(Close Window)
Topic: Legal rights for animals?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 27, 2015 11:48AM)
Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11631793/Is-it-time-that-chimps-are-given-legal-rights-What-about-elephants-dolphins-and-whales.html

"Is it time that chimps are given legal rights? What about elephants, dolphins and whales?"

"That’s a joke, right?

No. The Nonhuman Rights Project, a group founded by Steven Wise, an attorney and animal rights activist, is deadly serious. And the question of whether the most intelligent non-human animals should have a legal status beyond mere objects has generated significant legal debate in recent years.

But how can a chimp have rights if it can’t even speak?

Nor can some mentally ill people, or unborn children for that matter. But they still have legal rights.
Tommy the circus chimp is a 'person' entitled to his liberty, US court told Chimpanzees given same rights as unlawfully detained prisoners by US court

So which “right” do they want chimps to be granted?

Specifically, the right to liberty – or “bodily freedom” – ie not to be stuck in a cage, or a science lab."
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 12:27PM)
Legal rights for animals I don't think exist. Rather there exists legal restrictions on what human beings can do to or with animals.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 27, 2015 12:37PM)
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2015 12:40PM)
Depends on how we are conceptualizing rights. On some views, if humans have obligations to animals, then the animals, by definition, have rights. This is Bob's point, I think.

I believe that we have obligations to animals. Minimally, as Bob suggests, not to torture or abuse them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 12:48PM)
My cat is cruel to mice and and said she cares not for your laws.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 27, 2015 12:49PM)
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 27, 2015 12:50PM)
Good one, tommy. He may well be in violation of mouse laws however. The mice just have an enforcement problem.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 12:57PM)
Do we have the right to punish apes for things like rape or will they have their own courts of justice?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2015 12:59PM)
There is a big gap between having some rights and having the full palette of rights that adult humans in full possession of their faculties have.

Children have rights, but they are not identical with adult rights.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2015 01:03PM)
I'm still wrapping my head around the American legal concept of corporate personhood.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 01:13PM)
Might is right and the corporations are mighty animals.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 27, 2015 01:22PM)
For the most part we treat our animals humanely.

However, according to Carlton, our tuxedo cat, we abuse him twice a day as we're far too slow when feeding him.

He yowls something fierce.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 01:58PM)
One thing one must be wary of is the human beings who would use let’s say “good causes” to gain power over the people. The RSPCA, a private animal charity here, do some wonderful work but they do have some extraordinary powers now. They enjoy for example access to confidential information on the Police National Computer run by Association of Chief Police Officers that is also a private organization. It is police force for animals in effect but they can search your house and so on, at the drop of hat with rabbit in it.

If everything has rights and various groups of enforcement bodies, then you have none and are under total control.


Don’t walk on the grass!
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 03:05PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]


And what is your criteria for determining self awareness. Dolphins are considered by many researchers to be smarter than chimps. Many animals can communicate with us. My cat tells me when the food bowl is empty. Also, the idea of ape communication is hotly debated as well.

Rights require responsibility. If we give them legal status do they suddenly have to comply with all laws that humans do? And, FACTUALLY chimps can't speak. And, Factually there are big differences between us and apes.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 03:10PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11631793/Is-it-time-that-chimps-are-given-legal-rights-What-about-elephants-dolphins-and-whales.html

"Is it time that chimps are given legal rights? What about elephants, dolphins and whales?"

"That’s a joke, right?

No. The Nonhuman Rights Project, a group founded by Steven Wise, an attorney and animal rights activist, is deadly serious. And the question of whether the most intelligent non-human animals should have a legal status beyond mere objects has generated significant legal debate in recent years.


But how can a chimp have rights if it can’t even speak?

Nor can some mentally ill people, or unborn children for that matter. But they still have legal rights.
Tommy the circus chimp is a 'person' entitled to his liberty, US court told Chimpanzees given same rights as unlawfully detained prisoners by US court

So which “right” do they want chimps to be granted?

Specifically, the right to liberty – or “bodily freedom” – ie not to be stuck in a cage, or a science lab." [/quote]

This is just another tactic by the animal liberation people. I say let Tommy become a contract worker for the circus. He can get his own trailer, drive himself, negotiate his performance salary, pay estimated taxes and collect soical security. I just think when he craps in the bread aisle at the grocery store, people will get tired of animal rights.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (May 27, 2015 03:18PM)
It is all fun until Travis eats your face off.

Apes are friggin wild animals.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 27, 2015 03:25PM)
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally. That has been established beyond debate. Within their own groups they have limited but definite 'vocabulary' and self-awareness. Genetically they are almost identical to us. We were actually able to interbreed with neanderthals, a species of great ape that has become extinct. That is how close to the other great apes we are.

If we give rights to children, the elderly with dementia, and those with mental handicaps (including those with conditions such as Downes Syndrome, who are genetically different from us) then it is difficult to argue that the great apes do not merit some rights. I am not saying give them the vote, but they are not like other animals.

If you lock a great ape in a laboratory and perform experiments on it, then kill it, in my view you are stepping way beyond any justifiable moral line.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (May 27, 2015 03:35PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:

Within their own groups they have limited but definite 'vocabulary' and self-awareness. [/quote]

So do many other animals.

So?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 27, 2015 03:38PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Genetically they are almost identical to us.[/quote]
To be fair, they have to be extremely similar to humans genetically simply because they're animals, vertebrates, mammals.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 03:44PM)
They don't have the gold.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 03:44PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally. That has been established beyond debate. Within their own groups they have limited but definite 'vocabulary' and self-awareness. Genetically they are almost identical to us. We were actually able to interbreed with neanderthals, a species of great ape that has become extinct. That is how close to the other great apes we are.

