Nonhuman Rights

Sunday, November 24, 2019
First Aired: 
Sunday, May 28, 2017

What Is It

Human rights—like freedom from discrimination and slavery— are fundamental rights and freedoms that every person enjoys simply because they're human. But what about other animals, like monkeys, elephants, and dolphins? Should they enjoy similar fundamental rights? If we can extend the legal notion of personhood to inanimate, abstract objects like corporations, then shouldn’t we also extend it to other sentient creatures? How should we understand the concept of a “person” when it’s applied to nonhumans? What kind of cognitive and emotional complexity is required for nonhuman personhood? John and Ken extend rights to their human guest, Steven Wise, author of Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals.

This episode was recorded before a live audience at Stanford University and is viewable on video.

Listening Notes

John and Ken first explore different definitions for what it means to be a person. John proposes that a person is a being with a conception of self, while Ken argues that a person is a being who has a capacity for pain and the ability to inflict pain on themselves. John wonders what it will take for society to recognize the rights of nonhuman persons, considering that it took the Civil War for the United States to recognize the rights of African Americans.

The hosts welcome Steven Wise, leader and founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project, to the show. Ken asks Wise what he means by a “nonhuman person.” Wise responds that the definition of “a person” is up to the courts. Still, Wise is personally convinced that nonhuman animals are persons because they can suffer, live in social groups, and possess complex emotions. He argues that, on top of this, imprisoning animals is worse than imprisoning humans who have committed crimes because animals do not know what they did wrong yet suffer all the same.  

Ken presses Wise on his definition of personhood: if humans can do moral wrong to animals, can’t animals do moral wrong to humans? Wise clarifies his stance on the rights of nonhuman animals, arguing that we should leave them alone. John questions whether it is still a violation of rights when we catch a bear who has been tearing trash apart at a campsite and put it in a cage to be transported away. To Wise, humans need to take responsibility for encroaching on bears’ habitats and, in turn, forcing them to seek additional sources of food. The discussion concludes with our hosts wondering why we believe that all humans have rights.

  • Roving Philosophical Reporter (Seek to 7:17): Liza Veale chats with primatologist Franz de Waal and learns about how social animals cannot help but be empathetic. She also discusses how emotions lead to and can control our actions with neuroscientist Antonio Demacio.

  • Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 45:08): Ian Shoales wonders what nonhuman rights would be like for animals like elephants who sometimes present in circuses or are butchered in the wild for their tusks.




Ken Taylor  
Should some nonhuman animals be legally regarded as persons?

John Perry  
And should those animals be allowed to sue in court to protect their legal rights?

Comments (41)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Monday, November 4, 2019 -- 12:04 PM

Animals, in their primary

Animals, in their primary consciousness, are simply other living things inhabiting earth. They do not have any sort of notion(s) regarding rights, in the human sense of that concept. True, they have altruistic motives for protecting their own members and, more importantly, their is not clear how much of this they are conscious of and how much is reactionary. Survival is a genetic imperative, even though the 'selfish' gene, as proposed by Dawkins, is not at all selfish in the way we recognize selfishness. Now, whether or not animals have rights INHERENTLY, as living beings, depends on how we want to look at it. There are those among us who espouse causes And, causes are as plentiful as the minds which conjure them. After all, animals have no advocates other than their human admirers. And, as such, humans feel the need to defend children of a lesser God. And so, we get to the crux of the matter---well, several of them: 1. We recognize the importance of animal life to that of our own. We would be bereft of many benefits, possibly of the privilege of life itself, were it not for animal life generally. We don't think too much about plants, other than whether they are edible. Or poisonous. But animals are useful in many ways. 2. We have kinship with primary consciousness which is unattainable with non-sentient chlorophyll factories. Our sense of husbandry is as old as humanity itself. 3. We tend to think more of those life forms whose behaviors may mimic our own, and we feel good about how much compassion and empathy we exhibit towards them. So, for many of us, animals, their protection and sustainability are a cause, and we begin to talk about rights, as further justification for treating them like fellow citizens of the planet. Thinking, perhaps, that given time they will supersede our dominance by superseding our species. Pragmatism takes on a new meaning. And, after all, evolution is an ongoing process...
There are no animal rights, per se. Only those we say they can (or ought to) have.

