Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[Kirbmarc]

If God doesn’t have a right to flood the world, he’s a mass murderer. If he does have such right, he’s not.

He's still a mass murderer. If you believe that he has the right to do it, he's simply a justified mass murderer. The act of mass murdering doesn't disappear.

why ants don't seem to have rights.

Ants don't have rights because they can't claim rights. Once you have the theoretical possibility of claiming a right then you have a right.

This is why an Artificial Intelligence would have rights that its creator should have to respect.

Cool, ownership of things one creates is found in legal systems and social conventions. Case closed!

The key word here is things. A sentient being isn't a thing. Things don't have rights. Sentient beings do.

[John V]

Says you. Trouble with that, is that you actually have to establish that claim, and then you'd have to find a way to establish that people can be property again. Nothing special about this plea. The right to own a human being is not a recognized right. Not by the country I live in, nor by myself personally. Do you recognize this right?

Yes, I recognize it in God, as you noted when you said "Says you."

As with all things here in the real world, no magic is required. Here, in the US, our rights are determined (in part) by a document conveniently called "The Bill of Rights".

The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed with certain rights by God.

Ants don't seem to have any rights because they haven't created any.

You could bestow rights on them. There are humans without the mental capacity to claim rights, but you bestow rights on them, don't you? So, this is special pleading.

I imagine the moment that an ant stands up and asks us about it's rights we'd have a hell of a problem on our hands,

Why would that be?

---

He's still a mass murderer. If you believe that he has the right to do it, he's simply a justified mass murderer. The act of mass murdering doesn't disappear.

The term murder connotes that its unjustified.

Ants don't have rights because they can't claim rights. Once you have the theoretical possibility of claiming a right then you have a right.

This is why an Artificial Intelligence would have rights that its creator should have to respect.

Why is sapience the cutoff? This is special pleading. Do you recognize any right claimed? And do you not bestow rights on some creatures which cannot claim them for themselves?

The key word here is things. A sentient being isn't a thing. Things don't have rights. Sentient beings do.

Actually most animals are sentient beings. You're thinking sapience, which is again an arbitrary special pleading.

[Jackalope]

The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed with certain rights by God.

Civics lesson:

The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). You may as well quote the Articles of Confederation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I recognize it in God, as you noted when you said "Says you."

Thank you for your testimony Mr. Wyatt, can we see your evidence now?

The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed with certain rights by God.

Not the first time that people have attempted to borrow the authority of a commonly accepted fairy tale. They weren't any more correct in their assessment when they penned that then you are now.

You could bestow rights on them. There are humans without the mental capacity to claim rights, but you bestow rights on them, don't you? So, this is special pleading.

Technically, I couldn't bestow the rights, no. I could argue for them though. You have habit of misidentifying fallacies, common of apologists, so I guess I can't feign surprise. Here, let wiki help you again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Why would that be?

As I've already explained to you, if I wish to secure a right for myself but deny another that right despite it's presenting a compelling claim (or having a compelling claim presented for it, to leverage the notion above), I will have lost any substance to my own appeals for those rights. It's an expression of a concept called egalitarianism, which we often attempt to leverage in service of rights, though we sometimes fail horribly. Are we going to have to start at the beginnings of ethics and move all the way up to the current state of rights and laws before you get around to establishing the rights of your god?

As a side note, since I see you're attempting to push sapience on yet another person, those rights animals currently have are not justified by sapience, but by sentience. So no, you might really like to talk about sapience, but you're the only one doing so thusfar. If you want to go that route, I'll go down it with you, but it actually just gets shittier for god......

[Kirbmarc]

Why is sapience the cutoff? This is special pleading

No, it isn't. I explained you why. You need to be theorethically able to claim rights to have rights. Rocks can't have rights. Non sapient animals can't have rights.

Why should there be another cutoff? If you think that rights exist, then only those who have the possibility to claim them can have them.

And do you not bestow rights on some creatures which cannot claim them for themselves?

Only on those creatures that have the possibility of claiming them, at least in theory (like humans who don't have the actual ability to do so).

Do you recognize any right claimed?

No, but the possibility of making claims is a prerequisite to the recognition (or not) of such claims. And there are rights that belong to all sapient beings.

Actually most animals are sentient beings. You're thinking sapience, which is again an arbitrary special pleading.

I confused the terms, but the general meaning was clear from my previous sentences. Yes I meant sapient beings. Although animald still have a different status from "things".

And even if human had no rights against god, god would still be a vicious bastard. Humans have feelings, and causing pain to innocent creatures for trivial reasons is what defines "vicious bastard".

