Do animals have natural rights? Does humanity have a duty to protect animal welfare?
Are some animals more deserving of rights than others?
Would a humanzee be entitled to human rights?
>natural rights
Spooky
Do plants have natural rights? Does humanity have a duty to protect plant welfare?
Are some plants more deserving of rights than others?
Would a humantree be entitled to human rights?
>>876752
no
for life to thrive, other life must be destroyed
ergo: kill everything
Do computers have natural rights? Does humanity have a duty to protect computer welfare?
Are some computers more deserving of rights than others?
Would an android be entitled to human rights?
>>876757
>Would a humantree be entitled to human rights?
I would have to say yes
>>876752
Nothing has natural rights in that rights are not something that comes from some mystical external source. Having a concept of human rights is good for the purpose of building a more prosperous society.
Animals should only be extended rights insofar as it serves the purpose of improving upon the lives of those who are extending said rights.
>>876755
>Not being a Lockean
to answer your question Op:
> Do animals have natural rights
No. There is no reason to assume they do.
> Does humanity have a duty to protect animal welfare
I personally think we have a duty to protect the diversity of the planet's wildlife, seeing as we can learn a lot from them. But beyond that, no.
> Are some animals more deserving of rights than others
No, there is no reason to assume this would be the case.
> Would a humanzee be entitled to human rights?
I suppose that depends on the intelligence of such a hypothetical being.
>>876767
>Animals should only be extended rights insofar as it serves the purpose of improving upon the lives of those who are extending said rights
What about sentient animals? Orcas and chimps have self awareness, does that make them more humanlike and thus more deserving of rights?
1 animal indeed have rights, but their rights does not have guarantee unlike human rights
2 we can serve as the guarantors of their rights, in that case we become responsible for them
3 yes
4 chimps already have more ethical rights than monkeys
There's nothing wrong with eating animals. We just need to reduce the volume and while we're at it cease destroying environment in a way that displaces species or causes their extinction.
>>876770
>I suppose that depends on the intelligence of such a hypothetical being
So humans need a certain level of intelligence to have rights?
>>876775
Humanity isn't a spectrum, you either are or you aren't.
>>876784
well the guy you posted is an excellent example in this case, seeing as he almost certainly does not have the right to vote or sign legal documents.
>>876775
No sentience and self awareness alone does not make them more deserving of rights. I would only support animal rights if doing provided utility for myself/society.
>>876785
So by virtue of your parents being human, that means you are human
All humans have 2 human biological parents. I'm severely retarded but I have 2 human parents, therefore I am human.
>>876799
what is the word for a statement that is so obvious that it essentially becomes meaningless?
>>876785
Well that's a retarded statement to make.
By the very nature of evolution there does exist a spectrum of humanity and judgement must be cast upon where the arbitrary demarcation of humanity is set.
>>876805
Redundant? Indisputable? Self evident? Overt?
>>876752
Imagine there was an unbroken spectrum of intelligence going from super-human to amoeba, where would you draw the line for what is deserving of rights? The most sensible answer is to give a spectrum of rights.
Species deserve a right to exist irrespective of intelligence. It's fine to cut down individual trees, but cutting down an entire species of trees is a different issue altogether. That said, you have to weigh the greater good of every other species. For example, it's okay to eradicate smallpox or mosquitoes because they seriuosly fuc with other species, namely humans, and I would argue humans are more important to the Earth's biosphere in the long run than most species, perhaps all.
>>876855
I believe those are all good, but I think there's a specific word for it, that I now forgot.
>>876829
Biology already gives us that demarcation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
If you're not part of that species, you're not human. You can add all sorts of layers of sophistry to it, but that one serves me just fine at least.
>>876752
WE
>>876879
WUZ
>>876875
Let's say some underground scientists cloned a Neanderthal and he turned out to be a nice guy
Would he deserve human rights? How human does something have to be?
>>876880
ANUMULZ
>>876881
this is an interesting question, and one that there isn't really a straight answer to.
