The slight ethical inaccuracy in that statement doesn't drive you mad? In many ways, I'm envious
-
-
Replying to @BristolBen @HPluckrose and
Not at all. It's impossible not 2b related 2 the opposite sex in some way, so that bond can b a
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IonaItalia @BristolBen and
basis 4 ethics. If I said "I want equal rights 4 Indians bcoz my dad was one" that wd be odder.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IonaItalia @HPluckrose and
It can be a basis because it's universal, you say. But fear and loathing of snakes is universal
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BristolBen @IonaItalia and
too. We are thus entitled to chop Erebus's head off (Helen's boa).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BristolBen @IonaItalia and
This would increase everyone's well-being (except Helen, but she agreed with your point, so...)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BristolBen @IonaItalia
I have no idea what you're talking abt.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @IonaItalia
I'm not making any sense? If rights can be justified by universally caring (about women kin), then lack of caring
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
(about snakes) would leave snakes with no rights (animal welfare). Which is wrong, thus so it initial argument
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BristolBen @IonaItalia
Obv. History shows us this. We make rights up so they can't exist until humans care enough. Animal rights are new.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Course it would be great if rights existed outside human minds but they don't. We have to inspire each other to care
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.