If we give rights to children, the elderly with dementia, and those with mental handicaps (including those with conditions such as Downes Syndrome, who are genetically different from us) then it is difficult to argue that the great apes do not merit some rights. I am not saying give them the vote, but they are not like other animals.

If you lock a great ape in a laboratory and perform experiments on it, then kill it, in my view you are stepping way beyond any justifiable moral line. [/quote]

Speaking and LIMITED verbal communication are different. Dolphins communicate verbally as well. So do a host of animals. As to the 'genetically they are identical' - I assume you mean shared DNA at 99%. So what. You share 85% of your DNA with a pumpkin. Does that make us almost identical to pumpkins? Some of us maybe.

When the state bestows 'rights' it requires responsibilities. If we give them rights, what responsibilities do they have? I will agree they are due the inalienable rights. Unfortunately, they are property in all our other laws. Whose rights win?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 27, 2015 03:46PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
If you lock a great ape in a laboratory and perform experiments on it, then kill it, in my view you are stepping way beyond any justifiable moral line.[/quote]
What if you do only two of those three things?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 27, 2015 03:50PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
We were actually able to interbreed with neanderthals, a species of great ape that has become extinct.[/quote]
Evidently, most biologists believe that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal]Neanderthals[/url] were not great apes, but humans. At best, their being great apes is debatable.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 03:55PM)
Monkey see monkey do.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 03:58PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
We were actually able to interbreed with neanderthals, a species of great ape that has become extinct. That is how close to the other great apes we are. [/quote]

Do you just make this stuff up?
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 27, 2015 04:01PM)
No, Kabbalah. Self-awareness is very rare in the animal kingdom. The great apes have it. So do elephants. Dolphins, octopuses, and some species of birds have shown possible signs of it. But it far from being common. Many other animals do not have self-awareness. Possibly no other animals.

We great apes are different.

Only 150 years ago many people argued that black people did not deserve human rights. They could be owned and kept, and could be treated even worse than we treat the other great apes today. 270 years ago it was still legal to kill them. And if you had questioned it you would have met the disbelief you meet today for suggesting extending rights to the other great apes.

I will make a prediction here. In the lifetime of even the oldest of us, the argument will be won, and great apes will be given rights. And in thirty years time we will look back and wonder how we even questioned it.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 04:09PM)
So Kabbalah says that apes have self awareness? You got quite a line up of aware animals. What about squid? What is the test for self awareness you subscribe to? I don't know what strain of Kabbalah you're reading, but it is interesting.

Why bring black people into it. Hey you know the difference between black people and animals - BLACK PEOPLE ARE HUMAN. What people in the west argued about slavery is irrelevant to animal rights.

We aren't great apes, we're humans.

Jolly good on your prediction. What are those rights and how will they be handled? Based on your other statements, we need octopus rights as well. Think about that next time you're at the sushi bar.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (May 27, 2015 04:15PM)
Humans are primates, not apes. If the animals themselves express a desire to have rights in the human world, then it should be considered, but right now humans are trying to give rights to something that just wants a banana and space to live.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 04:20PM)
Who questions anything today?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 27, 2015 04:20PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
No, Kabbalah. Self-awareness is very rare in the animal kingdom. The great apes have it. So do elephants. Dolphins, octopuses, and some species of birds have shown possible signs of it. But it far from being common. Many other animals do not have self-awareness. Possibly no other animals.

We great apes are different.

Only 150 years ago many people argued that black people did not deserve human rights. They could be owned and kept, and could be treated even worse than we treat the other great apes today. 270 years ago it was still legal to kill them. And if you had questioned it you would have met the disbelief you meet today for suggesting extending rights to the other great apes.

I will make a prediction here. In the lifetime of even the oldest of us, the argument will be won, and great apes will be given rights. And in thirty years time we will look back and wonder how we even questioned it. [/quote]

I suspect your prediction may be right Tony. I find you to be a very progressive thinker!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2015 05:03PM)
"This metaphor of trumps leads naturally to the question of whether there is any right that has priority to absolutely all other normative considerations: whether there is an “ace of rights.” Gewirth (1981) asserts that there is at least one such absolute right: the right of all persons not to be made the victim of a homicidal project"


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (May 27, 2015 05:19PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
I will make a prediction here. In the lifetime of even the oldest of us, the argument will be won, and great apes will be given rights. And in thirty years time we will look back and wonder how we even questioned it. [/quote]
I'll give you 50-1, with a minimum of a grand bet.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (May 27, 2015 05:21PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:

I will make a prediction here. In the lifetime of even the oldest of us, the argument will be won, and great apes will be given rights. And in thirty years time we will look back and wonder how we even questioned it. [/quote]

You sir, are insane!
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (May 27, 2015 05:46PM)
Do they have a right to bear arms?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 27, 2015 05:48PM)
Only in the US.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2015 07:08PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
If you lock a great ape in a laboratory and perform experiments on it, then kill it, in my view you are stepping way beyond any justifiable moral line.[/quote]
What if you do only two of those three things? [/quote]

Reminds me of a sign at a store:

"We can do it:
A) Fast
B) Well
C) Inexpensively
You pick any 2"
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 07:32PM)
I think the penalties for cruelty to animals ought to far tougher. Over here they normally get away with a small fine for the most horrible acts.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 27, 2015 08:16PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, ZachDavenport wrote:
Humans are primates, not apes. [/quote]
Both yourself and Hermit are wrong on this. Humans, monkeys, great apes, lesser apes and lemurs are all part of the primate family. Among the primates humans are classified as great apes, along with two species of chimp, two species of gorilla, two species of orangutan, and a number of extinct species such as neanderthals. We share a huge amount of genetic similarities with the other great apes, especially chimps. Far too many for me to be comfortable treating them the way we do.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2015 08:24PM)
You're all right. And all wrong. It can be either.

