The Decline of Violence

[Kshartle]

they may even be the best way to organize society, but they are in no way so self-evident as to command everyone's assent in all circumstances.

That's why I'm asking for help. Show me what's wrong in the logic. Nitpicking irrelavent details like discussing animals having morality and giant boulders falling on us has nothing to do with the topic. If I spend all my time answering irrelavent questions thats all I would do and it would just spawn another 20. Questions are fine but geez louize can they at least be relavent? 

[Xan]

Okay...  Well then your unassailable, self-evident rules for society must include a definition of "dementia" with which no one could possibly disagree, and which covers all the situations where a person mentally is incapable of exercising his rights and responsibilities.

I'm not understanding the problem with questions.  Wouldn't a question like "what exactly is dementia and where is that line crossed?" completely destroy your assertions that all this is self-evident?  Because it's quite clear that there's no given line that everyone will agree on.

[Kshartle]

Here's the pattern I'm seeing repeat over and over again:

Kshartle: assertion of fact
Moda/Gumby: introduction of real-world exception to that fact
Kshartle: objection that the exceptions do not invalidate the premise of the fact

Kshartle, I think you will have more luck if you acknowledge the exceptions rather than trying to minimize them or claim that they do not diminish your point, because once you argue that, you're outside of the realm of deductive logic. If I can logically deduce a fact, it can't have a million obvious exceptions.

PS.......what do animals having a sense of morality, giant boulders falling on us or the existance of dementia have to do with my premise about why humans own themselves?

Does it matter that a boulder can fall on you are you can lose your marbles? Does that now mean that humans don't own themselves?

Does it matter if a gorrilla knows right from wrong? If I admit that it does....does that change anything about humans being able to judge their own actions as right or wrong?

You already explained the difference to Moda about 25 pages ago with regards to the boulder.

[Kshartle]

Okay...  Well then your unassailable, self-evident rules for society must include a definition of "dementia" with which no one could possibly disagree, and which covers all the situations where a person mentally is incapable of exercising his rights and responsibilities.

What unassailable, self-evident rules are you reffering to?

[Pointedstick]

PS.......what do animals having a sense of morality, giant boulders falling on us or the existance of dementia have to do with my premise about why humans own themselves?

Kshartle, these things matter because they challenge your assertions. If you make a factual statement that can be contradicted by

For example, if you say what we control our bodies, someone can point out babies and the dementia-afflicted. Suddenly your simple, factual assertion needs some nuance, because babies and elderly people with dementia are still people, right? So you need to either acknowledge the exceptions or refine your statement to something like, "all humans of mature mental development and free of mental illness or brain disease exercise control over their bodies".

But I don't see you doing either of those. You neither acknowledge the exceptions nor refine your declarations. You just try to claim that the exceptions don't negate your assertions. Can you see how that can seem like a weak argument? If you're going to say that the exceptions brought up by Moda and Gumby and others don't represent a threat to your factual assertions, you need to back that up with something more than just another emphatic declaration. Because from my perspective, children, the elderly, and the mentally ill represent a pretty serious quandary for the idea that we as humans have physical control over our own actions.

I mean, as a parent, I have to exercise physical control over my son all the time. Sometimes I have to grab his legs to prevent him from getting poop all over the place when I'm changing his diaper. Am I oppressing him? Or is there some sort of parent-child exception to the principle of having the right to control your own body?

Can you see how this is a nuanced issue?

[Xan]

Okay...  Well then your unassailable, self-evident rules for society must include a definition of "dementia" with which no one could possibly disagree, and which covers all the situations where a person mentally is incapable of exercising his rights and responsibilities.

What unassailable, self-evident rules are you reffering to?

Perhaps I've lost track of just what the point is here.  I thought you were trying to say that a governmentless society is possible, and that everyone can live without ever exerting coercive force on anybody.  Things like who owns property can be clearly deduced from self-evident, simple rules without having to have any kind of government office or arbiter.

That requires that everybody agree to these rules, which means they must be clearly defined with no nuance, no other possible interpretation, no exceptions, or else your society falls apart.

That's why these "distractions" are so important in this argument: since your society requires that they not exist, their existence is really quite relevant to the discussion.

[Libertarian666]

Okay...  Well then your unassailable, self-evident rules for society must include a definition of "dementia" with which no one could possibly disagree, and which covers all the situations where a person mentally is incapable of exercising his rights and responsibilities.

What unassailable, self-evident rules are you reffering to?