RepoMan05's picture


Thursday, November 7, 2019 -- 1:59 PM

Well it's really just a

Well it's really just a theist aproach to justify original predation. In their sick little labyrinth of psychosis they believe in the original predation in the garden of Eden. Their justification is really just that animals are food and they themselves aren't animals. Nope, they're God's faithful servants on a mission to save some blah blah blah for God! But w/e. Gotta eat something... Why they can't like the idea of growing fish from a tree, I have no idea. Phobia of apples? "Not wise enough, blah blah blah, doom blah blah, the end of the world has to be managed blah blah."

The whole classification of animals thing is really just an extension of the British equivocation fallacy to turn family into a competition so as to justify nepotism and slippery slope for aristocracy. You know it as racism.

Past and future get a little fuzzy. They got all this blather to explain their past not knowing it's verses to set a future and or deny that future as it suits their nepotism.

You can set it to happen faster but those delusional bastards will just troll it out longer till they can come up with a way to cash in on it before you can.

The racists think they're going to get seats in the federal fallout shelters because they paid in on building them. They dunno they're just mutts. The new imicrowave seats six.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 7:30 AM

Philosophy and Religion have

Philosophy and Religion have a close, similar and wholly (I pun) different function. I would encourage you, RM5, to reconsider labelling religion in your thought. It does not help your point here, in fact, it does great harm.

The British equivocation fallacy is interesting only to you and is another of your tropes. Here is a test that might help you and I (and perhaps everyone in the world) come to terms. Why does a search for this ==> "British equivocation fallacy" amount largely to this ! "British equivocation fallacy" in DuckDuckGo. What is different about this these two results. What are you doing RM5?

It is OK to be eccentric, to find singular terms and define them. It is not OK to dump them in random posts and place onus on readers to fact check them. There is considerable work to be done just doing this for our elected (or in most cases appointed) officials.

The Philosophical cannon is inadequate, misogynist and looks a bit too much toward Socrates for my taste. But at least these ideas are common.

You are not common. You are not delusional. You are not a bastard.

When you use these terms here... you hurt Philosophy and humanity itself. I can insult you if you want that, if that is the language that you find parlay. But please don't insult me or this site by impugning or condescending Religion or those who find shelter there.
I would say more ... but I have more of your rants below to reply... let me go there and see what you have to say there.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 10:09 AM

But my thoughts dont seem

But my thoughts dont seem harmed, as much as im sure youd like to draw a clear distinction between religion and philosophy, you havent actualy done that here. Both are purely subjectivity. However, im not standing by your assertions of my points, in the first place.

Trope? It's an original philisophical position. I know, judging by your simplistic scoff, original thought is difficult for you to encompass but you havent done anything to discredit my point. You know it's an indisputable point and so you are forced to use deflections so you can maintain your intransigent bias appeasement style of non-thinking.

What am i doing different? After years of spreading my point about "race" being a british equivocation fallacy ive found others discussing my point. Some good points i found were that it's british catholic related and another point claiming it's not an equivocation fallacy but rather a reification fallacy. Since then ive amended my point that it is a reified british catholic equivocation fallacy to turn family into a competition and thus justify nepotism while slippery sloping for aristocracy. It seems you've taken an interest. Clearly an interesting philisophical point ive made. Quite evident.

It's not okay? But i think it is. You can never fully explain anything, subjective or non-subjective. That some threshold hasnt been met in your opinion for things i find self evident, is not my problem.

As you point out, insulting a religion, is a religious stance in and of itself. How you say it harms anyone, is a claim i demand you explain before i would consider your habitual misinterpretations any further.

No matter how holy someone claims their book fanclub is, no one is harmed by insulting a book or the practice of making fandom. It might make you consider if you'd member of that fanclub. I mean, if you werent habitualy intransigent or something like that.

Your rhetorical manuverings really have no place amongst original thinkers, you should take your own advice and just excuse yourself from it before you habitualy choose to be harmed any further.

Bye, let ji-zeus guide you.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 5:47 PM

What you're really saying

What you're really saying here is that you weren't persuaded. Not my problem. I didnt write a persuasive in the first place. I wrote a non-classic philisophical position.

Its important not to step into things when you should already know you're basing counterpoint on incorrect assertions.

There are ways to communicate but there are always better ways to communicate. It's always a moving target. But you had a choice to either make sense of things as you communicate or to make nonsense as you communicate. While the totality of choices you actually have exceed this choice ive just set for you, which one can you honestly say you've been doing thus far.

Between an insult and a zero sum game, which can you readily take as honest?

