Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

Since the code of law establishes an agreement between *rational individuals* who *willingly* renounce to the arbitrary use of their force to delegate it to the community, technically animals don’t have “rights”. It may only be up to us—not a law—not to harm them unless necessary

That dropped off into crazy land quickly.

A right is a grant from a master to a slave, ONLY slaves have rights, so if the animal is property it would be possible to grant it rights, not that it would be aware of them.

Yes, yes they do. They have the right to be hot and juicy, and ready to eat. YUM!! YUM!!! Love me some cow, cute and (DELICIOUS!).

One of the few times I agree with Stefan. At the end you should have said, "No, those cow-people don't get NAP from me looking from the outside, and I don't feel bad just because they look human". It's that simple. Yes, it's heartless, but that's how we treat animals already.

Ayn Rand diferentiated between the ethics of emergencies vs. everyday ethics, not with regard to principle but with the restricted ability to act in hypothetical "lifeboat" scenarios. Applying such restrictions to everyday life is not applicable. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html …

The truth is that without an outside immaterial standard, things like "meaning", "purpose", and "morality" become like immaterial created gods; and gods created in the minds of humans do NOT exist. So, God is REQUIRED for meaning, purpose, morality, or "rights" to exist at all.

Anyone else get bored as soon as it became absurd?

Stefan....STEFAN!!!!! WHAT IF!!!! What if, there was someone with a high verbal IQ, gimmicky debate tactics but they had the reasoning skills of a cow? Would your NAP still apply?? I know...I KNOW STEFAN !! I win...I WIN!!!!!! Seriously, LOL....You have a lot of patience.