Perhaps I've lost track of just what the point is here.  I thought you were trying to say that a governmentless society is possible, and that everyone can live without ever exerting coercive force on anybody.  Things like who owns property can be clearly deduced from self-evident, simple rules without having to have any kind of government office or arbiter.

That requires that everybody agree to these rules, which means they must be clearly defined with no nuance, no other possible interpretation, no exceptions, or else your society falls apart.

That's why these "distractions" are so important in this argument: since your society requires that they not exist, their existence is really quite relevant to the discussion.

Sorry, but this is nonsensical. Kshartle isn't claiming that there will be no disputes in a governmentless society. He is claiming that having a government does not improve that situation, because then government agents will tend to favor their own interests over that of others, and that bias cannot be successfully be resisted by the rest of society due to the government agents having an effective monopoly on the aggressive use of violence.

This isn't rocket science. Sometimes I think you people just like to argue for the hell of it (not to get crossed with the "religion" thread).

[Kshartle]

PS.......what do animals having a sense of morality, giant boulders falling on us or the existance of dementia have to do with my premise about why humans own themselves?

Kshartle, these things matter because they challenge your assertions. If you make a factual statement that can be contradicted by

For example, if you say what we control our bodies, someone can point out babies and the dementia-afflicted. Suddenly your simple, factual assertion needs some nuance, because babies and elderly people with dementia are still people, right? So you need to either acknowledge the exceptions or refine your statement to something like, "all humans of mature mental development and free of mental illness or brain disease exercise control over their bodies".

But I don't see you doing either of those. You neither acknowledge the exceptions nor refine your declarations. You just try to claim that the exceptions don't negate your assertions. Can you see how that can seem like a weak argument? If you're going to say that the exceptions brought up by Moda and Gumby and others don't represent a threat to your factual assertions, you need to back that up with something more than just another emphatic declaration. Because from my perspective, children, the elderly, and the mentally ill represent a pretty serious quandary for the idea that we as humans have physical control over our own actions.

I mean, as a parent, I have to exercise physical control over my son all the time. Sometimes I have to grab his legs to prevent him from getting poop all over the place when I'm changing his diaper. Am I oppressing him? Or is there some sort of parent-child exception to the principle of having the right to control your own body?

Can you see how this is a nuanced issue?

I have over and over and over mentioned those things. Are you sure you've read my posts? I have mentioned the very young and the mentally challenged many times. I have explained the parent-child relationship over and over.

Nuanced.......sure.....grey areas.....yes. I have said this over and over and over again. Do you think it should be only mentioned 50 times, or in every single post. Can we never get past it? Can we never stop pretending this is an argument against human self ownership?

The existance of grey doesn't mean that everything is grey. Just because a child is not yet capable or an old person is unable to comprehend right and wrong anymore doesn't strip them of the right to their lives. I've written about all of this many times on here. It's fine. There's going to be grey. I can see that as long as there is grey you guys will assume there is no black and white. I've been given the impossible task of explaining the universe because of my arguments for why people own themselves and no one has the right to assume ownership of another's life.

I don't even care anymore about the argument anymore. I just want to see the quality of the arguments go up. Repeating over and over that I haven't accepted or addressed grey areas doesn't make it true.

[moda0306]

If animals have self-ownership, and the rest of your premises true and validate moral "rights" and moral "obligations" not to infringe on rights, then massive amounts of human "private property" claims have indeed been force, and still are to this day. If a cow has self-ownership, it is immoral for me to kill a cow, much less raise it in miserable suffering until the day I kill it.

Animals having self-ownership calls into HUGE question our ability to claim as private property vast expanses of real property, modify that property to our liking, an take "ownership" of animals.

So essentially, it would significantly hamper your so-called "deductive logic" that established what our property rights are.  This has HUGE implications on your view of morality and our productivity as a nation.

Deductive logic requires certain things!  You can't just not provide them and then imply that I'm being ridiculous in my questions/assertions.

Dementia doesn't invalidate our ability to pre-judge our actions?  I'm not following, Kshartle.  Disagree if you like, but I really don't see how that makes it seem that Moda is deliberately misunderstanding anything.

Your premises just aren't as solid as you'd like to think they are.  Now, it may be that those premises are solid enough to be the rules of a society, and they may even be the best way to organize society, but they are in no way so self-evident as to command everyone's assent in all circumstances.

He's trying to argue that because we don't have 100% control of the physical world (rocks falling on us) or our mental state at all times (dementia) then humans don't have control over what they do. Can you see the difference between the two? PS has already explained this and others have as well. Contol over your actions and responsibility for them don't require complete mastery of the universe or whatever. PS explained it much better than I did.

