humaneness and stewardship. The first, as I say, is a matter of sympathy, not morality. The second is a matter of pragmatism, not morality.The recognition of rights extends from man to animal, from man to ecosystem, from many to the creation.
And I say only free will have natural rights. Most if not all animals are not free wills; they're bio-automata. The ecosystem is a heat exchange as is the whole of Creation. We, free wills, matter: everything else is our backdrop, our stage, our resource, our world. Ours.I said that all creatures and all ecosystems and the creation itself -- if Man has rights -- have rights as well.
No. It's a distinction based on observed, derived, and surmised fact.It is an arbitrary designation to refer to creatures as robots or automatons.
Man assigns nuthin'. We are the beneficiaries of having been made free wills. Fido drew the short straw: too bad, so sad.One cannot assign rights to man and fail to understand that rights are -- naturally -- extended to the very platform of life: the created world.
No. You're wrong or flat-out lying.What I say here is true.
Then you best stop readin' me cuz I intend to keep countering.No counter-arguments will be accepted.
Get bent!Zip it!
Your exact words: On one level it is a sign of higher consciousness if Man subtracts rights from himself and assigns them to natural creatures and ecosystems.I said that it is possible, when seen from a certain angle, that when a man chooses to place the world surrounding him on a plane of valuation that even exceeds his own, that it may well be a sign of higher consciousness. To read into this self-denigration is to assign a negative value where a positive one is more apt.
It's manure no matter how you present it.
I don't care.People who oppose me make me very very angry.
You've revealed no truths.To say nothing of people who oppose Revealed Truth.
He's a fool becuz he squanders resources. No more or less.The man who destroys forests because he does not have foresight and awareness of ecological interconnectedness is a fool.
Not my culture, guy.Take as an example the rather famous Japanese respect for the land, the forests, the natural systems.
You ought consult the wiccans about rebound.I am on the verge of a violent and tyranical episode and will soon curse EVERYONE if they do not see things my way!
He's a wiser catetaker, an extender of resource, yes.but the man who sees his way to preservation of natural systems, and for harmony and beauty, is of a higher sort.
More manure. All it takes is a dab of common sense and a bit of restraint. Ascension is not required.Very much on the contrary this spirit and attitude arises because the man in question has risen to a greater height within consciousness.
No. That's conscientiousness.Indeed consciousness is defined in that way.
I do. I really don't think you do: you muddy the waters too much.The brute or the idiot who wantonly destroys the very ground that has produces him and sustains him is a -- well, you get the picture.
Yours? Mebbe. Mine? Not friggin' likely.End.of.story.
It just "rises up in you"?