NationStates Jolt Archive

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

Seeing as they can now get elected, why not go the whole hog?

For such an idiotic question, how about I give you simian status? :)

For such an idiotic question, how about I give you simian status? :)


Hooray Simian status!

Hooray Simian status!
Maybe they'll make you their King. ^^

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm
We already have enough baboons pretending to be humans, especially at the world leader level. :p

Maybe they'll make you their King. ^^

Why stop at King? Why not God?!

Why stop at King? Why not God?!
I already occupy that position. :)

Damn.....well at least no one can argue I was chosen by God....

Their genes are beside the point. If (hypothetically, I know this is impossible) there was a species with 100% human DNA that still could not act due to not having human brains they would still not be people. In other words, if you want to argue that somebody is a person you have to look at their behaviour.

Their genes are beside the point. If (hypothetically, I know this is impossible) there was a species with 100% human DNA that still could not act due to not having human brains they would still not be people. In other words, if you want to argue that somebody is a person you have to look at their behaviour.
When a chimp is able to debate Plato with me, then, and only then, maybe it could be given human status. Until then, they are animals.

Great Ape Personhood is an interesting concept that I'm not entirely convinced about. I think at the end of the day the ape cannot properly understand its responsibilities in a society of millions, and thus personhood is not quite in order. I do think that there should be laws protecting their lives in all but the most dire circumstances.

When a chimp is able to debate Plato with me, then, and only then, maybe it could be given human status. Until then, they are animals.

Some humans couldn't debate Plato with you. Does that make them animals too?

Some humans couldn't debate Plato with you. Does that make them animals too?

That depends. Do they chew the cud?

Some humans couldn't debate Plato with you. Does that make them animals too?
Any human can if they read up on him - how well they could is another matter entirely.

Any human can if they read up on him - how well they could is another matter entirely.

That's not true. Mentally disabled people couldn't. ;) Are they animals?

That depends. Do they chew the cud?

No.

Any human can if they read up on him - how well they could is another matter entirely.

What about children or the mentally disabled?

What about children or the mentally disabled?

That's not true. Mentally disabled people couldn't. ;) Are they animals?
What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.

Why do you make that distinction? The way I see it, homo sapiens = human. There are no degrees as to how "human" someone is, or how deserving of rights they are based upon their mental capacity.

Why do you make that distinction? The way I see it, homo sapiens = human. There are no degrees as to how "human" someone is, or how deserving of rights they are based upon their mental capacity.
I never said it strips them of any rights - just that I don't consider them fully human. They lack that distinguishing feature of the power of reasoning.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.

So putting aside all this "formality" they are technically animals?

So putting aside all this "formality" they are technically animals?
Give me your definition of an animal.

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

if we gave apes human rights we'd have to give dolphins and some other sea mammals the same. but i think it's hard to treat such organisms as dumb animals when they show clear intelligence and a level of conciousness above that which we would normally attribute to animals. maybe there ought to be iq tests for animals to determine what their rights are going to be... or not. how about give all animals the right to retain their dignity, that ought to be enough.

if we gave apes human rights we'd have to give dolphins and some other sea mammals the same. but i think it's hard to treat such organisms as dumb animals when they show clear intelligence and a level of conciousness above that which we would normally attribute to animals. maybe there ought to be iq tests for animals to determine what their rights are going to be... or not. how about give all animals the right to retain their dignity, that ought to be enough.
Agreed. I think all this intellectualising over something so trivial is a waste of time. As long as these animals receive self-ownership rights, their status is protected. It is hypocritical of us though to raise chickens to be slaughtered, but desire dolphins to be protected. Highly hypocritical.

Give me your definition of an animal.

Not human, plant or mineral.

Not human, plant or mineral.
That is inadequate - give me some defining traits that distinguish it from a human. Make it as general as possible to cover all animals too.

Agreed. I think all this intellectualising over something so trivial is a waste of time. As long as these animals receive self-ownership rights, their status is protected. It is hypocritical of us though to raise chickens to be slaughtered, but desire dolphins to be protected. Highly hypocritical.

although if a species is deemed to be endangered it should definitely deserve protection.

That is inadequate - give me some defining traits that distinguish it from a human. Make it as general as possible to cover all animals too.

Any living organism with a circulatory system that doesn't walk upright on two legs as its main mode of physical transportation?

although if a species is deemed to be endangered it should definitely deserve protection.
Indeed. It just puzzles me how we treat certain animals differently to others. Dogs, for instance, are not under threat of extinction - and many would consider it immoral to harm one. On the other hand, these same people have no problem eating a cow. I'm one of them unfortunately.

although if a species is deemed to be endangered it should definitely deserve protection.