"In summary, there are three common uses of the term "ape": English-speaking non-biologists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", or may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid, whereas English-speaking biologists commonly use the term "ape" for all non-human hominoids as shown above.

In recent years, biologists have generally preferred to use only monophyletic groups in classifications;[16] that is, only groups which include all the descendants of a common ancestor.[17] The superfamily Hominoidea is one such group (or "clade"). Some then use the term "ape" to mean all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea. For example, in a 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans".[6] The group traditionally called "apes" by biologists is then called the "non-human apes""
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 27, 2015 08:28PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]
Little difference? You're kidding right?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 09:19PM)
I think he is talking about the Irish. My wife is Irish and I think her mother is a great ape. :)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 27, 2015 10:13PM)
I think it nice that you think your mother in law is great!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 27, 2015 10:26PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, tommy wrote:
I think the penalties for cruelty to animals ought to far tougher. Over here they normally get away with a small fine for the most horrible acts. [/quote]

It used to be that way in Washington State too. Until some punks beat and tortured a petting zoo donkey to death. The donkey's name was Pasado. The perpetrators basically got away with a wrist slap But the subsequent outrage resulted in the passage of the Pasado Law. Animal abuse crimes can now be prosecuted as felonies and convictions can carry up to five years in state prison:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020415&slug=pasado15m
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 28, 2015 06:19AM)
Tommy's mother-in-law reminds me of a great comment made on the birth of my son. My ex's sister, who is a !@#$%, looked at the beautiful child and said: "He looks like a monkey. But then, his dad looks like an ape."

I thought it was brilliant, but it led to a bit of a family falling out on my ex's side!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 28, 2015 07:58AM)
"A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man—a man of restless and versatile intellect—who … plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice."--attributed to T.H. Huxley by one of his students.
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 28, 2015 10:01AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]
Little difference? You're kidding right? [/quote]

Sadly I do not think Tony is kidding. Wow. Just wow.....
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 28, 2015 10:06AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]


:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 28, 2015 01:51PM)
+2
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 28, 2015 03:01PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]


:thumbsup: [/quote]

Thumbs up, really Lobo? I'm a bit surprised.

So, the same legal status as ourselves? Can we explore this a little further?
Right of property ownership? Right of freedom? Are they then subject to the same laws? Can they vote? Pursue elected office? (OK, I'll admit, they may do better at that last one then some of our elected representatives!)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 28, 2015 03:16PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]


:thumbsup: [/quote]

Thumbs up, really Lobo? I'm a bit surprised.

So, the same legal status as ourselves? Can we explore this a little further?
Right of property ownership? Right of freedom? Are they then subject to the same laws? Can they vote? Pursue elected office? (OK, I'll admit, they may do better at that last one then some of our elected representatives!) [/quote]


I should have clipped Tony's comment. The thumbs up was for some of it (intelligent, self-aware, communication; partial thumbs up for "little different.")
Message: Posted by: imgic (May 28, 2015 03:34PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, Ray Tupper. wrote:
Do they have a right to bear arms? [/quote]

If given Legal rights we can arm bears...
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 28, 2015 06:55PM)
Let me clarify one thing. When I say that the other great apes should share our rights, obviously I do not mean every right. I am not suggesting giving them the vote, having them serve on juries, etc. I mean the basics - the right not to be held in captivity, the right not to be killed, not to be abused in the name of research, the right not to be property, the right not to have their habitat stolen. I stand over giving them all those rights.

And I predict the courts will too.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2015 07:31PM)
I think we should give great apes their own country; some banana republic perhaps.

Although I suppose a monarchy might suit King Kong.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 28, 2015 07:44PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, tommy wrote:
I think we should give great apes their own country; some banana republic perhaps.

Although I suppose a monarchy might suit King Kong. [/quote]
Great apes do have our own countries. You are living in one; I am living in another. Though whether you could classify either as a banana republic is open for debate.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2015 07:59PM)
Well I don’t think great apes ought to be allowed to wonder around the city or drive just yet, as I don’t think they are quite ready to conform to it. That which does not conform does not operate efficiently. When in Rome do as the Romans.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2015 08:13PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Let me clarify one thing. When I say that the other great apes should share our rights, obviously I do not mean every right. I am not suggesting giving them the vote, having them serve on juries, etc. I mean the basics - the right not to be held in captivity, the right not to be killed, not to be abused in the name of research, the right not to be property, the right not to have their habitat stolen. I stand over giving them all those rights.

And I predict the courts will too. [/quote]
Never.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 28, 2015 08:58PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Let me clarify one thing. When I say that the other great apes should share our rights, obviously I do not mean every right. I am not suggesting giving them the vote, having them serve on juries, etc. I mean the basics - the right not to be held in captivity, the right not to be killed, not to be abused in the name of research, the right not to be property, the right not to have their habitat stolen. I stand over giving them all those rights.

And I predict the courts will too. [/quote]

So, to clarify, you think the great apes should be given the same legal status as us, just not the SAME legal status. I'm glad you clarified that. And since you don't believe that they should be held in captivity, I'm assuming one of the very basic rights they should have is to be able to come and go as they please.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 29, 2015 06:13AM)
Rockwall, if you visit Ireland you will not be given a vote here. That is reserved for citizens. But you will be allowed live, have fun, interact with the Irish, and will not be held captive, experimented on, or otherwise interfered with. It is not a difficult concept.

