Well, I suppose Grumpy_Bastich’s post does contain a fair number of commonsensical points. Who can argue against the notion that non-human animals don’t share all the traits that make us human? Who would dispute that vesting non-human animals with the full range of human rights is a silly proposition? And who would deny that we humans, by virtue of our brains, our numbers, and our technology, have become the custodians of many other species? Not me. Hardly anyone is contesting those points as far as I can see.

Now I would contest his (or her) reductionist, “nature red in tooth and claw” description of typical animal behavior. It’s decades out of date. But since it was used mostly to add a bit of dramatic flair, we can let it.

No, absent the drama and the truisms, the main point was that “rights” as such should only be bestowed on those able to win them (by force if necessary), understand them, and reciprocate them. A number of folks here have argued that point repeatedly. And it’s a fair point. Intentionally or not, I think those that insist on making that point usually sidestep the essential issues involved in the whole “animal rights” debate rather neatly, but I can see their logic.

That said, I’m still waiting for one of the “animals DO NOT have rights because rights are a contract” people to explain to us all why severely mentally-impaired people, for example, simply do not have human rights as such. Honest to Pete, for the life of me I can’t recall anyone jumping up in a public forum to insist that it’s a childish fallacy to suggest that an adult human with the IQ of a four year-old might have rights. Not even once.