Non-humans animals should have equal rights to humans

I would appreciate if Con put forward more arguments and substantiated arguments. He criticises me for making unsubstantiated claims but the few claims of his have not support whatsoever. You claim that the ability to experience higher pleasures such as reading Shakespeare is not relevant. However, that is exactly what I have argued. The ability to experience higher pleasures is often given as an argument against animal rights. So it is an argument, that you, as Con, could make. You accept that this is not the reason for prioritizing humans over animals so we no longer need to address this argument as you obviously do not see it as the reason why you prioritise human rights. I would ask you to offer an alternative argument. You can do so, but since its so late in the debate I can no longer respond. "My confusion stems from the Notion that I must Run a Individual over. Regardless of whether I"m right or wrong, That does not correlate to the argument. I would ask you keep on track. " Con, you seem unaware of the use of thought experiments. They do not necessarily have to be something that happens in reality but merely be a possibility. So it is possible that you may find yourself in a situation when you have to chose between killing a white man or a black man. Ethics is largely made up of hypothetical situations which challenge the ethical theories in hand. I can still ask the question of you, when put in such a situation, whether you would prioritise the white man or black man. If the thought experiment needs further refining so the carriage has no breaks and that you could not stop then take this as part of it. Without brakes you would have to run one of the men over and be forced to make such a choice. Search Michael Sandel lecture on youtube for a similar thought experiment. Now with this example I was trying to show that if you ran the black man over because blacks are less likely to be educated in that period then this translates in a meaningful way to the debate over animal rights. It is supposed to show that valuing life on the factor of intelligence was morally wrong. The black man is less intelligent (just as many animals are less intelligent than humans) but it does not feel right to run him over instead of the white man, for this reason (you even admit that you do not want to choose). This is the right response. We should not value life on intelligence. However, many people in Con"s position would argue that humans are superior as they are more intelligent. Your response of not wanting to run either over shows the thought experiment worked. You do not want intelligence to be a factor in your argument for humans being superior to animals. What then is your argument? "Does it not bother you your comparing a vast Minority, to a Majority? That"s called false equivalency. You cannot do that in debate. Do the majority of Humans have exceptionally low IQ"s? I would assume you say no, declaring this argument invalid. And even then, ALL animals would have to be smarter then disabled Individuals, there creating inequality over more intelligent animals over less intelligent animals. Firstly, it is exactly this point I am challenging you on. It does not matter what the majority of humans are. It is wrong to say that the majority of humans possess *insert relevant factor that makes some persons superior to others* and then to say that makes all humans superior. Yes, cases of mental disability in humans are rare but that makes no difference. You have given humans this superiority for a reason, be it intelligence, morality, ability to experience higher pleasures etc. But is it not more accurate to give rights to only those who meet the criteria. For instance, only intelligent people have rights (this would be more accurate as it would exclude non-intelligent humans). When you say humans are intelligent that is merely a stereotype to aid language"s simplicity. It is harder to say that all humans are intelligent except those with condition y and condition x. An ethical theory should not be limited by the simplicity of language but should be accurate. I am arguing that the word "human" does not mean someone intelligent necessarily and that therefore the group with rights (if intelligence is your measure of the importance of life) should not be called "human" but rather the group of "intelligent persons". Secondly, if your critique did work it would make my argument unsound not invalid. "Morality does not require a capacity to reason, see Religion. I looked at your link, and this condition you speak of is for 1. Extremely rare. 2. Very few people EVER are born with it. 3. Yet again, I false equivalency. Comparing ALL animals, to that of Very few Humans. " I would challenge Con in the claim that following the blind commands of a religion is reason. And even if it was these humans to low intelligence and animals do not possess religion (probably because of their low intelligence). I would point out that Con"s listing is a little dodgy since all three points in the list amount to exactly the same claim. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the condition is rare. Those suffering the condition are human (DNA matches). They cannot reason. Therefore, not all humans can reason and thus the term human does not encompass the description "one who reasons". Why is this important? Because if reason is what makes life important then it cannot be consistent to claim that all humans have this right as not all humans have a capacity to reason. "The word "human" does mean a being that can reason. " "I don"t recall saying that. " No, that"s because you did not. I said that. But I think you have not convinced yourself that you do not believe this. "Viewers, the evidence provided by Pro is not Scientific in any way. He provides 2 links to Philosophy Storage Sites, and then 2 on another obscure site. There are no author marking left by anybody, and no scientific links or journals attached, so I would ask for explanation towards how there "Scientific". Almost all points were confusing, Indelible, and incoherent. I had difficulty following along. He leans heavily on this "Evidence", however I point how there unsupported by actual scientists. " Firstly, the first two links are philosophy sights because the claims they support are solely philosophical ones. The others are articles about scientific studies that have taken place. I think that you can have a good level of certainty that these studies have taken place. A simple google search provides large amounts on the topics raised in these articles. None of my points are heavily reliant on scientific evidence (please tell me which are- all are thought experiments! ). I would be interested to hear whether readers share this belief my arguments are incoherent- Con certainly has not adequately explained why.