I myself would probably try to find somewhere on this planet where this new/old species would be allowed to live out a natural life, and then try to establish contact with them and see how they develop. But they would not have human rights within our society, no.
And interesting aside on that question: What if we managed to clone Neanderthals, and found out they tasted good?
>>876895
>What if we managed to clone Neanderthals, and found out they tasted good?
Homo sapiens did it once before. But desu the scientific community wouldn't have it
>>876881
If it can work a job and pay taxes then it deserves all the rights of any other human.
>>876987
>Neandhertal were homo sapiens too, dumbass.
They were Homo Neandertalis or something not homo sapiens you retarded
That's like saying a poodle is the same thing as a german shepherd because they're both dogs
>>877025
>can't even be bothered to check any source anywhere
>proceeds to call everyone who disagrees with his incorrect assertions faggots
>>877025
You're a literal retard
Homo sapiens sapiens are the modern species of the homo sapien
They existed along side no no Neanderthalis
One theory of the extinction of Neanderthal is by homo sapien sapiens
Natural rights don't exist, rights are contractual exchanges of certain liberties for equivalent securities by intelligent beings.
So no, other animals don't have rights because rights are invented by humans
>>877052
The issue comes with the nebulousness of definition of "intelligence". Where on an unbroken spectrum of intelligence ranging from humans to bacteria do you bestow rights and where do you not?
>>877063
Intelligence in this case refers to those capable of understanding the concept of rights and are able to wilfully reject some of their freedoms (to kill, to steal, to trespass etc.) in exchange for rights
>>877063
at the intelligence level of a human being. The demarcation goes as much by species as by intelligence, the two just happen to coincide. If an animal could, by its own agency, be reasonably expected to produce something useful for us, we might then start discussing their rights.
It's really not as complex as you're making it out to be
>>876977
found the good little liberal-libertarian.
>>877085
Several species understand fairness. They share and ostracize individuals that exploit others. That sense of fairness is the foundation on which humanity constructed the idea of rights and morals on. It's all a means of cooperating with one another more effectively. In a way the ability to conceptualize "rights" is also a spectrum.
>>876875
learn the cladistic and its flaws. in general, learn philosophy of biology
>>876977
don't forget to vote for trump or hilary.
>>877094
Am I wrong? If you teach a uniquely intelligent bonobo to wear a tie, work 9:00-17:00, and pay taxes then I think he deserves all the rights as the rest of us as a contributor to society.
>>877098
I think I'm missing the implication.
>>877097
how about you actually bring an argument to the table rather than just throw around buzzwords like some pretentious college freshman?
>>876875
>If you're not part of that species, you're not human.
I disagree. There have been several species of human. Homo sapiens is simply the only existant branch of humanity. Go far enough back though and sure, our ancestors and offshoots from them stop being human. But Neanderthals are so much more like us than any other animal that it is hard not to call them human.
I think there must be a hierarchy.
For instance dogs are our greatest allies and animal friends since our dawn and in my opinion they deserve our highest respect. Horses are another example of animals who deserve more than just being at the mercy of people.
Just because some monkeys are intelligent it frankly doesn't make them more worthy of being treated with respect in my opinion.
>>877116
this has literally already been covered in the thread
>>877127
I partially agree with you. I would argue that human civilization is an important step in the continuing evolution of biology on Earth and therefore individuals organisms contributing to civilization have more value than those which aren't.
However I still think intelligence is a major factor. It would break my heart but I would sooner kill a dog rather than a chimpanzee, a dolphin, or an elephant.
The only thing that matters is happiness, if an animal is capable of happiness, then his happiness has as much intrinsic worth as a human's.
Rights are just man-enforced rules of thumb to a conduct that maximizes happiness and respecting them is not always the best action.
>>877134
And?
>>877150
Most organisms have pleasant and unpleasant stimuli. Happiness is just your biologies way of rewarding you for doing something it likes, like eating something sugary or successfully running down a deer and killing it. Same goes for all other animals. Their biology rewards them when they do something right and punishes them when they do something wrong.