How can you demonify honesty without remembering what kind of shameless slime does that sort of thing?

You've neither dignity nor soul.

I could never even pretend to pitty something like you.

We had a deal. Now either die from all the heroin i got for you as we agreed, or die from being completley cut off from it, Mr.Nambla.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Sunday, December 1, 2019 -- 9:58 PM

I am your reader RM5. What

I am your reader RM5. What is there to get if you did not write it to be read.

What does this have to do with Non Human rights? That is a question that it would be good to focus on here don't you think?

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 12:50 PM

There will always be

There will always be something left unwritten. Your complaint is just petulant rhetoric youd still post at any other point.

If you need proof for something as self evident as "race" being british, what language dictionary are you looking in?

If you're already failing to see the obvious, theres no hope for a further explanation. I the writer, leave you the reader, unreguarded.

Why do only intransigent emotists read? Why do they even bother to read? Why do they bother to post?

More riddles....

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 2:41 AM

To understand RM5... that is

To understand RM5... that is why a philosopher thinks.

There is no intransigence in a reader who come to terms with his author. There is only philosophy.

RepoMan05's picture


Thursday, November 7, 2019 -- 2:31 AM

Theism and science aren't

Theism and science aren't supposed to mix. One of the two ends up on the dinner table. It ain't science.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 7:32 AM

There are some good shows on

There are some good shows on this very site where science is served. Bon Appetit, herr RM5.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 10:13 AM

Whether or not it makes for a

Whether or not it makes for a "good show" or not, is really neither here nor there. The topic you're deflecting is that science and religion were never intended to be mixed. Doing so is an insult to either, intended or otherwise.

Side note, an intended insult is at least honest.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Sunday, December 1, 2019 -- 9:54 PM

Who is Georges Lemaître or

Who is Georges Lemaître or Gregor Mendel? Even today religious scientists persist... the Dalai Lama is a great advocate of science.

I appreciate your honesty. If insults are any measure... you are very honest.

RepoMan05's picture


Thursday, November 7, 2019 -- 3:27 PM

Why so few consider on their

Why so few consider on their own how arrogant and counter productive it is to codify, a riddle that will never be solved.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 7:43 AM

RM5... what does codify mean

RM5... what does codify mean to you? if you could express that.. I think I might be able to point out exactly where this codification is, in fact, happening.

It is not hopeless. It is happening.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 10:15 AM

Im not sure what you're

Im not sure what you're trying to infer. Without that, i cant guess what you're asking.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 10:34 AM

Its a riddle that can never

Its a riddle that can never be solved reguardless of misconstrued conditions of "hope."

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Sunday, December 1, 2019 -- 9:49 PM

I know what a riddle is.

I know what a riddle is. What do you mean by "codify"?

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 11:26 AM

Classic definition im sure.

Classic definition im sure. Do you have reasons to suspect otherwise?

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 3:05 AM

As you have implied in

As you have implied in previous posts. There is no such thing as a standard definition. In fact there is no such thing as a classical definition. This is a very deep point.

I would encourage you to think about what codify means to you. Something about it hurts you in your writing here. It might haunt you in your mind. Think about it. Understanding this word will liberate your mind. But it won't get you rights. Those are afforded for entirely different and fundamental reasons.

RepoMan05's picture


Sunday, November 10, 2019 -- 4:38 PM

The problem with making a

The problem with making a list of animal rights is that it always has to be kept at a lower standard than Human Rights. Is this because we have to value humans higher than animals or is it so we don't have to run into the problem of having to revise Human Rights to fit animal rights? All animals with a penis/vagina reproductive dynamic reproduce in a rapey manner. You can't tell a lioness not to harass a male lion until he's ready to rape her. It's what she's made to do. It's what he's made to do. It's what we're all made to do. Believe it or don't. Truth exists independently of you and your beliefs.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 8:25 AM

Rape is a human invention

Rape is a human invention with primate undertones. Please don't indulge this sick fantasy. No human is made to rape. This is a very broken idea that needs call out even from psychotic sources.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 5:36 PM

"Rape is a human invention

"Rape is a human invention with primate undertones. "

That is a completely inaccurate assessment. Only homosexual-rape(pederasty) is a human invention with roman overtones. It's a behaviour most common today amongst roman catholics and prison culture. Both of which are typical for being inhumanoids by ambition and living in morbidly unnatural environments as consequence.