Irregardless of the debate taking place - do you know that I think you're only semi-serious / sarcastic in every single one of your posts in every thread, due to the roll-eyes smilie in your sig? It gets me every time! ;)

Any living organism with a circulatory system that doesn't walk upright on two legs as its main mode of physical transportation?
Then we are speaking of a bipedal animal. I'm not sure, but I think certain simians are already bipedal. Humans are essentially animals themselves - being bipedal isn't what distinguishes them.

1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2. any such living thing other than a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
What I want to know is where does one draw the line between animal and human. Saying "anything that isn't X..." is sorely lacking.

I believe the genetic difference is 2%, no 0.something%.

Furthermore, genetic similarities across all mammalian species are obvious, with dogs and horses only being a few more percentage points off.

Irregardless of the debate taking place - do you know that I think you're only semi-serious / sarcastic in every single one of your posts in every thread, due to the roll-eyes smilie in your sig? It gets me every time! ;)

ha, yeh, i wondered if that might be confusing people. not that this isn't always the case. i often play devils advocate on this forum rather than arguing my true or whole position on something.

Then we are speaking of a bipedal animal. I'm not sure, but I think certain simians are already bipedal. Humans are essentially animals themselves - being bipedal isn't what distinguishes them.


What I want to know is where does one draw the line between animal and human. Saying "anything that isn't this..." is sorely lacking.

I don't see what's wrong with defining an animal by what it isn't. There is such a wide variety of species that to find a single definition that serves for all of them is nigh on impossible.

I don't see what's wrong with defining an animal by what it isn't. There is such a wide variety of species that to find a single definition that serves for all of them is nigh on impossible.
The dictionary did a pretty good job of it in the first instance. The problem with "anything that isn't ..." definitions is that the thing being compared to has to be defined fully. If you follow this logic for all definitions, it becomes pointless. It's like me saying "what is a cat?" "oh, anything that isn't anything else." It's silly.

I never said it strips them of any rights - just that I don't consider them fully human. They lack that distinguishing feature of the power of reasoning.

Soo... Humans who can't reason are not fully human? What are they if not humans then?

ha, yeh, i wondered if that might be confusing people. :rolleyes: not that this isn't always the case. i often play devils advocate on this forum rather than arguing my true or whole position on something.:rolleyes:
See? You did it again! That's how I read your post :p

Just as long as you're aware of it ;)

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

No. God made chimps different from man. Science is a load of crap, a big steamy pile of it.

Soo... Humans who can't reason are not fully human? What are they if not humans then?
If you could at least give a comprehensive definition of what a human is, I could answer you better. To me a human is a bipedal animal with significantly developed powers of reasoning relative to all other animals and the ability of linguistic communication. Anything that fails this definition is inhuman - at least technically. A neanderthal, for instance, is a hominid, but not a human.

No way that chimps should be give "human status". If you look along the lines of the evolution tree, they clearly have taken a different branch than humanoids. If we give them human status, then why not gorillas, orangutans, and heck, why not even yeti?:rolleyes:

If you could at least give a comprehensive definition of what a human is, I could answer you better. To me a human is a bipedal animal with significantly developed powers of reasoning relative to all other animals and the ability of linguistic communication. A neanderthal, for instance, is a hominid, but not a human.

So a human is what you outlined above, but also included in that group are individuals of the same species as those that fit your description. Thus, we can accept children and mentally disabled people as humans.

No. God made chimps different from man. Science is a load of crap, a big steamy pile of it.

Prove it. ;)

So a human is what you outlined above, but also included in that group are individuals of the same species as those that fit your description. Thus, we can accept children and mentally disabled people as humans.
Children will become fully-fledged humans anyway - I am not so concerned with pre-adolescent individuals. I am referring to people whose powers of reasoning are completely inhibited - formally I agree they are human, but they lack an essential distinguishing feature that other humans possess.

Prove it. ;)

It's in the bible.

Children will become fully-fledged humans anyway - I am not so concerned with pre-adolescent individuals. I am referring to people whose powers of reasoning are completely inhibited - formally I agree they are human, but they lack an essential distinguishing feature that other humans possess.

And thus, the argument becomes circular. I ask again; are mentally disabled people techincally non-human?

It's in the bible.

Which one?

Which one?

The one with the pretty blue cover?