>>877144
Perhaps you are right, empathy-wise killing a monkey would very likely feel worse than killing a dog, not sure about the normative aspect though.
>>877154
do you expect a different reply than the one already given?
>>877182
Simply consider my post an agreement with other anons in this thread if you must. Or are you simply trying to push people who disagree with you out of the thread because you can only handle the one?
>>877246
it's not really a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is, in this particular case, a matter of you making a claim that has already been refuted once in the thread.
lurk more please.
>>877296
I skimmed the thread including most of the posts that mentioned "human". I saw no convincing refutation.
The least you could do is link to your heralded refutation instead of "you have already been refuted, now go find the argument I am thinking of for yourself".
I'd say animals which have full self-awareness as is suspected in chimps, dolphins, corvids and elephants should get some rights
non self-aware animals however are basically glorified machines, no need to extend them rights
>>876752
>natural rights
Didn't knew this position was still taken seriously.
>>877310
"Self-awareness" is a pretty ill defined term. You can go by the mirror test but even then you have to admit it isn't definitive. I think it would be better to just give a spectrum of rights based on intelligence.
>>877346
With the self aware argument, that means the severely disabled people shouldn't be entitled to rights other than the fact that they were born from humans
Thus brings me to the humanzee argument
>>877346
I know its a pretty ill defined term but I'm trying to by best fit
after all its silly to give a creature with well established tool use, ability to convey complex information and even the beginnings of culture the same (lack of) rights as say a jellyfish
>>877358
a human needs to be severely disabled to even qualify as non self-aware so it'd affect a very narrow portion of humanity at most
also even if they were not awarded full human rights, their family would still have their rights and could use those to prevent unauthorized use and actions against said non self-aware human after all the law in most western countries already extends significant protection to pets even if most of them would not qualify for any self-awareness protection
>>877389
>a human needs to be severely disabled to even qualify as non self-aware so it'd affect a very narrow portion of humanity at most
This exists
Also brain dead people
>>876752
>natural rights
wat
>Does humanity have a duty to protect animal welfare?
Only if it benefits humans. Preserving Biodiversity benefits humanity I guess.
>Are some animals more deserving of rights than others?
Depends of the animal's value for mankind. A bee is more deserving than a mosquito.
>Would a humanzee be entitled to human rights?
wut
To have rights you must be able to communicate your rights.
>>877358
I am talking about rules that apply to the rights of healthy individuals within a species. Disabled members of a species are simply exceptions to the rule.
>>877365
Yeah, which is why partly why I'm an advocate of a hierarchy of rights. For example, killing great apes, dolphins, and elephants perhaps should be considered a step below murder.
>>876752
Humantry should try it's hardest to preserve the natural order, with the exception of humanity itself. We're way past that point.
>>877481
add corvids to that as well
to many people still shooting animals that could run mental laps around cats and dogs for the hell of it
>>877482
Part of the natural order is harming other animals. Extinction is a natural part of the process of life.
Nature isn't a hippy, death and suffering is part of her domain.
>>876752
There's no such thing as "natural rights", all "rights" are taken by those with natural power AKA might. Personally, I would defend wildlife, because I love wildlife, and I would urge others to see the beauty in it and defend it as well.
>>877514
>Part of the natural order is harming other animals.
I agree, I wasn't trying to imply the contrary
>>877496
They aren't very social though. The ability to work together is also a big part of intelligence. It's not all Rubiks Cubes.
natural rights do not exist.
People/things only have rights that area assigned to them.
At some point though you have to take in account human liberty which can be encroached on with laws against "harming animals" in cases like hunting or land development. Yet at the same time you have people destroying huge amounts of land for little gain. It's not an ideal situation.
>>877514
"Nature" could wipe out every living thing on the planet at virtually any moment. That reality doesn't mean we should be okay with the loss of biodiversity. Diversity by its very nature is hard to quantify and slap a value on, too many variables to consider. It's usually best to err on the side of caution and preserve diversity, within reason. It's not worth it to keep smallpox around and kicking.
