[RedMonqey]

For example, animals don’t have rights as much as people do.

To paraphrase an (in)famous Supreme Court Justice:

'"Animals have no rights that any man is bound by the law to respect." What "Man" does have is dominion over the creatures and responsibility for the animals in his trust.


Rights demand the ability of responsibilities, not just the good stuff as in what teenagers think they get when they turn into adults as defined by the government.

Otherwise I agree with you...

[familyop]

The rights for mankind are shown in our Constitution. Show me where our Constitution allows man’s responsibility to animals to trump the rights of human beings. It’s not there, while the rights of human beings are explicitly written.

From a recent case of travesty,... Livestock, for example, are property. No one can justly rob a rancher of his cattle in the USA. It’s against the law of our land to do so. It’s an attack against our US Constitution.

Nearly all ranchers lose cattle. The consequence of any lack of responsibility on their part is that of profit losses. No debt-laden mob has any right to make laws with the real purpose of robbing ranchers.

Here’s a consequence of animal worship (re. elevating imaginary rights of animals above those of American people). If people go hungry in the near future, contrary to assumptions of vain robbers, hungry people will be aware of exactly who is responsible.