Yes I do believe other great apes should be allowed come and go as they please. And what that means in real terms is that we should leave them the hell alone, not destroy their habitat, and not drive them to extinction, as we are doing with gorillas and orangutans.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 29, 2015 08:52AM)
Tony, if a great ape comes to Ireland, will they let him come and go as he pleases? (I certainly hope they will me when I visit this summer!)
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 29, 2015 09:11AM)
Rockwall, we welcome all great apes, gay, straight, American, Canadian, British - our doors are open. I hope you have a wonderful time here. We are a great ape friendly country. They even tolerate me.

What part are you visiting, or are you touring?
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2015 09:49AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
No, Kabbalah. Self-awareness is very rare in the animal kingdom. The great apes have it. So do elephants. Dolphins, octopuses, and some species of birds have shown possible signs of it. But it far from being common. Many other animals do not have self-awareness. Possibly no other animals.

We great apes are different.

Only 150 years ago many people argued that black people did not deserve human rights. They could be owned and kept, and could be treated even worse than we treat the other great apes today. 270 years ago it was still legal to kill them. And if you had questioned it you would have met the disbelief you meet today for suggesting extending rights to the other great apes.

I will make a prediction here. In the lifetime of even the oldest of us, the argument will be won, and great apes will be given rights. And in thirty years time we will look back and wonder how we even questioned it. [/quote]

And then they will vote. Are you serious Tony? When they get jobs how does their minimum wage work? Please Tony be sensible.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 09:55AM)
Whoa whoa. Not every creature with rights has the full slate of human rights. Not even all humans have full citizenship rights.

That animals have some rights that humans will be legally obliged to respect does not imply that they will all have

1. The full set of human rights, or
2. The same subset of rights.


Finally some animals could conceivably have rights that humans don't have.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2015 10:08AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whoa whoa. Not every creature with rights has the full slate of human rights. Not even all humans have full citizenship rights.

That animals have some rights that humans will be legally obliged to respect does not imply that they will all have

1. The full set of human rights, or
2. The same subset of rights.


Finally some animals could conceivably have rights that humans don't have. [/quote]

Yea like they can defecate in the streets because they do not know better and never will and are animals. Sorry to be so blunt but you people need a bump on the head to knock some sense into it Of course they should not be tortured. But just what rights are you planning on giving them and why? They are animals. We eat animals. Animals in the wild kill us. Ever try and reason with a great ape if he is upset? My advise would be...don't. And be all means don't give him 2nd amendment rights. :) I do not believe they will practice safe firearms handling. Just posting this to show how silly of an arguement some of you are proposing. Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 10:24AM)
Let's start with the right not to be tortured. See, we agree on a first step.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (May 29, 2015 11:08AM)
I say, all ‘pets’ should be treated with kindness; others should be treated with caution.

Tom
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 11:24AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 11:26AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right[/quote]

And people say that nobody ever changes his or her mind on abortion! This criterion, of course, eradicates rights for fetuses. Additionally, it takes away most or all rights for infants and the severely mentally retarded (apologies to the PC; I stopped buying the DSM after the 4th edition).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 11:27AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
. [/quote]

Apparently, Bob types faster than I do.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 11:28AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whoa whoa. Not every creature with rights has the full slate of human rights. Not even all humans have full citizenship rights.

That animals have some rights that humans will be legally obliged to respect does not imply that they will all have

1. The full set of human rights, or
2. The same subset of rights.


Finally some animals could conceivably have rights that humans don't have. [/quote]

Yea like they can defecate in the streets because they do not know better and never will and are animals. Sorry to be so blunt but you people need a bump on the head to knock some sense into it Of course they should not be tortured. But just what rights are you planning on giving them and why? They are animals. We eat animals. Animals in the wild kill us. Ever try and reason with a great ape if he is upset? My advise would be...don't. And be all means don't give him 2nd amendment rights. :) I do not believe they will practice safe firearms handling. Just posting this to show how silly of an arguement some of you are proposing. Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

[i]Some of us[/i] eat animals, anyway.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 11:28AM)
I think we both spotted that glaring inconsistency at the same time, Lobo. I used to love when adverse witnesses would make statements like that in court. The cross-examination virtually writes itself. :eek:
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 29, 2015 11:40AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whoa whoa. Not every creature with rights has the full slate of human rights. Not even all humans have full citizenship rights.

That animals have some rights that humans will be legally obliged to respect does not imply that they will all have

1. The full set of human rights, or
2. The same subset of rights.


Finally some animals could conceivably have rights that humans don't have.[/quote]
Yea like they can defecate in the streets because they do not know better and never will and are animals. Sorry to be so blunt but you people need a bump on the head to knock some sense into it Of course they should not be tortured. But just what rights are you planning on giving them and why? They are animals. We eat animals. Animals in the wild kill us. Ever try and reason with a great ape if he is upset? My advise would be...don't. And be all means don't give him 2nd amendment rights. :) I do not believe they will practice safe firearms handling. Just posting this to show how silly of an arguement some of you are proposing. Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.[/quote]
[i]Some of [b]y'all[/b][/i] eat animals, anyway.[/quote]
FTFY
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 11:44AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whoa whoa. Not every creature with rights has the full slate of human rights. Not even all humans have full citizenship rights.

