Another source of light pollution

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:01:38 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:48:24 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
There is no legal right not to be killed

In some countries there is, but the US is not among those countries.

Correct. The simple fact that every culture has its own list of what
are and are not rights is a pretty devastating argument against the
concept of natural rights.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:09:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:50:09 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:08:09 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

I disagree. We have laws here in my state against defacing natural
features, such as rocks or trees. Does that mean rocks and trees
have
rights? I think that's stretching the definition a lot farther than
it
can reasonably go.

Rocks cannot suffer. Animals can suffer.

That is not scientifically obvious. Non-human animals can feel pain.
But pain and suffering are very different things. Suffering requires
sentience and self-reflection- something we do not know with certainty
exists in any animals besides humans.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 07:48:25 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:01:38 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:48:24 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
There is no legal right not to be killed

In some countries there is, but the US is not among those
countries.

Correct. The simple fact that every culture has its own list of what
are and are not rights is a pretty devastating argument against the
concept of natural rights.

I never said rights are natural rights. Of course rights can only be
assigned by humans (or other sentient beings, if they exist). But
humans can give rights to non-sentinent beings such as animals. Or
even rocks - the humans decide.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 21:08:37 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 07:48:25 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:01:38 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:48:24 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
There is no legal right not to be killed

In some countries there is, but the US is not among those
countries.

Correct. The simple fact that every culture has its own list of what
are and are not rights is a pretty devastating argument against the
concept of natural rights.

I never said rights are natural rights. Of course rights can only be
assigned by humans (or other sentient beings, if they exist). But
humans can give rights to non-sentinent beings such as animals. Or
even rocks - the humans decide.

A matter of definition. I wouldn't use that word in that case.

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 01:33:22 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 21:08:37 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 07:48:25 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:01:38 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:48:24 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
There is no legal right not to be killed

In some countries there is, but the US is not among those
countries.

Correct. The simple fact that every culture has its own list of what
are and are not rights is a pretty devastating argument against the
concept of natural rights.

I never said rights are natural rights. Of course rights can only be
assigned by humans (or other sentient beings, if they exist). But
humans can give rights to non-sentinent beings such as animals. Or
even rocks - the humans decide.

A matter of definition. I wouldn't use that word in that case.

The problem with "rights" [or their absence] is that they can't be backdated when the victims have already been slaughtered or abused over long periods.

Hypocrisy regularly occurs when human's condone or commit murder to save fluffy animals. Or to protect a daft religion from blasphemy. Or the protect the unborn from [ex]termination.

Human society's morality tends to steadily improve over time. So that new rights are added to the list. An 'alien' oversight might consider much of our morality as completely illogical. Our applied "rights" completely indefensible.

We are suffering from people overload with no end in sight. AGW cannot occur with many fewer people. Yet every life must be spared or saved regardless of their negative impact on our limited resources. Or, on our genes.

Pass the Soylent dressing, please?

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:33:21 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I never said rights are natural rights. Of course rights can only
be
assigned by humans (or other sentient beings, if they exist). But
humans can give rights to non-sentinent beings such as animals. Or
even rocks - the humans decide.

A matter of definition. I wouldn't use that word in that case.

Other humans can make other decisions - and there is no god or other
supreme being to stop them from doing that.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:03:43 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:33:21 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I never said rights are natural rights. Of course rights can only
be
assigned by humans (or other sentient beings, if they exist). But
humans can give rights to non-sentinent beings such as animals. Or
even rocks - the humans decide.

A matter of definition. I wouldn't use that word in that case.

Other humans can make other decisions - and there is no god or other
supreme being to stop them from doing that.

I didn't suggest otherwise.