Animal Rights?

[Ozme52]

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

[Saucie]

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

[Ozme52]

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

You were arguing the issue of the necessity of luxuries and who defines it. But you were arguing against my specific question to ID. I happen to agree with your point. (but not with using the guitar v. tree analogy. LOL)