I gtg, be back shortly

either it is
A) morally unjustified and therefore righteous to fight it
or
B) morally justified and therefore not righteous to fight it.

by your own logic you are suggesting B but now you are contradicting yourself by supporting A when it best suits you

this proves you're basing these ideas off personal whim

Which leads me back to the base. Superiority is too broad to be the excuse of the problems presented by your view of ownership.

and lets take that 'humans aren't equal to animals'

argument a little further

Animals fight back because they cannot morally reason like this

humans can morally reason

therefore should have no reason to fight back like animals

That leaves us back to the question of what material drive places human ownership over plant and animal ownership?

Plants are not sentient.
Animals don't have morals.

"by your own logic you are suggesting B but now you are contradicting yourself by supporting A when it best suits you" No. Since we are at the top, we can make these decisions. Should something be superior to us, we are no longer in authority. We can still fight back though.

but the aliens means we aren't on top anymore

so fighting back is not righteous

Righteousness is irrelevant.

Therefore your basing your argument on personal whim

no

yes you are

no, I am not

you're only arguing because it nows suits you best

to argue

We already established this, the base instinct of any living being is to reproduce and survive. This means they do not want it at least on a bare level.

rather than because you believe it is righteous

Want being used for lack of a better word.

So that brings us back to the question of what places our ownership over animals and plants.

@🌼Kalina🌹🌸🌹Zay🌹🌸🌹Scott🌼 No, I am not.

Perhaps ownership is not involved at all.

well then argue from an argument of righteousness which you said was 'humans are superior'

@Scholarly Wisent ???????????????????????
Did you even read a single word I said?

I'm arguing from the beginning.

we did and we're logically dissecting it and discovering that it doesn't stand to scrutiny

we're asking you for an argument which is different that *does* stand up to scrutiny

"It was a hypothetical argument to cannibalism. We afford more ownership to humans than animals in every instance aside from criminals."
Hypothetical humour in response to your poke at my joke

If ownership is not involved, then we are back on the drawing board for what defines cannibalism as wrong but not eating plants and animals.

Which may as well be simply argued as morality but that leads to many more barriers of pure arbitrary.

Are the communists arguing in favor of cannibalism?

🤷

No we aren't you idiot.

An Elbow pretty much did though

no we're not

we're trying to logically dissect an argument