>>877548
All laws are encroachments on liberty, that's why they're there
>>876752
No. Yes. Yes. No.
>>877532
Crows have, next to bonobo's, the most complex social structure observed in animals and even have true education with non related members of the same murder teaching the young various skills
>>877602
I just assumed murders were just the plural of crows, not an actual distinct social group with much social interaction.
>>877611
they have complex relationships and are capable of not only accurately remembering faces (including human faces) but also convey abstract information about individuals to other members of their flock
and while the evidence for it is anecdotal crows may have been observed to engage in communal rituals such as funeral rites (also observed in elephants) and punitive rites
>>876805
Tautology
>>876782
What's wrong with extinction?
>>877699
Where are you getting all this about crows?
I found this, but it doesn't do justice to the kind of claims you seem to be making.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crows-show-off-social-skills/
>>876752
If a virus or bacteria kills every single being of a random species just to reproduce it is because it had more rights than its host?
This cucked questions are always took from the point of view and logic of humans and cute sentient mammals, but the rest of living beings simply not give a single fuck for "law" and "goodness" or "kindness".
But WE as humans should, because our sustained survival depends on it. And so we should strive for an order of things which may keep thing sustainable for the world as we know it
>TLDR; there is no "natural right", but we humans should create and use right and law on behalf of our species and habitat survival
/thread
>>877797
>there is no rights in the universe, but humanity willed them onto the universe regardless
H,FY?
>>876752
How would an impersonal "nature" assign rights? if rights exist, wouldn't someone have to be able to assign rights? Is this not what the founding fathers called "self-evident"?
I suppose your pets, or your animals, could have rights when they're on your property, given to them by you, but I doubt you'd get many people to believe that your animals had rights on their property, save the right to get shot and the right to be delicious.
>>877797
>WE ARE IN CONTROL HERE. NOTHING TO SEE. MOVE ALONG, CITIZEN.
>>876863
Humans are probably detrimental to the earths biosphere while mosquitoes are not.
I would argue that perhaps consciousness begets culpability for ones actions and self ownership. Consciousness is hard (impossible) to diagnose except via self experience so idk.
>>877740
thank you, that's the one
>>877850
>I suppose your pets, or your animals, could have rights when they're on your property,
Your pets ARE property and have civil protection from strangers taking or killing them
>>878179
this
animals are either property, or wild. They don't have natural rights. Even intelligent animals don't give each other rights. The big ape still trumps the small ones.
As for a humanzee, I dont think it would have rights because scientists would be studying the shit out of it and it would be a public spectacle like the Elephant Man
>Non-human animals I should say, for, of
course, we are animals. The moral philosopher most justly credited with
raising today's consciousness in this direction is Peter Singer, lately moved
from Australia to Princeton. His The Great Ape Project aims towards
granting the other great apes, as near as is practically possible, civil rights
equivalent to those enjoyed by the human great ape. When you stop and
ask yourself why this seems so immediately ridiculous, the harder you
think, the less ridiculous it seems. Cheap cracks like 'I suppose you'll need
reinforced ballot-boxes for gorillas, then?' are soon dispatched: we give
rights, but not the vote, to children, lunatics and Members of the House of
Lords. The biggest objection to the GAP is 'Where will it all end? Rights for
oysters?' (Bertrand Russell's quip, in a similar context). Where do you draw
the line? Gaps in the Mind (1.3), my own contribution to the GAP book,
uses an evolutionary argument to show that we should not be in the
business of drawing lines in the first place. There's no law of nature that
says boundaries have to be clear-cut.