And thus, the argument becomes circular. I ask again; are mentally disabled people techincally non-human?
No, just not fully human. I thought this would be clear by now. If, of course, the person lacks any power of thought, and is completely braindead, then by no means are they human - or even animal anymore. I go by "ego cogito ergo sum."

See? You did it again! That's how I read your post :p

Just as long as you're aware of it ;)

maybe since everyone knows i'm british, and that biscuits means cookies, i don't actually need the :rolleyes: :p

There is a reason they're called "chimps" and not "humans".

And that's because:

they're not human

Human rights are exactly that: the rights of humans. Not chimps, or anything else you might want to class as intelligent.

Gene percentages count for squat. What is it, 13% of our DNA we share with a banana? Hell, lets give them human rights, too! [/sarcasm]

And thus, the argument becomes circular. I ask again; are mentally disabled people techincally non-human?

Well, I hear some of them are vegitables....:p

bad joke.. i know :P

Gene percentages count for squat. What is it, 13% of our DNA we share with a banana? Hell, lets give them human rights, too! [/sarcasm]
50% I believe.

No, just not fully human. I thought this would be clear by now. If, of course, the person lacks any power of thought, and is completely braindead, then by no means are they human - or even animal anymore. I go by "ego cogito ergo sum."

how are they not fully human? Are they not HSS? Were they not born of HSS parents?

how are they now fully human? Are they not HSS? Were they not born of HSS parents?
They do not possess all the traits of a fully-fledged human. By implication, they are not fully human. This is the distinction between formal and full humanhood.

They do not possess all the traits of a fully-fledged human. By implication, they are not fully human. This is the distinction between formal and full humanhood.

I cut your arms off, thus you don't have the traits of a "normal" human, thus you are no longer human?

And they still possess the traits. They have it locked away somewhere in their brain, however, due to complications in formation, they are not able to develop them.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think.

chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, dolphins, whales, parrots, etc are all able to reason. and a huge swath of life on earth have lives that are guided to some extent by learned behavior rather than pure instinct, and must therefore be capable of thought on some level.

chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, dolphins, whales, parrots, etc are all able to reason. and a huge swath of life on earth have lives that are guided to some extent by learned behavior rather than pure instinct, and must therefore be capable of thought on some level.
Prove that they are able to reason on the same level as humans then. I never said we are not animals - we are a distinct form of one though.

I cut your arms off, thus you don't have the traits of a "normal" human, thus you are no longer human?
I don't see how this would hinder meaningful interaction with other humans though. Not being able to think/reason, on the other hand, would.

And they still possess the traits. They have it locked away somewhere in their brain, however, due to complications in formation, they are not able to develop them.
Perhaps. To the extent that these do not develop however they might as well not exist.

Prove that they are able to reason on the same level as humans then. I never said we are not animals - we are a distinct form of one though.

all animals species are distinct from others - it's kind of the point. what of it? what do you think follows from this?

I don't see how this would hinder meaningful interaction with other humans though. Not being able to think/reason, on the other hand, would.

What about acquired brain damage? One minute, you have a fully functioning human, a few whacks with a lead pipe later you have something less than human?

I don't see how this would hinder meaningful interaction with other humans though. Not being able to think/reason, on the other hand, would.

so taking a nap removes your humanity? being in a coma? being on certain drugs?

all animals species are distinct from others - it's kind of the point. what of it? what do you think follows from this?
Then perhaps the question should be whether a being that cannot think and reason is an animal at all, given that this is their defining trait (although to a much greater extent in humans).

I don't see how this would hinder meaningful interaction with other humans though. Not being able to think/reason, on the other hand, would.
Because then you wouldn't have opposable thumbs, thus you'd no longer be of any of the great apes. So i am guessing using your logic of not having human traits, those people without arms or legs, are just unintelligent animals.:rolleyes:


Perhaps. To the extent that these do not develop however they might as well not exist.
BUT, they still have them, no? Thus, they have human traits, albeit undeveloped.

What about acquired brain damage? One minute, you have a fully functioning human, a few whacks with a lead pipe later you have something less than human?
Depends on the extent of the brain damage. If it's fully destructive, you are more or less right.

so taking a nap removes your humanity? being in a coma? being on certain drugs?
Insofar as these are not permanent conditions, no.

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

Since chimps are not human, that they could be given human status is ridiculous.

Since chimps are not human, that they could be given human status is ridiculous.

were neandertals alive today, would they merit personhood?
how about erectus?
habilis?
the various pithicines?