That animals have some rights that humans will be legally obliged to respect does not imply that they will all have

1. The full set of human rights, or
2. The same subset of rights.


Finally some animals could conceivably have rights that humans don't have.[/quote]
Yea like they can defecate in the streets because they do not know better and never will and are animals. Sorry to be so blunt but you people need a bump on the head to knock some sense into it Of course they should not be tortured. But just what rights are you planning on giving them and why? They are animals. We eat animals. Animals in the wild kill us. Ever try and reason with a great ape if he is upset? My advise would be...don't. And be all means don't give him 2nd amendment rights. :) I do not believe they will practice safe firearms handling. Just posting this to show how silly of an arguement some of you are proposing. Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.[/quote]
[i]Some of [b]y'all[/b][/i] eat animals, anyway.[/quote]
FTFY [/quote]


I feel so southern!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 11:55AM)
A short sketch:

POLICE OFFICER ACES (to arrested SUSPECT}: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as I've explained them to you?"

SUSPECT: (gives a long blank stare before speaking): No. What are you talking about? I don't understand."

POLICE OFFICER ACES: "Well if you don't understand them, you don't have them. Turn around and bend over."

The End (copyright 2015 by Doctor Crow. All rights reserved. Performance rights may be purchased from the author.)
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (May 29, 2015 12:36PM)
Office Aces?

Lmfao!!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 01:11PM)
Fast-forwarding the discussion:

Aces: Ok, awareness isn't the criterion, but human beings, even those who are not aware, have sous, and animals don't.

Various: Human beings don't have souls.

Various others: Yes they do.

Various: No they don't.

Various others: Yes they do.

Various: You're making a claim, so you have to prove it.

Various others: No I don't. Besides, you're making a claim, too, so you have to prove it, too.

Various: No I'm not.

Various others: Yes you are.

Lobo: You know, it's pointless to argue about whether or not human beings have souls, because it can't be proven. Time to agree to disagree.

Magnus: Logical positivism has been refuted.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 01:39PM)
You forgot the last line:

Bob: Turn around and bend over.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 02:28PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You forgot the last line:

Bob: Turn around and bend over. [/quote]

That's the line for the feminists to give the female lawyer who doesn't want kids (see yearbook thread).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 02:44PM)
:eek: Yes, it would fit there, but it was really just a gratuitous callback to the "sketch" I wrote a few posts back.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 02:48PM)
Hey, I'm all about the gratuitous callbacks.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (May 29, 2015 02:49PM)
Too bad the indigenous folks in the world (like our native americans) didn't receive as much thought and consideration.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 29, 2015 03:37PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
... However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

I agree that aces probably didn't think this one through and that the statement is a bit silly. Not quite as silly as Tony's statement that "I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves", but in the same ballpark. Of course, instead of ridiculing Tony for such a silly statement, Bob instead gave him a +2 thumbs up for that one.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 29, 2015 03:44PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Rockwall, we welcome all great apes, gay, straight, American, Canadian, British - our doors are open. I hope you have a wonderful time here. We are a great ape friendly country. They even tolerate me.

What part are you visiting, or are you touring? [/quote]

Tony, I don't blame you at all for wanting to dodge the question.

But, as to your question, we will be vacationing there for about 10 days. We fly into and out of Shannon and will travel through much of Southern Ireland on a self-guided tour. We'll be going to Clifden, Galway, Killarney, Kilkenny, Dublin and Limerick. Packing as much in as we can for our short time there.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2015 06:40PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
. [/quote]


When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 06:53PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
. [/quote]


When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming. [/quote]

What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 29, 2015 09:06PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Rockwall, we welcome all great apes, gay, straight, American, Canadian, British - our doors are open. I hope you have a wonderful time here. We are a great ape friendly country. They even tolerate me.

What part are you visiting, or are you touring? [/quote]

Tony, I don't blame you at all for wanting to dodge the question.

But, as to your question, we will be vacationing there for about 10 days. We fly into and out of Shannon and will travel through much of Southern Ireland on a self-guided tour. We'll be going to Clifden, Galway, Killarney, Kilkenny, Dublin and Limerick. Packing as much in as we can for our short time there. [/quote]
In fairness, I did clarify what rights I meant. And I will be the one laughing in twenty years time when this argument has been won and other great apes are given some rights that set them well apart from other animals.

As for Ireland, I grew up near Shannon. When you fly in you should visit the Cliffs of Moher and the Burren on your way to Galway. They are on your route if you take the scenic road, and they are the best scenery Ireland has to offer. The cliffs are a 700 foot sheer drop to the sea, and the Burren is a unique lunar landscape of exposed limestone, rare fauna, and prehistoric remains. Both just an hour from the airport.

Wear a bulletproof jacket for Limerick. Only a few years ago it was the murder capital of Europe. Nice city now though.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 29, 2015 10:10PM)
Cliffs of Moher and the Burren are already high on my list of things to see.

And to be fair, you didn't claim the rights you listed were comprehensive. I was just looking for further clarification. The right I questioned fell in line with the others you supported and was nothing like the ones you didn't support.

And you won't be the only one laughing. If you recall, I mentioned earlier that I had no doubt that your prediction would prove true.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2015 10:20PM)
[img]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/animals-have-the-right-to-be-tasty.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2015 10:33PM)
Animal Rights have more rights than you and there is also a lot of dough in the game.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2015 11:29PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
. [/quote]


When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming. [/quote]

What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again. [/quote]


Do SEVERLY BRAIN DAMAGED people have rights? The question should be. Which rights do they have? Do they have rights to purchase a firearm? Do they have the right to drive a car? Do they have the right to vote? Do they have the right to get a pilot's license and fly a plane? And on and on. Not everyone has the same rights just as the child etc. while they have certain rights. They mostly have rights that have to be respected rather the right to do certain things. They gain the right to do things as they mature. The animals will never mature to a point that they can have these same rights.