Every animal on earth with a dick and vagina reproductive system is found engaging in nonconsensual and/or sexually violent behaviours. I demand you find one single organism with dick and vagina phenotypical dimorphism that dosen't. Your claim is so incomprehensibly verifiably false i could never consider you ever had a shred of dignity in the first place if you do not: try, inevitably fail, and then admit your unfathomable ignorence and arrogance. If you manage to find even one, i'll cite you 5 organisms without dick/vagina dimorphism that still use rape; and then I'll happily dismiss myself from this site as I have too much dignity to share space with anything as intentionally stupid and up it's own rectory as whatever roman eunuch fanclub that spawned something like you.

You can't handle the truth.

Your piddly stoneager revisionist twaddle (that even goes so far to predict your demise(its only real redeeming quality)) cant argue against a half billion of years of evolution without proving your arrogance and intentional ignorence.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 3:50 AM

You may dismiss yourself

You may dismiss yourself whenever you please. But you don't. Why? You have a lot to say... and I would hear it. Better yet, I would understand it.

Why so touchy about rape? Do you know what it is like for an animal to feel? You can't unless you can talk to them... and animals don't talk except for human animals... do they? Primates are the most like humans and female primates, in general, have the worst of it, but in Bonobos not so much... why is that?

Should we extend rights to primates if they are so like us? Does a male Bonobo rape a female Bonobo with the rapaciousness of that of a Chimpanzee or Gorilla, or a human inmate? Bonobo sex is very different than other primates... why is that RM5? Rights can not be extended to non humans because of similarities to human behavior or anatomy. But I would say primates, elephants, dolphins and the octopus should have rights extended. Not because of their vaginas, however, or lack of them.

Thinking that you know how an animal feels is impossible, much less intuiting a complex human behavior like rape or consent in the behavior of animals. It's worse in dogs. People intuit all sorts of complexity to canines that can be explained without it. Duck "rape" is legend, but to understand what a duck feels... that is fantasy. An human rape is a much more complex action than that of a duck, of a dog or an ape. We take feeling and imbue it with emotion. What it feels to rape or be raped as a human...that is certainly sad... maybe even sadistic. Can an animal be sadistic?

There's quite a bit of emotion in your response above, if vulgarity is a standard for measure. Which it is not. Spare me that please or don't. It won't make your point any clearer above and it kind of sort of... makes my point when you do. That would be bad or would it? Can you be persuaded? Can an animal? That might be the best reason yet to extend rights and privilege to another specie.

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 12:46 PM

"Why so touchy about rape?"

"Why so touchy about rape?"

Wow. Right off the bat with an Intentionally loaded question fallacy. I can't think you're interested in communication now; not as much as that you must be furthering some religious machination or another. Im reducing my interest in your rebuttal post to a 'lite-scanning' and with next to zero worry of whether or not i might misunderstand it, in-part or in-whole.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 3:11 AM

Rape is only one of many

Rape is only one of many activities that humans do differently than animals. None of them would establish non humans as rights worthy if they were to follow suit. Something about rape makes you passionate. If that is a "question fallacy" (which is different from a fallacy... how?) that would be something you have to own.

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 1:13 PM

By the looks of it, you

By the looks of it, you completely failed to make even one citation of an organism that isnt known to rape, let alone one that doesn't even have similar genitalia. I can't reguard you as a dignified person as much as some type of intentional inhumanoid whom i would never intentionally extend rights equal to my own. You clearly do not have the stomach for dificult topics and i dismiss you as someone from a fanclub that's completley without the necessary qualifications. You and your fan club have no place to influence anyone or any thing. You are not needed here or anywhere. I wont bother with you any further. Grow some dignity for yourself and go find someone else to learn from; dont ask me anything. I won't reply.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 4:04 AM

I have given you examples but

I have given you examples but will try one more time.

Any other animal you would choose outside human beings... none of them "rape" in the way, with the violence, with the power or intent that human beings do this to their own children and fellow human beings.

If you put a dot on a duck's face and put it in front of a mirror it will show no signs of recognizing itself or the dot. It might not have "dot" in it's mind ever, but surely it doesn't have a sense of identity. It does have some consciousness however. That is enough to extend some rights - though not perhaps the kind we discussing here.

Bonobos are the most interesting creatures. Sex to bonobos is a different kind of behavior. Rape is very rare if ever there in a bonobos world. Here is a link that might be of interest to you, but you can search out your own.

