In a message dated 99-01-09 19:59:01 EST, you write:
> It appears as if <GBurch1@aol.com> wrote:
> |As for the former, one first has to have a clear idea of what the term
> |"rights" means. I find it hard to conceive of a "right" without an entity
> |capable of asserting that right, so I don't find it useful to speak of
> |"rights" in connection with animals that can't at least let out some kind
> + of
> |squeak of protest. However, with that first squeak comes some minimal
> So a human without language skills and voice lacks rights in your model.
> Are these humans to be treated as animals, including owned (slavery) and
> allowed to be terminated at will, too?
Umh, with all due respect, I believe you're reading me too literally. By "squeak" I meant any form of communication . . .
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org> Attorney ::: Director, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1 "Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience." -- Admiral Hyman G. Rickover