So there are different kind of rights. Those that must be respected by others and not infringed on by others and those that let you do certain things.

Animals may, and I say may have the rights that should not be infringed upon. But not so much the rights to do things. Apples and oranges again. Also those rights are bestowed upon them by intelligent individuals who can reason. So while some animals have certain rights. They have no idea that they have them. They are not that intelligent. However most children will attain the level of intelligence to understand their rights. Same goes for the severly mentally challenged...they have rights that others should abide by but have no idea of such rights and definitely do not have the right to do many things that competent individuals are allowed to do.

It is not so much me moving the goal posts as you bringing up what is not the norm, and trying to make it the norm. While a mentally challanged person has certain rights, it is very possible they do not know or are not capable of knowing they have them. Again they have the right to many things but not necessarily the right to do many things that others can do. The only reason they do not have the same rights is because of their mental capacity and in many instances are not aware of the rights they do have.

Let me ask you this. Do you have rights if you do not know you have them? It is like the age old question. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall. Does it make a noise? The only rights you have, if you do not know you have them, are the ones people respect and give you. So my answer while you may debate is a cop out is that if you do not know you have rights, then you do not have them. The rights you supposedly have, but do not know you have, simply means that they are written down somewhere for those intelligent enough to understand and know them.

It is unfortunate but the only rights that many of these individuals have is the rights we give them. Often times they deserve more.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2015 11:35PM)
Yes you have rights if you do not know you have them, even if you are a new born sucker.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 30, 2015 09:13AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, tommy wrote:
Yes you have rights if you do not know you have them, even if you are a new born sucker. [/quote]


Eloquent as expected.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 09:55AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty. [/quote]

Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 10:01AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally.[/quote]

What is verbal? Does it differ significantly from vocal communication? I have known and worked with plenty of students who were non-verbal and yet they could certainly communicate vocally (yells, screeches, grunts, etc.). Should any communication coming from the mouth be considered verbal? Does it HAVE to be words as humans verbalize?

Perhaps my cat can communicate verbally. So might a chipmunk.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 30, 2015 10:08AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights. [/quote]

"Man had always considered himself more intelligent than the dolphins because he had created so much; the wheel, New York City, thermo-nuclear war, whereas all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. Oddly enough the dolphins believed exactly the opposite for exactly the same reasons! The dolphins had known of the upcoming desctruction of the Earth for many years and had spent countless hours trying to warn the humans. Unfortunately, these messages were misinterpreted as clever attempts to bat balls or ring bells. The dolphins arranged to leave the Earth shortly before the Vogons arrived. The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a particularly clever attempt to do a backwards somersault while whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner," but it actually was this; 'So long, and thanks for all the fish!' " -- Douglas Adams; "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"

If you have doubt that dolphins are intelligent... here's a negative example;

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 10:19AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability. [/quote]

Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
. [/quote]


When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming. [/quote]

What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again. [/quote]


Do SEVERLY BRAIN DAMAGED people have rights? The question should be. Which rights do they have? Do they have rights to purchase a firearm? Do they have the right to drive a car? Do they have the right to vote? Do they have the right to get a pilot's license and fly a plane? And on and on. Not everyone has the same rights just as the child etc. while they have certain rights. They mostly have rights that have to be respected rather the right to do certain things. They gain the right to do things as they mature. The animals will never mature to a point that they can have these same rights.

So there are different kind of rights. Those that must be respected by others and not infringed on by others and those that let you do certain things.

Animals may, and I say may have the rights that should not be infringed upon. But not so much the rights to do things. Apples and oranges again. Also those rights are bestowed upon them by intelligent individuals who can reason. So while some animals have certain rights. They have no idea that they have them. They are not that intelligent. However most children will attain the level of intelligence to understand their rights. Same goes for the severly mentally challenged...they have rights that others should abide by but have no idea of such rights and definitely do not have the right to do many things that competent individuals are allowed to do.

It is not so much me moving the goal posts as you bringing up what is not the norm, and trying to make it the norm. While a mentally challanged person has certain rights, it is very possible they do not know or are not capable of knowing they have them. Again they have the right to many things but not necessarily the right to do many things that others can do. The only reason they do not have the same rights is because of their mental capacity and in many instances are not aware of the rights they do have.

Let me ask you this. Do you have rights if you do not know you have them? It is like the age old question. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall. Does it make a noise? The only rights you have, if you do not know you have them, are the ones people respect and give you. So my answer while you may debate is a cop out is that if you do not know you have rights, then you do not have them. The rights you supposedly have, but do not know you have, simply means that they are written down somewhere for those intelligent enough to understand and know them.

It is unfortunate but the only rights that many of these individuals have is the rights we give them. Often times they deserve more. [/quote]

Thanks for that explanation, Aces. I do agree that certain types of rights do require a level of understanding.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 10:20AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty. [/quote]

Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights. [/quote]

Not really.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 10:24AM)
The only rights ANYONE has are the rights we (by "we" I means governments) give them, unless of course you include "inalienable rights" (thank you Ben Franklin). I'm guessing the anti-God brigade here will not recognize those. The only real rights anyone has is survival of the fittest. Beyond that, we assign "rights".
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 30, 2015 12:35PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let's start with the right not to be tortured. See, we agree on a first step. [/quote]

Animals have that through laws for humans. Do animals have the right to torture other animals like my cat does mice? Or, the lion and the Gazelle? Can animals torture humans? I think we are confusing human restrictions vs animal rights.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 30, 2015 01:24PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally.[/quote]

What is verbal? Does it differ significantly from vocal communication? I have known and worked with plenty of students who were non-verbal and yet they could certainly communicate vocally (yells, screeches, grunts, etc.). Should any communication coming from the mouth be considered verbal? Does it HAVE to be words as humans verbalize?