It's nitpicking my statement that humans are in control of their bodies, and born of deliberate missunderstanding.

When I say humans are in control of themselves does anyone on Earth think that means I'm saying they can lift a giant boulder or are immune to mental disease? No one in their right mind would draw that conclusion from my statements. That's why I'm saying its deliberate missunderstanding to change the subject or require endless clarification and specifity that is completely uneccesary. It's an argumentative tactic.

Not being in complete control of everything we do is relevant kshartle. I'm not just nitpicking. We NEED to take from nature to survive other aspects of it. We NEED to find shelter. The fact that we can control our behavior lends inductive weight towards morality, but realizing control is a relative term is critical. Am I "responsible" if I notice a tree about to fall on a kid and say nothing?  I controlled that I said nothing and could have warned him. But I didn't. Do I have ANY duty to that kid to warn him?

These are extremely important moral questions. If moral truth is ONLY tied up in owning yourself and property, and not infringing on others rights of self ownership and (your idea of) private property, then there is NO moral weight to not saying anything to the kid, unless you define your potential ability to warn him (control) as implying a responsibility (duty) to help him, even though you can't fly to him in time, you can't catch the tree from falling, but you can see that it's gonna fall, and can prevent a horrible outcome. The kid has the ability (control... Let's assume he's 14) to identify and stay out from under weak trees. Is he more "responsible" for his death if it occurs?  Do you bear ANY "responsibility" at all for saying nothing?

This is why it's so important to understand our limits to control. It shapes how we have formed both our moral codes (warning friends of danger if it's there) and immoral behaviors in spite of them (stealing food to survive).

Also, there is the question of whether our (potential) ability to identify moral truths make us in-fact intrinsically valuable beings, to which bringing harm is in-fact immoral.  You seem to try to use "ownership" (in the meaning "the morally valid control of") as an overriding arch to judge interactions, but ownership (limited though it may be, control in-fact) is different than ownership (morally valid control of and "right" to benefits of). These are DIFFERENT. One does not automatically, deductively bring the other.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about why I think this is so important.

But please understand that if you are wanting to assert a deductive argument, it makes it much easier if you define terms, and actually state it in the proper format, which you seem unwilling or unable to do.  It might help clear up a ton of miscommunication. Why don't you do it for every observer here?  You might strike rhetorical gold!

[Kshartle]

What unassailable, self-evident rules are you reffering to?

Perhaps I've lost track of just what the point is here.  I thought you were trying to say that a governmentless society is possible, and that everyone can live without ever exerting coercive force on anybody.  Things like who owns property can be clearly deduced from self-evident, simple rules without having to have any kind of government office or arbiter.

That requires that everybody agree to these rules, which means they must be clearly defined with no nuance, no other possible interpretation, no exceptions, or else your society falls apart.

That's why these "distractions" are so important in this argument: since your society requires that they not exist, their existence is really quite relevant to the discussion.

Sorry, but this is nonsensical. Kshartle isn't claiming that there will be no disputes in a governmentless society. He is claiming that having a government does not improve that situation, because then government agents will tend to favor their own interests over that of others, and that bias cannot be successfully be resisted by the rest of society due to the government agents having an effective monopoly on the aggressive use of violence.

This isn't rocket science. Sometimes I think you people just like to argue for the hell of it (not to get crossed with the "religion" thread).

Thank you Tech. I'll take it one step further if you don't mind. I don't give a shit about government. Government is the sympton, not the cause.

[Kshartle]

If animals have self-ownership, and the rest of your premises true and validate moral "rights" and moral "obligations" not to infringe on rights, then massive amounts of human "private property" claims have indeed been force, and still are to this day. If a cow has self-ownership, it is immoral for me to kill a cow, much less raise it in miserable suffering until the day I kill it.

So what?

How does cow self-ownership invalidate human self-ownership? You're just changing the subject to the violation of cow rights. At some point you have to stop changing the subject.

I don't even get the point other than we might be violating the right's of cows. Are you saying that part of the premise for why we own ourselves cannot be true because it might be true for cows and that would be bad?

This is argument from effect: "God can't exist because I don't believe in him, therefore if he does I have to go to Hell".

[MediumTex]

I'm not following what the disagreement here is. 

I'm also not following what animals have to do with human self-ownership.  Wouldn't animal self-ownership be a philosophical topic for animals (or non-human animals anyway) to hash out?