Because then you wouldn't have opposable thumbs, thus you'd no longer be of any of the great apes. So i am guessing using your logic of not having human traits, those people without arms or legs, are just unintelligent animals.:rolleyes:
As long as this doesn't affect intelligence, this isn't the case, so I don't see why.

BUT, they still have them, no? Thus, they have human traits, albeit undeveloped.
So then, depending on the extent, they are either equiparable to infantile humans or non-animals? Because I am not sure I can even consider an unthinking creature as an animal - it is merely alive, akin to a plant.

I would just like to say these AREN'T my views. I'm just the messenger.......please don't shoot me!

Maybe we should ask them if they want rights before we hand them out.
I personally think chimps could care less if they had freedom of speech or any other human rights...

were neandertals alive today, would they merit personhood?
how about erectus?
habilis?
the various pithicines?

Neanderthals I'd say yes, perhaps even Erectus. I'm not too sure about habilis...id prolly say yes to that...but the Australopitecines were on another branch other than the human one, right?

No they shouldn't

No, just not fully human. I thought this would be clear by now. If, of course, the person lacks any power of thought, and is completely braindead, then by no means are they human - or even animal anymore. I go by "ego cogito ergo sum."
So a braindead person, a living, breathing organism, would not be human or animal?

I think I must disagree with your definition of "human"
maybe since everyone knows i'm british, and that biscuits means cookies, i don't actually need the :rolleyes: :p
Now your posts seem much happier :)
Since chimps are not human, that they could be given human status is ridiculous.
I agree. Human rights are for human beings :)

Neanderthals I'd say yes, perhaps even Erectus. I'm not too sure about habilis...id prolly say yes to that...but the Australopitecines were on another branch other than the human one, right?

at least one branch of the various pithkies contains your nth great grandpa

So a braindead person, a living, breathing organism, would not be human or animal?

I think I must disagree with your definition of "human"
We can agree to disagree if you like. :) I am not trying to convince anyone, nor have I been convinced though.

Just as a sidenote: formally, such a creature would be human or animal - for all practical intents though, how different is it to a plant?

at least one branch of the various pithkies contains your nth great grandpa
The hominids were on the way to becoming fully human, but were they themselves human? I think not. They were species in and of themselves.

were neandertals alive today, would they merit personhood?
how about erectus?
habilis?
the various pithicines?

It doesn't really matter. Chimps are not humans, and do not deserve the same rights as humans.

Duh, why they are called human rights?

The hominids were on the way to becoming fully human, but were they themselves human? I think not. They were species in and of themselves.

so only homo sapiens are people?

so only homo sapiens are people?
Only homo sapiens are human... Is that not what human rights are for? Humans? Animals are given animal rights, hominids would be given rights according to their species.

I really can't believe some of you people - arguing for human rights for creatures that are not even formally human, and that don't even exist anymore. :)

so only homo sapiens are people?

Yes. Humanity is a philosophical concept developed by homo sapiens to apply to members of their own species.

Yes. Humanity is a philosophical concept developed by homo sapiens to apply to members of their own species.

then why do they insist on calling a whole host of other species "____ man"/homo whateverus. seems to me that we already have applied humanness to non-homo sapiens based on their level of similarity.

then why do they insist on calling a whole host of other species "____ man"/homo whateverus. seems to me that we already have applied humanness to non-homo sapiens based on their level of similarity.
Humanoid =/ human. They represent species on the gradual path to hominisation, but are not fully human as in homo sapiens.

then why do they insist on calling a whole host of other species "____ man"/homo whateverus. seems to me that we already have applied humanness to non-homo sapiens based on their level of similarity.

Because they are our genetic ancestors with sufficient similarity to us to merit the classification as part of humankind. Even so, that is a scientific classification rather than a philosophical or cultural one; it's the philosophical notion of humanity that matters when it comes to human rights.

However, modern-day chimps are a totally different species than us; we branched off from our common ancestor a long time ago and now we have evolved along entirely different paths.

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm


No.

Because they are our genetic ancestors with sufficient similarity to us to merit the classification as part of humankind. Even so, that is a scientific classification rather than a philosophical or cultural one; it's the philosophical notion of humanity that matters when it comes to human rights.

However, modern-day chimps are a totally different species than us; we branched off from our common ancestor a long time ago and now we have evolved along entirely different paths.
Essentially yes. They are partially, but not wholly, hominised.

When a chimp is able to debate Plato with me, then, and only then, maybe it could be given human status. Until then, they are animals.

Maybe they COULD debate Plato with you, but like everyone else with a life, they prefer not to.

Yea, did you ever think of that?