Perhaps my cat can communicate verbally. So might a chipmunk. [/quote]
By verbally I mean with words. They can't vocalise the words but can use sign language instead. This ability has been established beyond debate by researchers.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 30, 2015 01:36PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty. [/quote]

Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights. [/quote]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Can't you accept the simple and non-controversial notion that animal cruelty laws obviously recognize that animals at least have a right not to be abused?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 02:34PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let's start with the right not to be tortured. See, we agree on a first step. [/quote]

Animals have that through laws for humans. Do animals have the right to torture other animals like my cat does mice? Or, the lion and the Gazelle? Can animals torture humans? I think we are confusing human restrictions vs animal rights. [/quote]


I disagree. Those restrictions are in place because of a widespread belief that animals have rights. There's a reason why as a human being, you're restricted from disassembling your iPad or your kitchen table, but not your cat.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 02:46PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
That makes no sense whatsoever. Can't you accept the simple and non-controversial notion that animal cruelty laws obviously recognize that animals at least have a right not to be abused? [/quote]

No. Just because YOU say it's "simple and non-controversial" doesn't mean it's so. I don't think it recognizes animal rights at all, but rather established basic expectations of social behavior. We also have laws about property damage and we don't assume that objects have rights.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 04:16PM)
Your property example argues against your position, I believe. You can wantonly destroy just about every piece of property you own, as long as it's not inherently dangerous to others (arson) or fraudulent (insurance). So your analogy is actually an area of contrast. I also think that you break off your analysis too soon. Why were those "basic expectations of social behavior" established? Let alone established to the point that we impose criminal sanctions on those who violate them? I mean, it's a basic expectation of social behavior that you attempt to control your flatulence in public, but nobody's going to jail for violating that one. The reason that your burn your magic books on your fireplace and not your dog is precisely [i]because[/i] there is a widespread belief that (some) animals have (moral) rights and should therefore also have legal rights.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 30, 2015 04:59PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
That makes no sense whatsoever. Can't you accept the simple and non-controversial notion that animal cruelty laws obviously recognize that animals at least have a right not to be abused? [/quote]

No. Just because YOU say it's "simple and non-controversial" doesn't mean it's so. I don't think it recognizes animal rights at all, but rather established basic expectations of social behavior. We also have laws about property damage and we don't assume that objects have rights. [/quote]

Of course completely missing the distinction that animals are no longer legally considered "objects" or chattels as they once were. There is a vast body of law that contradicts your statement completely. The "simple and non-controversial" observation that I made is NOT my idea, despite your characterizaton.

But the only support you are offering for your statement is because YOU say it's so.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (May 30, 2015 07:46PM)
I suggest animals are more than proficient with languages [i]and [/i] communication. If anyone is lacking in those capacities, it's human beings. I'll also suggest that anyone who thinks animals don't have self awareness, is forgetting how important it is to also have awareness and understanding of others- and animals have both. Humans have spent way too much time focusing on themselves alone, I'd say. That's something other than self awareness- more like arrogance and narcissism.

http://downtheforestpath.com/2012/03/12/animals-or-individuals-the-human-arrogance/
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 30, 2015 09:56PM)
But are animals arrogant and narcissistic? My cat certainly is.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2015 10:14PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, magicalaurie wrote:
I suggest animals are more than proficient with languages [i]and [/i] communication. If anyone is lacking in those capacities, it's human beings. I'll also suggest that anyone who thinks animals don't have self awareness, is forgetting how important it is to also have awareness and understanding of others- and animals have both. Humans have spent way too much time focusing on themselves alone, I'd say. That's something other than self awareness- more like arrogance and narcissism.

http://downtheforestpath.com/2012/03/12/animals-or-individuals-the-human-arrogance/ [/quote]
Sheer lunacy.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (May 31, 2015 12:22AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Sheer lunacy. [/quote]

Looks like bait to me, magicfish.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 31, 2015 12:03PM)
Animals think plants ought to have rights and the plants, rocks. The rock thinks it is the closest thing to god. Which is why Jacob rested his head on a rock to get in touch with god and why wise men live up the mountain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 31, 2015 06:37PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The "simple and non-controversial" observation that I made is NOT my idea, despite your characterizaton.

But the only support you are offering for your statement is because YOU say it's so. [/quote]

It's your observation and you support the notion, which is wrong. It is not "non-controversial" by the very fact we are discussing it and not all in agreement. Because people are compassionate and choose not to inflict pain on animals in no way suggests that animals have rights. It only indicates that we feel a just society should not torture lesser beings. It's about our behavior, not their rights.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 31, 2015 06:43PM)
The issue of rights informs a society's decisions about which behaviors are acceptable.
You can't own human beings because we feel that in a just society, people shouldn't own human beings, because we feel that human beings have rights. You can own a TV set because we don't feel that in a just society you shouldn't have TV sets because we don't feel that TV sets have rights.

By "we," I mean enough legislators or voters to be relevant.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 31, 2015 06:59PM)
The Greens are running the world. Alligators, litigators, what's the difference?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 31, 2015 07:12PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The issue of rights informs a society's decisions about which behaviors are acceptable.
You can't own human beings because we feel that in a just society, people shouldn't own human beings, because we feel that human beings have rights. You can own a TV set because we don't feel that in a just society you shouldn't have TV sets because we don't feel that TV sets have rights.

