"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:

You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling
Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
We all know it.
Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Really.
Waiting....
Really.
Can't, can you.
Have.
Not even an attempt. As per usual.
Have done much more than an attempt.
Where, ball?
Everywhere,
[snip bull****]
[snip bull****]

[snip bull****]

Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

Tell us how you 'know' that lions don't experience hunger.

You tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.
Spot the differences, troll?
The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.
In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival.
Irrelevant.

[snip bull****]

Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

You cannot "justify" lions' predation by
invoking humans' legal right to *resist* predation by other humans.
They are completely different.

In both cases *necessity* is regarded as justification.

No, absolutely *not*. In *NEITHER* case does "necessity" have anything
to do with it. In the lion's case, *no* justification is necessary. In
the human's case, it is *not* "necessity". Rights do not, ever, depend
on "necessity".

'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..
...
If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."
...'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another human.

What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?

Don't need any for that, either. "Innocent" means nothing there.

Evasion and ipse dixit B$. You cannot justify it. Simple as.