His hand maneuvering makes me uncomfortable. Also he is wrong. Under the law, animals are not just things - I have the right to smash my phone with a hammer because it's a thing, I don't have the right to smash my dog or somebody's dog with a hammer because it's a pet, sometimes even a helpful one.
Human is literally in the definition of person... You can't have a conversation with substance if you bend words to mean what you want to make an already flimsy point.
There is substance though. How can humans be persons as opposed to other animals that are things. The legal definition of animals being things is weird, being that humans literally are animals. Why should humans be treated special? Dolphins, whales, elephants, and other monkeys, apes etc show great intelligence and awareness. So much so that I think it would justifyus redefining them from "things" to "persons". If your hangup is simply on the definition of the word person then perhaps we need a new word or definition. Maybe "protected beings". Don't forget that the supreme court also defined corporations as "persons" as well. Which is actually weirder than classifying a fellow animal type as a person. Edit: I used the word human and meant person.
Allen Smilden, i really appreciate that comment. I agreed with the first statement without giving it enough thought. I had forgotten corporations were considered persons under certain legal circumstances, that's quite odd.
@@Scorpiove The only reason there's a difference between humans and things is because people think there is. The reality is as far as the universe is concerned people and animals are both things.
@@CallistoNTG I agree to those points. I would like to think then, that since some definitions of the word "person" are arbitrary (corporations as people) and seeing as it already defines one "thing" (human) it could probably be broadened to define other "things" as well seeing as we share so many similarities with those things (other monkeys, apes etc).