[Xan]

Human's initiating force against other humans is wrong. It's wrong because we own ourselves and have a right to ourselves.

Okay.  Say Guy A hunts on a piece of land.  He believes he owns it.  Guy B comes along and builds a house on it.  He believes he owns the land.  Both of them do, depending on your definition of property and how it's acquired.  One of them is getting shot, in defense of the other guy's property.

This clearly demonstrates that a forceless society is impossible, at least without definitions of pretty much everything, but especially property ownership, clearly self-evident and unassailable with no gray areas.

[moda0306]

PS.......what do animals having a sense of morality, giant boulders falling on us or the existance of dementia have to do with my premise about why humans own themselves?

Kshartle, these things matter because they challenge your assertions. If you make a factual statement that can be contradicted by

For example, if you say what we control our bodies, someone can point out babies and the dementia-afflicted. Suddenly your simple, factual assertion needs some nuance, because babies and elderly people with dementia are still people, right? So you need to either acknowledge the exceptions or refine your statement to something like, "all humans of mature mental development and free of mental illness or brain disease exercise control over their bodies".

But I don't see you doing either of those. You neither acknowledge the exceptions nor refine your declarations. You just try to claim that the exceptions don't negate your assertions. Can you see how that can seem like a weak argument? If you're going to say that the exceptions brought up by Moda and Gumby and others don't represent a threat to your factual assertions, you need to back that up with something more than just another emphatic declaration. Because from my perspective, children, the elderly, and the mentally ill represent a pretty serious quandary for the idea that we as humans have physical control over our own actions.

I mean, as a parent, I have to exercise physical control over my son all the time. Sometimes I have to grab his legs to prevent him from getting poop all over the place when I'm changing his diaper. Am I oppressing him? Or is there some sort of parent-child exception to the principle of having the right to control your own body?

Can you see how this is a nuanced issue?

I have over and over and over mentioned those things. Are you sure you've read my posts? I have mentioned the very young and the mentally challenged many times. I have explained the parent-child relationship over and over.

Nuanced.......sure.....grey areas.....yes. I have said this over and over and over again. Do you think it should be only mentioned 50 times, or in every single post. Can we never get past it? Can we never stop pretending this is an argument against human self ownership?

The existance of grey doesn't mean that everything is grey. Just because a child is not yet capable or an old person is unable to comprehend right and wrong anymore doesn't strip them of the right to their lives. I've written about all of this many times on here. It's fine. There's going to be grey. I can see that as long as there is grey you guys will assume there is no black and white. I've been given the impossible task of explaining the universe because of my arguments for why people own themselves and no one has the right to assume ownership of another's life.

I don't even care anymore about the argument anymore. I just want to see the quality of the arguments go up. Repeating over and over that I haven't accepted or addressed grey areas doesn't make it true.

As long as you try to boil down the morality of our decisions and institutions as people into very simple so-called "deductive logic," (which by it's very definition demands concrete, unarguable premises to be sound, and clear, direct, unarguable connections to one another and the conclusion to be valid) then we have to poke holes in it.  You can't acknowledge grey areas and then just fill in holes with your opinions. You can't say "weeeeeeellllll, this is deductive, and I know babies can't control their actions, and old people don't control their actions, buuuuuut (insert your own subjective opinion here)," and still have it be deductive logic.

It either has to work like a finely tuned clock, or it's not deductive logic, but inductive logic.

[moda0306]

If animals have self-ownership, and the rest of your premises true and validate moral "rights" and moral "obligations" not to infringe on rights, then massive amounts of human "private property" claims have indeed been force, and still are to this day. If a cow has self-ownership, it is immoral for me to kill a cow, much less raise it in miserable suffering until the day I kill it.

So what?

How does cow self-ownership invalidate human self-ownership? You're just changing the subject to the violation of cow rights. At some point you have to stop changing the subject.

I don't even get the point other than we might be violating the right's of cows. Are you saying that part of the premise for why we own ourselves cannot be true because it might be true for cows and that would be bad?

This is argument from effect: "God can't exist because I don't believe in him, therefore if he does I have to go to Hell".

Part of your conclusion of your argument is that humans not only own themselves, but things they alter for their own gain around them.  If animals have self-ownership, then we (according to the rest of your conclusion), have a moral duty to not infringe on their liberty.

How is this so hard to understand?

[moda0306]

I'm not following what the disagreement here is. 