>This way of thinking characterizes what I want to call the
discontinuous mind. We'd all agree that a six-foot woman is tall, and a
five-foot woman is not. Words like 'tall' and 'short' tempt us to force the
world into qualitative classes, but this doesn't mean that the world
really is discontinuously distributed. Were you to tell me that a woman
is five feet nine inches tall, and ask me to decide whether she should
therefore be called tall or not, I'd shrug and say, 'She's five foot nine,
doesn't that tell you what you need to know?' But the discontinuous
mind, to caricature it a little, would go to court to decide (probably at
great expense) whether the woman was tall or short. Indeed, I hardly
need to say caricature. For years, South African courts have done a brisk
trade adjudicating whether particular individuals of mixed parentage
count as white, black or 'coloured'
>>879039
Then what is animal abuse?
>>879099
>All the African apes that have ever lived, including ourselves, are linked
to one another by an unbroken chain of parent-child bonds. The same
is true of all animals and plants that have ever lived, but there the
distances involved are much greater. Molecular evidence suggests that
our common ancestor with chimpanzees lived, in Africa, between 5 and
7 million years ago, say half a million generations ago. This is not long
by evolutionary standards.
>Happenings are sometimes organized at which thousands of people
hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the
United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one
up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa.
It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we'll
have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the
shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she
holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother
holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the
beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya
border.
How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with
the chimpanzees? It's a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per
person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under
300 miles.
>>879106
desu, I think those laws are in place to keep psychopaths in check
i'm not gonna stop eating meat, if thats what you're asking.
>>876881
Simple answer: no
Rights and laws are a human construction which we mostly apply to ourselves.
That said, once the news of our neanderthal friend breaks a discussion about your question will likely start. There will be a lot of people who believe the Neanderthal deserves the same rights as a human.
From what we know about Neanderthals right now, that seems like a morally right choice.
>>879128
Pretty sure that's what murder laws are for too. Yep, just to catch people who do bad things.
>>876752
All animals except Canada geese
>>877457
>go deer hunting
>find deer
>shoot at it
>miss
>deer runs away
Would the act of running away count as communication that the deer wants to live, and therefore has a right to life?
>>876752
>Do animals have natural rights?
>Are some animals more deserving of rights than others?
>uses animal most likely created by Satan himself
Not anymore
>>876752
what the fuck is a humanzee?
>>879099
>>879109
I'm confused; is Singer suggesting to extend rights beyond those already in place for the purpose of the ecological conservation of any given animal species on the sheer basis of how phylogenetically close to us they are, as opposed to their potential capacity for complex thought?
That's idiotic. I guess by that logic we should first extend rights to our closer relatives the lemurs, an animal infamously about as capable of complex thought as a soggy carrot, as opposed to more mentally complex but distant creatures like cetaceans. What's with the whole evolutionary nepotism angle?
As for your questions, >>876752, I think things such as greater capacity for feeling pain and potential for higher degrees of thought should have an impact as to how certain species are handled by humans.
Still, I think the only rights animals should have as of now are those that safeguard their ability to show their natural behaviors in their natural habitat, both for Nature's own sake as well as for the sake of the culture, economic value and potential future knowledge tied to all animals on the planet.
>>879380
>I'm confused; is Singer suggesting
It's actually Dawkins from a book called A Devil's Chaplain, he's just challenging assumptions.
>>876775
They are more relatable because they have a few more similarities to us. Because of this we feel compelled to care for them.
But there's no "rights" for them until you actually pass the needed legislature to protect them. Rights aren't things that are out there, they are abstracts that people acknowledge and enforce, creating them in the process.
>>876799
>All humans have 2 human biological parents.
The first human could not have human parents.
Therefore there could be no first human.
So, humans have always existed - an unbroken infinite line stretching back in time, or there are no humans.
Good to know.
>>879419
Fuck off with your chicken and egg nonsense
>>877740
That when you afirm something and restate it with different words as an argument for itself
Animals don't have rights, they have freedoms.
What people like Singer and animal preservationists in general are suggesting is that animals should be permanently caged into a system like humans are by paying taxes, which is absolutely ridiculous because then you are suggesting that animals should labor for protection of their rights(i.e turning them into slaves).
