[Potemkin]

Once, long ago, I had a sense of sarcasm and irony. But dealing with socialist and capitalist Internet loonies for 25 years has stretched, out of all recognition, my apprehension of what I have to assume someone might be saying seriously. I'm sure there is someone here who thinks chickens have rights. If it's not you, fine. I can't keep track of everyone's absurd beliefs.

Chickens, presumably, do not like to be killed. Therefore, killing chickens unnecessarily or inhumanely is probably not a good thing to do. It may even be an 'injustice', if you define 'injustice' appropriately. But it is a huge leap to go from that position to asserting that chickens have inalienable 'rights'. I did not make that leap, of course. People have legal 'rights' because we choose to assert, as a society, that we have these rights. Chickens can have no 'rights' because they are not human and are not part of human society.

[Beren]

That's one of my favourite pictures on Trump too, although I miss Netanyahu much. However, Melania Trump looking like a real-life Lady Macbeth compensates a bit. Even if Trump had reservations sometimes, one can be sure she wouldn't.

[Truth To Power]

Seriously, a few days ago an island dweller in Hong Kong was arrested for slaughtering a snake / python inhumanely...

Therefore "justice" can go much farther than chickens, although I agree that such concepts do not need to be told to the animal directly ...

I don't see any evidence that humane treatment of animals has anything to do with justice or even animal rights. What we know is that people who like to make animals suffer often do likewise to their fellow humans, who DO have rights.

[Truth To Power]

Chickens, presumably, do not like to be killed. Therefore, killing chickens unnecessarily or inhumanely is probably not a good thing to do.

They don't get a say. Chickens kill and eat other animals, cocks can even kill each other in fights, and even hens can mob and kill other hens who seem sick or injured, so they can't really complain about being killed by humans who after all made it possible for them to exist in the first place.

It may even be an 'injustice', if you define 'injustice' appropriately.

How would you define it, then?

[Beren]

This fascinating debate on animal rights has definitely become more on-topic by mentioning cocks.

[Patrickov]

What we know is that people who like to make animals suffer often do likewise to their fellow humans, who DO havee rights.

Maybe this is the real reason behind animal rights movement.

[Patrickov]

They don't get a say. Chickens kill and eat other animals, cocks can even kill each other in fights, and even hens can mob and kill other hens who seem sick or injured, so they can't really complain about being killed by humans who after all made it possible for them to exist in the first place.

I think this issue can be best summarized with the following quote:
Perfection goal that changes. Never stops moving. Can chase, cannot catch. -- Abathur

[Truth To Power]

Maybe this is the real reason behind animal rights movement.

I don't know if it's the real reason, but it does provide some justification for laws against cruelty to animals, which otherwise don't make any sense IMO.

[Cookie Monster]

Chickens, presumably, do not like to be killed. Therefore, killing chickens unnecessarily or inhumanely is probably not a good thing to do. It may even be an 'injustice', if you define 'injustice' appropriately. But it is a huge leap to go from that position to asserting that chickens have inalienable 'rights'. I did not make that leap, of course. People have legal 'rights' because we choose to assert, as a society, that we have these rights. Chickens can have no 'rights' because they are not human and are not part of human society.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that the recognition and application of human rights have always been partial and fragmented, various groups and various rights only gradually emancipated to the level of recognised rights and right holders. Some people apply the same logic of emancipating the unrecognised rights and people to that of animals.

Your example of the chicken is of course a very extreme example, but it appears not so weird to extend some of these rights to certain animals such as great apes, dolphins and whales. The problem is, as always, where to draw the borders/limits of emancipation and whether this is at all possible. This is the inherent nature of/challenge to a human rights discourse.

[BigSteve]

They don't get a say. Chickens kill and eat other animals...

I didn't exactly grow up on the farm, but I've been on enough of them to know that the chickens usually eat only what the farmers feed them.

What animals are prey for chickens?

[Drlee]

What animals are prey for chickens?

Just about any kind of insect. Even large grasshoppers. They will often eat frogs and mice if they encounter them.

Thanks for asking.

[BigSteve]

Just about any kind of insect. Even large grasshoppers. They will often eat frogs and mice if they encounter them.

Thanks for asking.

Meh, fuck it. They're chickens. They don't even have the common decency to fall over when you cut their heads off...

[Truth To Power]

I didn't exactly grow up on the farm, but I've been on enough of them to know that the chickens usually eat only what the farmers feed them.

What animals are prey for chickens?

While battery-raised chickens can only eat what they are given, usually grain, free-range chickens will eat any sort of insect, worm, spider, etc. they encounter, as well as small vertebrates like frogs, voles, etc. You have to be careful about poisoning vermin if you have chickens, because they will eat them.

[Hindsite]

I do not see a source for your claim. Is that because you are making this figure up? Please present your source for your outlandish, and likely false, claim.