I'm also not following what animals have to do with human self-ownership.  Wouldn't animal self-ownership be a philosophical topic for animals (or non-human animals anyway) to hash out?

If animals have a morally-valid intrinsic value due to them having self-ownership (kshartle seems to think this is simple logic when it comes to humans), then to behave morally, I must not infringe on his/her individual sovereignty.

I had milk this morning for breakfast.  Oops.

[Kshartle]

I'm not following what the disagreement here is. 

I'm also not following what animals have to do with human self-ownership.  Wouldn't animal self-ownership be a philosophical topic for animals (or non-human animals anyway) to hash out?

Yes thank you MT.

The only reason animals were mentioned were to demonstrate how humans (nearly all of them, not babies, not people with mental problems) have the ability to judge an action against a moral framework, even if it's their own. This ability makes a human responsible for their actions. Responsibility is a key component of ownership/stewardship. I tried to point out that if your dog bites the neighbor kid they are going to hold you reponsible. They will do this because the dog has no concept of right and wrong in a moral sense and no ablity to judge. You do though...and you own the dog. You are responsible for the dog, because he is your property as a result of your actions (buying him, picking him up off the street, caring for him etc.)

Unfortunately that last bolded statement was seized upon like it's the lynchpin of the argument. It's obviously not and repeating that it is and I must prove animals can't judge right and wrong is the latest bunny trail.

Even if animals didn't exist it doesn't change the argument for why humans are responsible for their actions and own them and themselves.

There are grey areas like babies but I've gone over and over why a baby can't be disposed of like an animal but it never sticks or the claim is made I haven't addressed it. I have. Over and over. If you think my arguments about that suck then show me where please. 

[Kshartle]

If animals have self-ownership, and the rest of your premises true and validate moral "rights" and moral "obligations" not to infringe on rights, then massive amounts of human "private property" claims have indeed been force, and still are to this day. If a cow has self-ownership, it is immoral for me to kill a cow, much less raise it in miserable suffering until the day I kill it.

So what?

How does cow self-ownership invalidate human self-ownership? You're just changing the subject to the violation of cow rights. At some point you have to stop changing the subject.

I don't even get the point other than we might be violating the right's of cows. Are you saying that part of the premise for why we own ourselves cannot be true because it might be true for cows and that would be bad?

This is argument from effect: "God can't exist because I don't believe in him, therefore if he does I have to go to Hell".

Part of your conclusion of your argument is that humans not only own themselves, but things they alter for their own gain around them.  If animals have self-ownership, then we (according to the rest of your conclusion), have a moral duty to not infringe on their liberty.

How is this so hard to understand?

Does that mean you are accepting the first part about humans owning themselves and now want to change the subject to animals?

That's fine moda. I'm just saying I'm not terrribly interested in proving that animals have a concept of morality. I think the opposite position is so kooky that you really need to be the one to prove it. If you can prove it........I will give you a big virtual hug.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

All you would have to do is admit that your argument has some solid inductive qualities, but is not deductive, and that there are a lot of grey areas that make it not deductive, and we'd be about a million times closer to agreeing with each other.

That, or lay out your case, with definitions, in deductive logic format.

Please, for everyone's sake. We might just finally realize you're right.

[Kshartle]

I had milk this morning for breakfast.  Oops.

I gave it up years ago....not for moral reasons but health reasons. Huge improvment.

Wait you're talking about cow milk right?

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

All you would have to do is admit that your argument has some solid inductive qualities, but is not deductive, and that there are a lot of grey areas that make it not deductive, and we'd be about a million times closer to agreeing with each other.

That, or lay out your case, with definitions, in deductive logic format.

Please, for everyone's sake. We might just finally realize you're right.

It might be inductive, but it's about as inductive as me knowing I'm responding back and forth with a human and not a simulation like the matrix....imo

I'll give it another shot.

Can you agree that just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's false?
Can you agree that something isn't false just because it's not proven?
Can you agree that the existance of grey does not mean there is no black and white?

[Mountaineer]

There are grey areas like babies but I've gone over and over why a baby can't be disposed of like an animal but it never sticks or the claim is made I haven't addressed it.

The above statement seems to be more premise than fact.  It appears to be stated as fact (self-evident).  I do not agree that it is self evident.

Fact:  We humans have disposed of over 53,000,000 lives since Roe vs. Wade.

Conclusion:  Humans are sinners.

Logic:  Inductive?

or,

Premise:  Humans are sinners.

Observation:  Humans may kill other humans and get away with it because all are sinners.

Logic: ?