Maybe they COULD debate Plato with you, but like everyone else with a life, they prefer not to.

Yea, did you ever think of that?
Yep, a damn good life throwing turd at each other. I mean, with that, who the hell needs Plato? :)

Only homo sapiens are human... Is that not what human rights are for? Humans? Animals are given animal rights, hominids would be given rights according to their species.

I really can't believe some of you people - arguing for human rights for creatures that are not even formally human, and that don't even exist anymore. :)

LOL!!!!

EM takes the thread.

That's why I don't like General as much any more. Arguing rights for extinct species is so typical of these forums.

Yep, a damn good life throwing turd at each other. I mean, with that, who the hell needs Plato? :)

ROFL
Hey, we'd do it to if it weren't for health regulations. Teacher pissing you off? Splat. No arguing. And God forbid you have the runs.

ROFL
Hey, we'd do it to if it weren't for health regulations. Teacher pissing you off? Splat. No arguing. And God forbid you have the runs.

Of course! *Pops a squat, grabs feces*


Haha! *Tosses it at Surf Shack* ;)

That's why I don't like General as much any more. Arguing rights for extinct species is so typical of these forums.
It's typical of society in general. It'd make me laugh, were it not so sad.

Chimps can't have dicussions on whether to give rights to other species.

It'd typical of society in general. It makes me laugh, were it not so sad.

I'm guessing that he was one of the dudes who said the Animals needed Gas Masks after 9/11....

Because they are our genetic ancestors with sufficient similarity to us to merit the classification as part of humankind. Even so, that is a scientific classification rather than a philosophical or cultural one; it's the philosophical notion of humanity that matters when it comes to human rights.

of course, cultural classifications have had a nasty streak of ruling out the homo sapiens living just over there from counting, thanks to an evolutionarily shared xenophobia.

as for philosophical notions, it seems to me that all of the historically proposed ones have been rather severely undermined by scientific knowledge, and many of the attempted fixes for them require us rule out certain classes of homo sapiens. so consider my questioning a method of clarifying the concept.

However, modern-day chimps are a totally different species than us; we branched off from our common ancestor a long time ago and now we have evolved along entirely different paths.

but that may not rule them out for personhood. not by itself.

Humanoid =/ human.

of course not. humanoid includes anything with a body plan similar in some way to that of humans, including fictional bipedal races. the members of the genus homo are more than humanoid. i don't really see a way that you could call them anything other than human.

They represent species on the gradual path to hominisation

what path?

of course not. humanoid includes anything with a body plan similar in some way to that of humans, including fictional bipedal races. the members of the genus homo are more than humanoid. i don't really see a way that you could call them anything other than human.
How are they more than humanoid? They are definitely not human. That is for sure.

what path?
The evolutionary one.

How are they more than humanoid?

because that covers things that are not them, and things that aren't even related to them, and things that don't even exist. you wouldn't be satisfied if i said that humans are collections of atoms, would you?

taking a different way, are both of these things gorillas?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg/200px-LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Bristol.zoo.western.lowland.gorilla.arp.jpg/250px-Bristol.zoo.western.lowland.gorilla.arp.jpg


The evolutionary one.

their evolutionary path just went to extinction

Humans have to be given status? ... :eek:

because that covers things that are not them, and things that aren't even related to them, and things that don't even exist.
Perhaps, but they are not human. They are something of their own.


taking it a different way, are both of these things gorillas?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg/200px-LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Bristol.zoo.western.lowland.gorilla.arp.jpg/250px-Bristol.zoo.western.lowland.gorilla.arp.jpg

They seem to be. Variations within species are not uncommon though. Like with cats, in which case we have breeds (or pedigrees or races, depending on language) of cat. However, a lynx is its own subspecies of feline.

their evolutionary path just went to extinction
Well duh. They were evolving into species in their own right.

They seem to be. Variations within species are not uncommon though.

they are more genetically distinct than homo sapiens and neandertals

they are more genetically distinct than homo sapiens and neandertals
Take a Siamese to a Russian blue. Or a lynx to a household cat. Are they that genetically distinct? In the first case we are talking about the so-called pedigrees (or "race of cat), in the second subspecies of feline (greater genetic distinction here). Likewise, Neanderthals and the like would be a humanoid subspecies, but not human.

Neanderthals and the like would be a humanoid subspecies, but not human.

so it isn't even homo sapiensness that provides humanity? what with neandertals being homo sapiens too and all...

so it isn't even homo sapiensness that provides humanity? what with neandertals being homo sapiens too and all...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm If you insist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

They are not homo sapiens. They are homo neanderthalensis.

