Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:06:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient
entities as having rights. You need to understand the
concept of rights to have rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly
born infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're too
****ing stupid to accept it or not.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.