[MyTwoCopperCoins]

My definitions of Man will have no bearing or effect, on what Man really means, to Nature that supports him, and vice-versa.

As for rights, sadly, and I mean it, they are a luxury (and thus requiring defence). We do have lawless cultures (and societies) near home, on this very planet, who, by strict definition, have survived as an entity just for as long (in fact, longer) than us, the civilised, have. Now I am not trying to say that the uncivilised are in the right; just that when purely viewed as an entity of nature, their ways have not made them disadvantaged, genetically. Do I approve of their ways, personally? Of course not. Does nature? We don't know, and they don't abort as often as us. What will that lead to? Who wins?

Questions, questions!

[thefrankbaum]

As for rights, sadly, and I mean it, they are a luxury (and thus requiring defence). We do have lawless cultures (and societies) near home, on this very planet, who, by strict definition, have survived as an entity just for as long (in fact, longer) than us, the civilised, have. Now I am not trying to say that the uncivilised are in the right; just that when purely viewed as an entity of nature, their ways have not made them disadvantaged, genetically. Do I approve of their ways, personally? Of course not. Does nature? We don't know, and they don't abort as often as us. What will that lead to? Who wins?

I don't really disagree with you on your points here. However, you haven't expounded on which rights "exist" and thus must be defended. Right to life? Right to liberty? Right to health care? Right to feel good about yourself? I ask about your definition of Man because, if a right exists, it exists for all Mankind; otherwise, it is a mere privilege which can be revoked by: the State/your parents/someone bigger and stronger/whathaveyou.