We already did give it and we send them to congress .

Wow... *blinks a few times* Wow...

I was going to say something about the distinction homo sapien referring to thinking human beings, but in a thread as absurd as this one I can't help but feel the point would be someone inconsistent.

Homo sapiens are the only surviving hominid, and we distinguish ourselves from the great apes by our abilities and the perpetuation of our genetic model. A homo sapien is made from the DNA of two homo sapiens (not homo neanderthalensis or homo habalis and certainly not pan troglodytes) and will in turn contribute half the genetic material for another homo sapien. Anything that arises from two human beings is a human being. Every human being has the potential* to display certain traits in common with their species. Specifically: bipedal stance and gait, highly developed cerebral cortex and excessive association areas allowing for perceptual awareness, precise voluntary muscle movement, consciousness, thought, reasoning, language, and memory, the ability to make and use complex tools, recognize symbols, etc, etc, etc.......

*Potential is an important distinction to make because, for instance, if your mother soaks your developing fetus in alcohol and you end up deformed and retarded, you are still human. You simply will not develop to the full potential of your original genetic characteristics. Similarly, if your legs are amputated, it doesn't make you any less human because the potential was there, but the ability was removed.

If you are having a hard time grasping any of this, I suggest a little less marijuana and a little more high school biology.

Their genes are beside the point. If (hypothetically, I know this is impossible) there was a species with 100% human DNA that still could not act due to not having human brains they would still not be people. In other words, if you want to argue that somebody is a person you have to look at their behaviour.

In the matters of the chimp, they are rather strikingly similar to us. They can develop vices (smoking and drinking), they have the capacity to lie, they are self-aware, the practice rudimentary politics, they have a social order, they make and use tools, there is even one instance of an observed war with objectives.

When a chimp is able to debate Plato with me, then, and only then, maybe it could be given human status. Until then, they are animals.

Probably 3/4's of the world can't do that so are they all animals?

Chimps are given human status. One was elected President in 2004, after all! :D

Any human can if they read up on him - how well they could is another matter entirely.

Reading and understanding are two different things. I have relatives that just don't get philosophy.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.

Problem solving involves reasoning and thinking.

Having a quasi political structure involves reasoning and thinking.

Guess what chimps do....

Agreed. I think all this intellectualising over something so trivial is a waste of time. As long as these animals receive self-ownership rights, their status is protected. It is hypocritical of us though to raise chickens to be slaughtered, but desire dolphins to be protected. Highly hypocritical.

Domesticated animals is nothing more then a strawman in this argument.

Indeed. It just puzzles me how we treat certain animals differently to others. Dogs, for instance, are not under threat of extinction - and many would consider it immoral to harm one. On the other hand, these same people have no problem eating a cow. I'm one of them unfortunately.

Again the question of a domesticated species is not valid.

If you could at least give a comprehensive definition of what a human is, I could answer you better. To me a human is a bipedal animal with significantly developed powers of reasoning relative to all other animals and the ability of linguistic communication. Anything that fails this definition is inhuman - at least technically. A neanderthal, for instance, is a hominid, but not a human.

Because we don't understand what they are saying, they don't have a communication system?

No way that chimps should be give "human status". If you look along the lines of the evolution tree, they clearly have taken a different branch than humanoids. If we give them human status, then why not gorillas, orangutans, and heck, why not even yeti?:rolleyes:

Why not something like prohuman in the way we labeled the prosimians?

Children will become fully-fledged humans anyway - I am not so concerned with pre-adolescent individuals. I am referring to people whose powers of reasoning are completely inhibited - formally I agree they are human, but they lack an essential distinguishing feature that other humans possess.

You need to define "powers of reasoning"

And thus, the argument becomes circular. I ask again; are mentally disabled people techincally non-human?

Ah! You finally "reasoned" that one? ;) I guess you meet his guidlines for being a human. :)

Prove that they are able to reason on the same level as humans then. I never said we are not animals - we are a distinct form of one though.

Why don't you give the scale then.

I don't see how this would hinder meaningful interaction with other humans though. Not being able to think/reason, on the other hand, would.

Much as you try to discount it; many species think and reason.

Perhaps. To the extent that these do not develop however they might as well not exist.

Somehow I edited this part out?

Anyway.

We don't even understand the layout of our own brains so to cast what is of value to theirs is rather ignorant.

Since chimps are not human, that they could be given human status is ridiculous.

To declare them homo sapian sure. That's obvious.