A man who tortures kittens for a bet is a vicious bastard even if kittens don't have rights, after all.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "feelings" bit -experience of pain, for example-is sentience. Sapience is wisdom, realization, etc.... Sapience would create a knockdown argument for any human right if it were expressed by a non-human entity. Sentience would most likely require an advocate (which, conveniently, it has -as in the case of Johns impaired human beings or our livestock). Sapience, of course, relies on sentience as an underpinning, at least in the way we understand the terms and their relationship to each other. You have to have the "experience" "realize" that you did.

[John V]

Civics lesson:

The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). You may as well quote the Articles of Confederation.

NSS. However, definitions of rights presented previously in the thread do not require legal weight.

---

Technically, I couldn't bestow the rights, no.

Why not?

As I've already explained to you, if I wish to secure a right for myself but deny another that right despite it's presenting a compelling claim (or having a compelling claim presented for it, to leverage the notion above), I will have lost any substance to my own appeals for those rights.

Plenty of animal rights advocates present claims for animal rights beyond those recognized by society in general. They find those claims compelling. You don't. Do rights boil down to opinions?

And BTW, when you base your argument on consistency, pointing out your hypocrisy is a valid argument, not a fallacy.

As a side note, since I see you're attempting to push sapience on yet another person, those rights animals currently have are not justified by sapience, but by sentience. So no, you might really like to talk about sapience, but you're the only one doing so thusfar. If you want to go that route, I'll go down it with you, but it actually just gets shittier for god......

No, I'd rather stick to sentience. Previously you said, "If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?"

What rights originate in sentience, and who is this "we"?

---

Why is sapience the cutoff? This is special pleading

No, it isn't. I explained you why. You need to be theorethically able to claim rights to have rights. Rocks can't have rights. Non sapient animals can't have rights.

You didn't explain it, you asserted it. I showed counterexamples. Babies can't claim rights, but they have them, as adult humans grant them. Neither dogs nor ants can claim rights, but we grant greater rights to dogs than to ants. So, yes, non sapient animals can have rights. Ask Michael Vick!

No, but the possibility of making claims is a prerequisite to the recognition (or not) of such claims. And there are rights that belong to all sapient beings.

Such as? Why the cutoff at sapience?

We've noted sentience and sapience. You've conveniently tried to limit rights to sapience. Suppose God has some -ience greater than sapience? Why can't he deny rights to sapients, as you try to deny them to sentients?

I confused the terms, but the general meaning was clear from my previous sentences. Yes I meant sapient beings. Although animald still have a different status from "things".

I can own an animal. You can't come and take my cat away from me. Although, as it can't claim rights, you don't think it has rights.

And even if human had no rights against god, god would still be a vicious bastard. Humans have feelings, and causing pain to innocent creatures for trivial reasons is what defines "vicious bastard".

A man who tortures kittens for a bet is a vicious bastard even if kittens don't have rights, after all.

So you're saying that Satan is a vicious bastard. OK.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not?

Because I'm not the king/emperor/dictator/legislative body/entire voting bloc of the US? Obvious answer is obvious.

Plenty of animal rights advocates present claims for animal rights beyond those recognized by society in general. They find those claims compelling. You don't. Do rights boil down to opinions?

Would you like to start a thread about animals rights just to avoid establishing the rights of your god? Go right ahead, I'll be there. Do rights boil down to opinions? In and of themselves, yeah, you could probably stretch and call them that. Not that this makes them less compelling.

And BTW, when you base your argument on consistency, pointing out your hypocrisy is a valid argument, not a fallacy.

LOL...unfortunately it isn't pointing out an appeal to hypocrisy(need a wiki link again?), nor have you shown any hypocrisy in the more common usage of the term, nor would it matter if you had. The only person appealing to hypocrisy here is you, ffs. For some reason you think that drilling out my moral principles, or a lack of consistency in my application of them will excuse you, or god-from having to establish your position. It won't..and -that- is what it means to appeal to hypocrisy. The devil himself could levy this charge and it could not be dismissed simply because he was the devil (though, clearly, you'd very much like that to be the case).

No, I'd rather stick to sentience. Previously you said, "If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?"

What rights originate in sentience, and who is this "we"?

All rights, as I've already explained. Is this the part where you just keep repeating questions in the hopes that you can create a perpetual motion machine of deflection?

So you're saying that Satan is a vicious bastard. OK.

As is the jackass who hands him the tools of his trade on the same bet with full knowledge of what he intends to do.

Would it be fair, at this point, to conclude that you simply can't explain any of this, and that you felt compelled to make a claim which you were incapable of or unwilling to elaborate upon?

[Welsh cake]

How do you know that those killed did not come out OK?

You ARE a fucking riot.

PLEASE someone nominate this quote for the "Dumbest Things Christians Have Said 2012 Awards"

I implore you AF staff.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm wondering why it would matter to John whether or not they "come out okay" ? No need to even attempt to excuse this on such fluffy grounds. I mean, unless it's outside the realm of "pretty much anything". What say you John, if your god was off-ing people and they didn't "come out ok" would that be inexcusable?