A.I.

Hannibal, your approach to respect, or lack thereof, concerns me. That's just my feeling; not proof that I'm correct. Do you accept that animals can feel pain? Also, my understanding of "rights" is granted just by virtue of being alive and sentient. I don't consider "law" to be a valid moral construct. What do you mean by "rights?" I apologize for my frequent use of quotation marks.

It's not violence. From my observation and understanding, it's a socially acceptable way of touching you in an intimate way. If it's totally unsolicited, make that known to the woman or else you cannot blame her for taking advantage of you and are volitionally taking part in flirting and the woman most likely sees it as a prelude to coitus.

It's actually a really great way to meet women and make them feel at ease, so You can really get to know them before passing judgement. People often think I give off a gay vibe, but I think it's just because of trauma in the past.

Sorry, I'm still new to posting and the format. Absolutely, Morse Code. I can elaborate and how! It's telling the children what he was born with, a dominant left hand, means he is evil or wrong. He did not choose it, so morals cannot apply. Where there is no choice, there can be no morality, but the parent/teacher is using the argument from morality. (S)he is telling the child he is evil when that is in fact a lie and just a commonly used tactic to bully children into compliance. That is an immoral act and traumatic. The child is receiving the message "Change your nature or you will be disowned, discarded, killed, etc." I hope that helps. Please let me know what you think. Edit** I was going to post this last night, but damn storm knocked the power out.

They're not annoying at all. Thank you for asking me to clarify. It will help others as well as you if, indeed, you do find it helpful. An animal gets hungry, it chooses to eat. If it's tired, it chooses to sleep. If you attempt to steal it's food or rouse it from slumber, it will voluntarily attack you in some way. I hope I'm not begging the question by using the word "choice." Children are slaves, even if they like their parents, they cannot leave. They are totally dependent and have no choice in the matter, but they still have free will. ask any mother of a three year old. I think a voluntary relationship would be letting an animal free. We can't do that today because, mostly of the government sponsored roads. It would be murder to just let all the animals go, but that doesn't mean that trapping an animal is moral. Philosophy is about prevention, not cure. It's too late for the animals. It's sad to say. Sad, but true. The best we can do now is minimize their suffering.

Are you taking propaganda into account? With the rise of modern feminism, most people are utterly confused with gender roles.

Men have evolved to be good at two things: dealing with reality and dealing with women. Women have evolved to be efficient with two things: children and men. When I think masculine, I think of hands-on kind of problem solving, superior logical ability, a lot of emotional strength and stability, and extreme empirical observation skills.

When a person owns another person who has free will, that's slavery. Animal's have free will too. I'm just applying the rule universally. It took me a long time, so I don't think it's very evident.

Ethics applies to all living creatures with free will. Morality applies to all creatures with free will. The animal didn't choose you. I can't say much about the paradox of owning animals and being moral simultaneously, as I own a bird that my mom was otherwise going to abandon about 3 years ago. After this bird dies, I will never own another animal. It is analogous to slavery.

Yes, Rafiki. It is, indeed, an absolute statement. Are you trolling, boy?

It's immoral. There's no need to do studies. I can tell you from experience, it effects the brain the same as any other type of abuse.

Are you saying you have no self ownership? Like this post does not exist? If that's true, you just saved everyone a whole lot of time and simultaneously wasted it. What's it like not existing? You made the argument in your original post that self ownership is invalid, rendering your post impossible. Why are people still pretending there is a debate? No self ownership means you do not own your body, you do not own the product of your mind and fingers (i.e. the typed post), and most importantly, you do not own your argument by your own "argument" that self ownership doesn't exist "in your argument"