My point:  Once again, the Christian worldview really does make the most sense of life and death, property ownership, animal rights, etc., etc., etc. 

[Gumby]

The reason I brought up animals is because KShartle said...

The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

I responded by saying...

...This idea that humans could live in a world without violence seems more than a bit of a stretch in terms of our evolutionary history.

Humans are primates of the family Hominidae. We are primates that just happen to have larger brains, with more neurons than our primate cousins. Nevertheless, we are still primates. All primates exhibit violence amongst one another.

To which KShartle replied...

Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

Some humans might always choose violence to solve their problems, in fact I agree they will, but it's not because they're primates

Unless I'm misunderstanding him, KShartle's entire world view — property, responsibility, "free will", etc. — appears to be all based on a Homocentrist idea that animals have no control over themselves and have no concept of fairness or morality — so that's why they exhibit violence and that's why we deserve to own their property, etc.

It's not entirely true though. Violence is a part of our evolutionary history. And these animals very much understand concepts such as, "attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group".

All I did was show him that his assertion isn't completely true. So, now he is backtracking and saying that animals aren't important. Sure they are! If animals understand these "human" concepts that KShartle wrongly assumed they had no knowledge of, they shouldn't have a tendency towards violence according to KShartle (if I understand him correctly). And yet, they do.

Keep in mind that Moda showed a video of a chimp that exhibited violence when he was given unequal pay.

[Kshartle]

There are grey areas like babies but I've gone over and over why a baby can't be disposed of like an animal but it never sticks or the claim is made I haven't addressed it.

The above statement seems to be more premise than fact.  It appears to be stated as fact (self-evident).  I do not agree that it is self evident.

Fact:  We humans have disposed of over 53,000,000 lives since Roe vs. Wade.

Conclusion:  Humans are sinners.

Logic:  Inductive?

or,

Premise:  Humans are sinners.

Observation:  Humans may kill other humans and get away with it because all are sinners.

Logic: ?

My point:  Once again, the Christian worldview really does make the most sense of life and death, property ownership, animal rights, etc., etc., etc.

Very sneaky.

Premise: Humans own themselves so no one has a right to force them

Fact: Some humans choose to ignore the premise and force them anyway

Observation: This results in bad stuff and problems

Conclusion/Point: To have fewer problems humans should not choose to ignore the premise and encourage others to not choose force as a solution to problems.

Bonus conclusion: I'm fine with the Christian worldview or any world view as long as you don't violate the top premise.

[moda0306]

So what?

How does cow self-ownership invalidate human self-ownership? You're just changing the subject to the violation of cow rights. At some point you have to stop changing the subject.

I don't even get the point other than we might be violating the right's of cows. Are you saying that part of the premise for why we own ourselves cannot be true because it might be true for cows and that would be bad?

This is argument from effect: "God can't exist because I don't believe in him, therefore if he does I have to go to Hell".

Part of your conclusion of your argument is that humans not only own themselves, but things they alter for their own gain around them.  If animals have self-ownership, then we (according to the rest of your conclusion), have a moral duty to not infringe on their liberty.

How is this so hard to understand?

Does that mean you are accepting the first part about humans owning themselves and now want to change the subject to animals?

That's fine moda. I'm just saying I'm not terrribly interested in proving that animals have a concept of morality. I think the opposite position is so kooky that you really need to be the one to prove it. If you can prove it........I will give you a big virtual hug.

When I'm tasked with disassembling the soundness of your so-called deductive argument, the burden of proof isn't on me.  It's on you. Your premises need to either be self-evident or provable, and your conclusion needs to follow with certainty from your premises. If I can point out an exception to your premise, it is not sound. If I can point out that a conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premises with absolute certainty, then it is invalid.

So these exceptions that you try to white-wash over are very important.

I am accepting individual sovereignty, as I've said dozens of times, as a likelihood but not deductively provable.

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant to the test that IF it is true, we have some questions to ask about sovereignty of animals as well.  If we think it is likely true but can't answer it, we should move forward with inductive reasoning if we at least want to develop moral likelihoods.

And even more importantly, IF self-ownership is applicable in any form by animals, and it is immoral to force them, then this has huge implications on the logical/moral connection we have to "private property" around us.

And not to mention, even if this is all provable, we're all in one giant moral dilemma because we all need to access the resources and space around us to survive and prosper, in direct opposition to someone else's ability to do the same.

So as you see, I'm not as you say "changing the subject," I'm rounding out the ramifications of all your "air-tight" assertions about whether behavior is moral.