There are some that argue they should move to the genus homo.

Why don't you give the scale then.

Much as you try to discount it; many species think and reason.
To the same extent as humans? I need proof of this. I never said they cannot think and reason - sure they can, on an instinctual level. To the level that they are able to create sophisticated civilisations, I think not.


Because we don't understand what they are saying, they don't have a communication system?
According to scientific evidence available, nowhere near as sophisticated as ours. I need proof to be convinced otherwise.

Domesticated animals is nothing more then a strawman in this argument.
How so? Why is it not okay to hurt or hunt dolphins but it is to breed chickens for slaughter? Ignore the rarity of the species in this argument. Simply explain the double standard.

Somehow I edited this part out?

Anyway.

We don't even understand the layout of our own brains so to cast what is of value to theirs is rather ignorant.
So, if you're not able to speak (and let's say, think), you somehow still are able to?

So then, depending on the extent, they are either equiparable to infantile humans or non-animals? Because I am not sure I can even consider an unthinking creature as an animal - it is merely alive, akin to a plant.

You have never read anything about chimps have you?

You have never read anything about chimps have you?
According to what you've posted, they are more intelligent than such individuals. What is your point?

It's typical of society in general. It'd make me laugh, were it not so sad.

Kind of like arguing against something you don't even understand(primates).

You need to define "powers of reasoning"
Reason
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

Reasoning
1. the act or process of a person who reasons.
2. the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
3. the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.

There.

Chimps are given human status. One was elected President in 2004, after all! :D

Don't be insulting chimps! :p

Kind of like arguing against something you don't even understand(primates).
I'm arguing against them, am I? They are not human, and therefore cannot be accorded human rights. Rights for their protection, sure.

To the same extent as humans? I need proof of this. I never said they cannot think and reason - sure they can, on an instinctual level. To the level that they are able to create sophisticated civilisations, I think not.


Give me your scale and we can proceed. Can't offer anything if you have a standard you aren't defining for us.


According to scientific evidence available, nowhere near as sophisticated as ours. I need proof to be convinced otherwise.

If you define they have to communicate like a human well sure. Whales can communicate over several miles. Can you without the help of equipment?


How so? Why is it not okay to hurt or hunt dolphins but it is to breed chickens for slaughter? Ignore the rarity of the species in this argument. Simply explain the double standard.

It's a strawman and you know it.


So, if you're not able to speak (and let's say, think), you somehow still are able to?
Yes. You do know there are Chimps that know ASL right?

Probably 3/4's of the world can't do that so are they all animals?
Errmmm, what is so difficult about Plato?

Give me your scale and we can proceed. Can't offer anything if you have a standard you aren't defining for us.
The ability to write, for instance. Or to create sturdy architecture. Or to use tools to plow fields. Would you, for example, say that animals could reason and think to the extent to be able to create an ancient Greek like civilisation?

If you define they have to communicate like a human well sure. Whales can communicate over several miles. Can you without the help of equipment?
Is it basic communication though or communication as we know it?

It's a strawman and you know it.

Why not just answer the question?

Yes. You do know there are Chimps that know ASL right?
How is this related to humans who have lost or never even developed their ability to communicate and/or think?

There.

I was curious to what you post.

1. Chimps have motives and make decesions.
2. Stated declarations are not the only way understand the outcome.
3. Chimps are always jocking for the alpha position, forming alliances make logical sense since simple brute strength will not achieve this goal.
4. They problem solve.
5. Subjective.
6. Dr. Goodall observed a case of "depression" where a young chimp gave up eating.
7. Logic? as in philosophy?

I was curious to what you post.

1. Chimps have motives and make decesions.
2. Stated declarations are not the only way understand the outcome.
3. Chimps are always jocking for the alpha position, forming alliances make logical sense since simple brute strength will not achieve this goal.
4. They problem solve.
5. Subjective.
6. Dr. Goodall observed a case of "depression" where a young chimp gave up eating.
7. Logic? as in philosophy?
Why do you keep on bringing up chimps? They may be ahead of other animals (or at least we may think so). Still not to the extent of being human though.

For 6., that could be a post hoc fallacy. There is no reason to simply assume that the chimp gave up eating due to depression. I have no doubt that emotional states occur in animals though, they certainly seem to in felines.

For 7., from the description given, it would seem so.

The ability to write, for instance.
Writing is something humans needed to do. Chimps can't because their hand structure don't allow for formal writing.

However, Kanzi the bonobo was taught a series of pictograms from communication needs and has gone about creating his own sequences for new things.