You cannot make the claim that Trump is better if he does the same thing you hated Obama for.

So far, you don't HAVE an argument. You are only flinging poo.

Here's how much money Iran will get from the nuclear deal
September 10, 2015

The sanctions enacted by the United States and Europe in 2011 and 2012 included the freezing of Iranian assets in many international banks. Nobody knows the total amount of frozen assets, but it’s probably about $100 billion. Estimates go as high as $150 billion, the number some critics of the nuclear deal use to make the “windfall” coming to Iran seem larger than it probably is.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-%E2% ... 16101.html

Donald Trump is right: The U.S. did pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash
Oct. 19, 2016

The Obama administration allowed $1.7 billion in cash to go to Iran earlier this year.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics ... story.html

[Godstud]

It's bullshit, @Hindsite

Fact check: President Trump’s claim that Democrats gave Iran $150 billion

This is anegregious version of a claim that President Trump has made repeatedly — about 30 times, according to our database of Trump’s false and misleading claims.We had originally looked into the details of the $150 billion for a fact check during President Barack Obama’s administration, fact-checked the claim during the 2016 presidential debates and noted it in roundups of various Trump news conferences and interviews.

But unlike the cash deal, this was not U.S. money. It was Iran’s money, frozen in international financial institutions around the world because of sanctions intended to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For instance, many of the funds were held in banks in Asia, including China and India, as well as Turkey. Many of the countries received waivers to buy Iranian oil and gas during the sanctions but placed the payments in escrow-style accounts that remained off-limits to Iran. The Islamic Republic also transferred assets to Asian banks from Europe in anticipation of financial sanctions.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/northamerica/ ... li=BBJGEmF

Don't believe Trump's lies. I am pretty sure you are capable of realizing the facts are contrary to what Trump says.

[Hindsite]

It's bullshit, @Hindsite

Fact check: President Trump’s claim that Democrats gave Iran $150 billion

This is anegregious version of a claim that President Trump has made repeatedly — about 30 times, according to our database of Trump’s false and misleading claims.We had originally looked into the details of the $150 billion for a fact check during President Barack Obama’s administration, fact-checked the claim during the 2016 presidential debates and noted it in roundups of various Trump news conferences and interviews.

But unlike the cash deal, this was not U.S. money. It was Iran’s money, frozen in international financial institutions around the world because of sanctions intended to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For instance, many of the funds were held in banks in Asia, including China and India, as well as Turkey. Many of the countries received waivers to buy Iranian oil and gas during the sanctions but placed the payments in escrow-style accounts that remained off-limits to Iran. The Islamic Republic also transferred assets to Asian banks from Europe in anticipation of financial sanctions.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/northamerica/ ... li=BBJGEmF

Don't believe Trump's lies. I am pretty sure you are capable of realizing the facts are contrary to what Trump says.

The Obama administration did a bad deal with Iran that released all that money to Iran for them to use for terrorist activities. So, in effect, Obama's administration did give them control of about $150 billion, even though the Obama administration only paid Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. cash money. So there is no actual lies by Trump, since it effectively amounts to the same thing.

[Godstud]

So, in effect, Obama's administration did give them control of about $150 billion,

It was Iran's money, and it wasn't $150 billion. It was also only $55 Billion of Iran's money, tied up due to sanctions.

Trump LIED.

[Hindsite]

It was Iran's money, and it wasn't $150 billion. It was also only $55 Billion of Iran's money, tied up due to sanctions.

Trump LIED.

I already gave you evidence that it was about $150 billion. So Trump did not lie, he was simply repeating that information.

[Godstud]

You quoted a news report that was patently incorrect. That is not evidence of anything.

Repeating a lie, that you now know to be a lie, makes you a liar. I could concede though that Trump is simply too fucking stupid to tell the truth from fiction, however. A genius wouldn't make that mistake, so he must be a liar.

Which is it?
1) Genius and liar?
2)Idiot and not a liar?
3) Idiot and a liar?

I suspect it's #3.

[Hindsite]

You quoted a news report that was patently incorrect. That is not evidence of anything.

Repeating a lie, that you now know to be a lie, makes you a liar. I could concede though that Trump is simply too fucking stupid to tell the truth from fiction, however. A genius wouldn't make that mistake, so he must be a liar.

Which is it?
1) Genius and liar?
2)Idiot and not a liar?
3) Idiot and a liar?

I suspect it's #3.

It is none of the above.

If my quoted news report is not evidence of anything, then why do you think your quoted news report from The Washington Post (a left-wing biased source) is evidence of anything? Even, your source does not dispute the figures of $150 billion plus the $1.7 billion in cash. All it claims is that the President implied that the $150 billion also came from taxpayer money like the $1.7 billion in cash. But even they did not say the president actually said that the $150 billion came from taxpayer money. So I see no lie by President Trump, because he is a genius.