By "we," I mean enough legislators or voters to be relevant. [/quote]

So following that logic, I CAN own a cat, so the cat has no more rights than a TV?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 31, 2015 07:26PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The issue of rights informs a society's decisions about which behaviors are acceptable.
You can't own human beings because we feel that in a just society, people shouldn't own human beings, because we feel that human beings have rights. You can own a TV set because we don't feel that in a just society you shouldn't have TV sets because we don't feel that TV sets have rights.

By "we," I mean enough legislators or voters to be relevant. [/quote]

So following that logic, I CAN own a cat, so the cat has no more rights than a TV? [/quote]


The cat has more rights than the TV. You can sit on your front lawn and disassemble your TV.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 31, 2015 07:27PM)
TVs, they can communicate as well. It also owns you.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 31, 2015 07:52PM)
I am pretty sure my cats own me, too.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Jun 1, 2015 07:43AM)
Legal Rights For Animals? What about these? (WARNING! GRAPHIC!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103008/Rows-pet-dogs-beaten-death-hanging-hooks-cats-skinned-ready-dinner-table-Inside-Chinese-meat-festival-banned-year.html

Doug
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 1, 2015 10:31AM)
Nathan Winograd, the director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, claims that PETA has killed nearly 30,000 animals in the last 11 years.

PETA says euthanasia figures are 'distorted,' and do not include the nearly 10,000 animals saved and put up for adoption. (A: Well if they killed 30,000... [Alan laughing.] Well, we might have saved 10,000, right.)

Everything, folks, out there is a racket.... even the news agencies... and everything else… is a racket. And your charities too. This is the state of humanity today... as we go down the tubes, without culture or anything else – and I’m talking about NATURAL culture, that works.

From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you. – Alan Watt http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305571/Shocking-photos-reality-PETA-animal-home.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 1, 2015 12:35PM)
Http://www.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/animal-rights-wired-opinion/
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 1, 2015 01:35PM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2015, tommy wrote:
Nathan Winograd, the director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, claims that PETA has killed nearly 30,000 animals in the last 11 years.

PETA says euthanasia figures are 'distorted,' and do not include the nearly 10,000 animals saved and put up for adoption. (A: Well if they killed 30,000... [Alan laughing.] Well, we might have saved 10,000, right.)

Everything, folks, out there is a racket.... even the news agencies... and everything else… is a racket. And your charities too. This is the state of humanity today... as we go down the tubes, without culture or anything else – and I’m talking about NATURAL culture, that works.

From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you. – Alan Watt http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305571/Shocking-photos-reality-PETA-animal-home.html [/quote]


I had the pleasure of meetimg Winograd after a lecture at law school. He's done some amazing work. A former professor of mine is very well acquainted with him. Nathan and his family walk the walk when it comes to reducing animal suffering
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 1, 2015 02:28PM)
"you, me--washoe--play peek-a-boo!"
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (Jun 1, 2015 09:07PM)
I am compassionate about animals, I do not want to see them hurt or tortured. I cried when I had to put my cat down because he was old and suffering. But it was MY decision to do so because HE DID NOT HAVE RIGHTS! HE WAS A CAT!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 1, 2015 09:15PM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
I am compassionate about animals, I do not want to see them hurt or tortured. I cried when I had to put my cat down because he was old and suffering. But it was MY decision to do so because HE DID NOT HAVE RIGHTS! HE WAS A CAT! [/quote]


1) Are you talking about legal rights, moral rights, or both?
2) Is it your position that (non-human) animals don't have legal rights, or that they shouldn't have legal rights, or both?
3) What's the basis for that belief?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 1, 2015 11:13PM)
I want donkeys and elephants to have the right to vote, so we can see who they vote for.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 2, 2015 12:11AM)
I have never known the gaming commission arrest a donkey for running a common gaming house.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 2, 2015 08:46AM)
If they do not have the ability to lie, cheat and steal they should not have rights. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 2, 2015 11:08AM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
I am compassionate about animals, I do not want to see them hurt or tortured. I cried when I had to put my cat down because he was old and suffering. But it was MY decision to do so because HE DID NOT HAVE RIGHTS! HE WAS A CAT! [/quote]

Putting something in all caps (shouting) doesn't make it so. Nor do exclamation points.

Here are some solid arguments from the FAQ of the Nonhuman Rights Project:

[quote]Why do you talk about “nonhuman animals”?

Humans are animals; people tend to forget that. Under current law, the only animals recognized as having legal rights are humans.
Don’t rights come with responsibilities? If you can’t be responsible, then you can’t have rights.

Not true. Millions of humans have fundamental rights that are not linked to responsibilities. Children and physically or mentally impaired adults cannot bear responsibilities, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have legal rights. You can’t just lock them up or use them for entertainment (at least not anymore).

Surely human rights are only for humans.

That’s right. Human rights are for humans. Chimpanzee rights are for chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do not need the right to vote, for example, but they do need the right not to be held captive in shocking conditions in laboratories or roadside zoos.

What do you mean by “legal person”?

A legal person is an entity capable of having legal rights. These have included humans, fetuses, corporations, and ships. (Even, in Indian courts, idols and holy books have been granted legal personhood.) It’s society’s way of acknowledging that an entity counts in the law.

Not long ago, men generally agreed that women and children could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of men. In this country we said the same thing about African-American slaves. We are asserting, based on clear scientific evidence, that it’s time to take the next step and recognize that certain nonhuman animals cannot continue to be exploited as property.[/quote]

http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 3, 2015 11:22AM)
Not exactly on point, but interesting nonetheless-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/03/chimps-cooking-skills-study_n_7499612.html