Primatology is interesting and informative. Unfortunately King Kong has dominated our culture, though I still would be very careful around any primate in ways that I would never have to worry around human beings.

Bonobos condone sex with infants. Is that rape? No it is not. We know this because many primatologists have spent their lives understanding them. Some have even communicated with them... though not with the language that human beings take for granted. None of this communication allows any primatologist or human to deign empathetic understanding of their thought or minds. Sure we can make some statements, but each time we do, we need to screen them for anthropomorphization.

Anthropomorphizing animals is the greatest harm that can be done on animals and creation in general. RM5, you do this when you say animals rape. They do not. If they did... I would argue we should take away their rights.

I have more to say on this but will leave you to your scanning - which is a very good way to read sometimes... but not a good way to philosophy.

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, November 11, 2019 -- 10:38 PM

It may be a good time to

It may be a good time to mention "human rights" is just a misnomer for "inhuman rights".

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 8:38 AM

Aught does not imply naught.

Aught does not imply naught. If it did you could justify anything. Let's stand for something and allow that nut to grow.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 12:14 PM

But you CAN justify anything.

But you CAN justify anything. So....

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Sunday, December 1, 2019 -- 9:44 PM

You have said yourself there

You have said yourself there is truth outside and beyond your mind. If an animal can experience an outside truth does that make it worthy of rights?

P does not imply not P. If that is your justification then bon appetit.

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 11:34 AM

I made no statment in

I made no statment in reguards to whether or not aninals desearve rights. I only daid that the resulting rights of giving them rights would be giving them rights above our own. Lots of our rights are equally denying us our own nature. Nature really only grants you one right. Live if you can and die if you must. Any further codification of our rights is denying us some aspect of our nature. Any further partitioning is just a fence bisecting the whole.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 4:01 AM

There is a fallacy here.

There is a fallacy here. What is it?

From your comment below... did Capone take away your rights?

Take them back RM5.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, November 29, 2019 -- 10:20 PM

This was a good show. John

This was a good show. John Perry is an immensely important man in my life and our world. I've said that before but it can never be said enough. In my one interaction with him, he smoothed over my ignorance to lightly dismiss my existence. I was humiliated. But I was not dehumanized. This site, which I follow now and again (mostly around the Holidays when work takes back seat to family) I've seen posts that would question all of humanity. Though classifying this age as the Anthropocene is unfortunate it pales in comparison either to damning humanity for non humans' sake or to extending rights to any non human creature.

We all come from common stock. Not all of us deserve rights greater than others.

If you will... look at this current viral - safe for work - you tube (note, buyer beware, it has one image of sodomy that I would address in the spirit it is offered.) - phone link - desktop link

This (assuming you hit the link) is a philosophical and scientific abomination. But therein is the key to the non-human rights debate.

Non human is simply that... non human. As soon as we figure out what that means we might actually make some headway on this issue. Some very great scientists are doing just that.

Word...Frans de Waal is not one of these very great scientists, great scientist though he is. Damasio is another scientist that I look askance at but neither Damasio nor de Waal are my scientific equals. They are my superiors. Science >> Philosophy ... every time. A philosopher wouldn't have it any other way.

As philosophers we concern ourselves with the space between the Theory. Theory is the foundation of Science. Philosophy used to find space in the realm of consciousness. That is no longer true. There are very good theories of consciousness that are being tested every day. Instead philosophers are being relegated to the untestable ethical questions like non human rights, which are strongly dependent on the new science of consciousness, but not directed by it.

Non human thought and consciousness is nothing like the thought expressed in the link I shared. Much of that link concerned itself with non human feelings and emotion. These feelings, we will never know them. The only way to know how someone is feeling is to ask them. Even then it's pulling teeth. That is why people are encouraged, so often, to use "I" language in relationships and testimonials. Non humans don't share language (with rare exceptions - one if which I would share, because it was so fundamental to my worldview, but this is already too long.) We can't ask dogs or cats how they are feeling. Scientists are suggesting quantitative models of animal consciousness. Even plants and fungi can be conscious under some of these models.

Pet lovers and primatologists are quick to anthropomorphize their pets/subjects. Everyone is. It is intuitive to see faces in random dots or rock formations. It is especially easy when primate biology is so close to that of human. This is dangerous when it comes to thought, feeling and consciousness. Non human is not necessarily like human. Convergent behavior is clear in the working of very different avian and human brains. Not all consciousness is driven by cortical engagement. Just as emotion is not all subcortical and shared in evolutionary branchings.