The only thing we should have are laws that retaliate against people who cause animals undue suffering and harm for no reason at all. This doesn't require rights.
>>876987
You don't know what you are talking about. Neanderthals were homos yes, but not sapiens.
The official classification is homo neanderthalensis.
>>879558
We're all homos
No living thing is entitled to anything
>>882259
Human beans?
>>876752
Does a hungry tiger have a right to eat a defenseless human? Yes. Does a human have a right to eat a hamburger made from delicious cow meat? Yes. Does a Jew have a right to eat bacon? Yes, he does but he chooses not to eat the delicious bacon. Never trust anyone who doesn't eat defenseless humans or bacon.
>>884189
Never trust bacon
>>876752
Animals are property
Same rights slaves had ,whatever the owner gave them
>>876784
Yes
Why do you think that human foetus can be aborted?
>>886347
Murder.
>>886347
Depends who you ask
Natural rights don't exist. Rights are granted by societies of people based on the common denomination that people want to be treated a certain way by other people. Human rights don't exist outside of human society. They can only be enforced by other humans, nature doesn't give a fuck.
Now to the opinion part.
>Should animals have the same rights as humans?
No, not unless they reach a level of self awareness that is similar to humans. One good way to define this border would be the ability to actually ask the human society to be protected by human rights. This would have to happen by their own volition, a parrot that is just mindlessly repeating words without understanding their meaning would obviously not count. This rule would obviously also apply to aliens with human-level self-awareness.
>Should animal species that are closer to human level intelligence and self-awareness be protected more than other species of animals
Yes, the species should be protected to give them the ability to evolve further. They should be protected just like a fetus does have protection even though it is not yet considered a real person with human rights. Protection is a different thing than having rights though.
>>876752
>Do animals have natural rights?
Nobody has natural rights.
You only get what you fought for.
Case in point - French. When government fucked up, they've got angry and wrecked shit. The next government gave them more freedom and tried hard to not fuck up. They've stopped doing it and every single government fucked every single thing up and they've got progressively stripped from their rights.
>>876752
Peter Singer pls go.
>>876752
No
No
No
No
>>886770
>Humanzee
>Not having rights
>>876752
poor duck
>>876768
>believing in "nonsense upon stilts"
>>887072
Fuck Canadian Geese it's illegal to kill them in Ontario and they're everywhere crapping on the ground!
>>887117
They're already back man
>Do animals have natural rights?
NO; "RIGHTS" ARE LEGAL; LAW IS NOT NATURAL, BUT ARTIFICIAL.
>Does humanity have a duty to protect animal welfare?
YES.
>Are some animals more deserving of rights than others?
ANIMALS ARE INNOCENT BEINGS, SINCE THEY LACK CONSCIOUSNESS, THUS, THEY DESERVE TO LIVE NATURALLY, AND TO BE PROTECTED FROM AS MUCH SUFFERING AS POSSIBLE.
>Would a humanzee be entitled to human rights?
1. ARTIFICIAL BIOGENETIC ABOMINATIONS OUGHT TO NOT EVEN EXIST.
2. IN CASE THAT THEY ARE CREATED, THEY OUGHT TO BE EUTHANIZED, AND/OR PREVENTED FROM REPRODUCING/SPREADING, AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PUNISHED.
>>889055
trip faggot on cruise control.
>>876762
We are dependent on many animal's life, and the ecosystems they help create.
We are destroying the world in an attempt to seek momentary richness, or progress that will later fuck us all over the asshole.
>Do animals have natural rights?
Nature is cruel and does not give any assurances other than death. We as humans collectively have decided we should give people basic rights. That's it.
>Does humanity have a duty to protect animal welfare?
As the only creature with enough foresight to see the need for diverse life and as the only animals capable of actually fucking up such a large and intricate system, we really should be more careful.
>Are some animals more deserving of rights than others?
Rights? Not really. We give rights to pets, because they act more human than other animals. We give food/shelter/reproductive rights to farm animals on a crazy scale that nature could never have reproduced. The only "deserving" quality any of these animals have is use to humans.