Sure, it's easy, it's even funny. If you didn't already... hit those links now. But remember, no matter how human like a capuchin monkey may seem, they are likely very different than humans with respect to ideas of fairness, justice and world view.

Alright. I blathered for too long. I'm sorry. Non human rights... how does this blathering help us to resolve this question? I don't know. None of us do. If we did it would be science that helped us get there. Science is doing that wrt consciousness. Early signs point toward a much wider scope than the Anthropocene human centered age has led us to this point. We need to expand our concepts of master and slave, competition and cooperation and any notion of human minds as central to the construction of the universe. Wheat and now corn are perhaps best thought our new masters. Machines are already out competeing our file clerks and soon to do so for our truck drivers. The human mind itself is certainly not the best model of thought. In times of massive despeciation like the one we are living in now it would be best to cast these rights as far and wide as possible. We don't know what will ultimately win the day. Not extending these rights all the way out to plants seems as foolhardy as the Dodo giving up the option of flight.

Note I responded to the blog post as well... with a slightly different take.

Happy New Merry Hallow Thankmas to you all.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 10:19 AM

This all looks much too

This all looks much too delicate and i dont bother myself with innane sophistry.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Sunday, December 1, 2019 -- 9:45 PM

That is a fair take. Enough

That is a fair take. Enough said.

RepoMan05's picture


Saturday, November 30, 2019 -- 3:57 PM

"Rape is a human invention


RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 2:39 PM

What could it possibly be

What could it possibly be besides the most shamelessly arrogant warplan that these roman catholic sleaze would support illegal immigration on one continent while fighting against it on their own home continent?

Im disgusted that it had to be so obvious before you'd even hear my question.

What will it look like when you decide? A lot more like it does right now. A happy smiley roman catholic pederast preist stabbing your children in the back with heroin soaked needles in your classrooms of non-thought 101.

When you finish building the border wall. Put computer ai guided laser turrets on top of it.

No topic should ever be denied public discussion on the basis that the subject matter is so disgusting that it can avoid being accurately discussed in public; least of all of these, roman catholics fan clubs.(especialy them since they're habitually in the habit of that sht throughout history(not that you'd even know it(supporting citation.)))

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 4:30 AM

You've lost yourself again.

You've lost yourself again. Yet still I would extend you rights. Why?

I have spent time and thought about pederasty with you in the blog post on this same topic here...

...only to have them removed by wise and perhaps prudent moderation. Here at Philosophy Talk we don't insult each other's intelligence, and we keep topics safe for all to discuss. That doesn't mean we don't talk about vile, evil or disgusting topics... we do. You can say anything... let's just keep it safe.

Hmm... I think I might have codified there a bit. I didn't mean to do that.

At Philosopher's Corner or here at Philosophy Talk... we do not codify anything. We philosophize. It is fun, but it takes time and thought.

But there are some great stores of thought here to listen to or read along with the posters. Outside of that there are three great codification resources (if I understand your use of that term) which you can use as well.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ==>
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ==>
Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project ==>

If you want codification (again in the sense of the term as you are using it) go there. Otherwise enjoy the "fan club" as you say. I'm not a fan of your posts like the one above if only because they don't bear directly on the point expressed in the show.

Advice which you will unfortunately scan over... listen to the shows here, think about them, then post. Try not saying codify or fallacy for a while. I have several words like that which could use a little rest. Instead I will just rest my entire brain as the day is coming.

RepoMan05's picture


Monday, December 2, 2019 -- 3:08 PM

Side note, the origin of my

Side note, the origin of my point that the problem of recognising animal rights means youd have to revaluate human rights, came from a roman catholic misandrist heroin pusher on the catholic backed west highschool school board in madison wisconsin by the original last name Capone.(who was also very racist and pushing an athletic program involving raising children on growth hormones (early 1980s.) She's in the cia now last time i checked (mid 1990s(clinton administration)). Can we say "fked" here? Because thats what we are if you dont wise the fk up.)

(Devout sole member of the American Anti-partisan Party.)

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 -- 3:58 AM

We are as you say, but not

We are as you say, but no amount of wisdom is going to undo that. Only action will cause change.

RM5 take some action. Don't attach yourself to any party or person. Think for yourself here.

Capone did wrong by you. Leave it alone. Capone is human and worthy of rights just like you. But Capone's wrong doesn't take away your rights. That might be the fallacy above. I would encourage you to think about that.