>Would a humanzee be entitled to human rights?
This is obviously super hypothetical, so I'll bite. Being part human, he is part of our collective species. Goodness knows if a chimp and a human have a baby, it wasn't the chimp's idea.
>>876752
One day after work I was walking home when all of a sudden, a bird shit on my head. I was fucking pissed, but whatever only a few more blocks to go and I'll just hop in the shower. Then, all of a sudden, another bird shit on my head. It was then that I decided for myself that nature only mattered to me insofar as its effect on other humans. My argument goes something like this:
What a huge indignation it is to be shit on by something.
Humans invented the concepts of civility, privacy, decency, etc.
Animals do not possess these concepts, and probably very few if any can be taught them.
I fucking hate what I'll call "volitional entities" that don't value and exercise the values of civility, privacy, decency, etc.
Animals don't possess the concepts of those values, thus they don't exercise them.
Therefore, I fucking hate nature.
To address your post directly, I am not answering the question of whether or not they have rights, natural or otherwise, with my argument. If they do, I don't think we have a duty to protect them. The only animals that I think should be given rights are those that can and are successfully taught to understand shitting on other animals is immoral.
>>889399
Looks like you had a shitty day.
>>876895
Neanderthal so are human so the answer is pretty easy actually.
Technically, birds don't shit.
What they expel from their single orifice (the cloaca) is a mixture of nitrogenous waste (~= urine) and food waste (~= feces).
So it would be more accurate to call it a mixture of piss and shit, or something intermediate between piss and shit.
Therefore the bird did not shit on you; rather, it pissed/shat, or shat/pissed, or pseudo-shat, or feces-pissed, or urine-shat, or shat-cum-pissed on you.
>>889720
What you are referring to as bird shit is in fact bird shit / urine, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, bird shit plus urine.
>>877021
>Bill Nye
Triggered.
>>889224
>Goodness knows if a chimp and a human have a baby, it wasn't the chimp's idea
Love just happens
IMO we, as the dominating species of the planet, have the duty of protecting other species from extincion and avoidable/unnecessary suffering, and the right to use them for our ends while . Nothing more, and nothing less
>>876752
>natural rights
If by natural rights, you mean the right to life without infringing on basic needs, then sure. It is unknown if animals are capable of wants beyond their immediate needs for consumption and reproduction, so I don't think we can speak about "natural rights" beyond that.
>duty to protect animal welfare
Strictly speaking, no. A species' ultimate goal is to facilitate the reproduction and welfare of their own species. Other species exist as sources of consumption or as predators for refining the species' gene pool by devouring those unfit for survival in their environment. Humans, however, as omnivores and, more importantly, sapient beings are capable of manipulating this natural chain of predator vs. prey. I believe that humans should only protect animal welfare when that particular species is somehow related to our own survival and welfare (consumption, scientific study) or if they are integral to our surrounding ecosystem, such as squirrels in relation to trees.
>more deserving than others
I'd say so. Some animals are immediately less violent and aggressive, towards humans or even other animals, so it is more reasonable to establish some sort of cooperation. Alligators do not have much to offer to humans beyond rather difficultly acquired sustenance, and contribute little else to our own welfare. Dogs, however, have been selectively bred by humans for thousands of years, and are instinctively linked to human beings in a mutual cooperation and even a sense of love between species.
>humanzee entitled to human rights
This is difficult to answer. If this "humanzee" (by which I'm assuming you mean a human-chimpanzee hybrid) is indeed a sapient being and can sufficiently prove and demonstrate this, then yes, it is deserving of all the rights granted to a genuine human being, although that isn't to speak of the almost assured ostracizing such a thing would face.
>>889720
I prefer the term 'shiss' or 'shissed'
No.
>>889720
>>892152
I'll have to revise the terminology in my argument, but all the worse for those fucking birds.
>>876752
Geese don't. Fuck geese, exterminate all of them.