Or to create sturdy architecture.


Ever see a chimp nest? The young learn to build a proper nest. It was noted it was built strong enough for a human to use it.


Or to use tools to plow fields.

For one thing, they don't have a need to plow fields. Their tool use is well documented so I don't need to bring it up.


Would you, for example, say that animals could reason and think to the extent to be able to create an ancient Greek like civilisation?

I think therefore I am. Pretty well defines selfwarness.

The dot tests showed chimps are self aware and mirrors in fact show they are rather vain.


Is it basic communication though or communication as we know it?

You know we can't answer that. We know they do it so we can't dismiss until somebody figures out "whale speak"

Why not just answer the question?
Don't need to. You sought to dismiss arguements by declaring them a double-standard and I am dismissing this arguement as what it is a straw-man.

How is this related to humans who have lost or never even developed their ability to communicate and/or think?
The very fact you declare them as not thinking and can't communicate.

Now consider the fact that Washo was observed teaching her son ASL? To the point where she was form his hand for words.

Writing is something humans needed to do. Chimps can't because their hand structure don't allow for formal writing.

However, Kanzi the bonobo was taught a series of pictograms from communication needs and has gone about creating his own sequences for new things.

Ever see a chimp nest? The young learn to build a proper nest. It was noted it was built strong enough for a human to use it.

For one thing, they don't have a need to plow fields. Their tool use is well documented so I don't need to bring it up.
Even primitive humans could do these things, if not better. That our reasoning and communication abilities have evolved is undeniable. Unless of course you don't consider them as having improved, but merely as having changed.


I think therefore I am. Pretty well defines selfwarness.

The dot tests showed chimps are self aware and mirrors in fact show they are rather vain.

Well duh. The relevance of this to actually creating a culture on par with that of the ancient Greeks?


You know we can't answer that. We know they do it so we can't dismiss until somebody figures out "whale speak"
We can neither prove nor disprove it for now, yes. So until then this is up in the air.


Don't need to. You sought to dismiss arguements by declaring them a double-standard and I am dismissing this arguement as what it is a straw-man.
I am asking out of genuine curiosity how it is possible to maintain such a double standard - either answer it or admit that you cannot.


The very fact you declare them as not thinking and can't communicate.

Now consider the fact that Washo was observed teaching her son ASL? To the point where she was form his hand for words.
Again, I ask for the relevance of this in humans who are not capable of thinking/communicating. Potential ability does not equal actual ability. Chimps are irrelevant to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm If you insist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

They are not homo sapiens. They are homo neanderthalensis.

bah, i've seen articles quite recently using them as a subspecies. in any case, we're both descended from some group of what are collectively called archaic homo sapiens.

stupid splitters and lumpers arguments...

Why do you keep on bringing up chimps? They may be ahead of other animals (or at least we may think so). Still not to the extent of being human though.


*blinks*

Ah? "Should chimps be given human status" is the title right?


For 6., that could be a post hoc fallacy. There is no reason to simply assume that the chimp gave up eating due to depression. I have no doubt that emotional states occur in animals though, they certainly seem to in felines.

Could be. But as she is renowned and has the longest continous study every. She does carry rather heavy weight. They did an autopsy to rule out sickness and depression has been observed in other instances. A mother carrying her dead offspring for several days wailing. She eventually left it and visited it several times.


For 7., from the description given, it would seem so.

Well? Question of need. Not everyone places value in Plato! (shocking i know ;) )

But from looking at them from an anthropomorphical stance you can't apply human philosophy to them.

*blinks*

Ah? "Should chimps be given human status" is the title right?
I assume you didn't even bother to read what I was arguing then? I only made mention of chimps a couple of times then moved on to entirely different debates.


Could be. But as she is renowned and has the longest continous study every. She does carry rather heavy weight. They did an autopsy to rule out sickness and depression has been observed in other instances. A mother carrying her dead offspring for several days wailing. She eventually left it and visited it several times.
As I said, I don't doubt emotionality in animals.


Well? Question of need. Not everyone places value in Plato! (shocking i know ;) )

But from looking at them from an anthropomorphical stance you can't apply human philosophy to them.
Hence philosophy is a specific evolution of human reasoning, wouldn't you say?

The ability to write, for instance. Or to create sturdy architecture. Or to use tools to plow fields. Would you, for example, say that animals could reason and think to the extent to be able to create an ancient Greek like civilisation?

fully modern homo sapiens first showed up about 200,000 bp.
writing, plows, etc first showed up more like 7,000 bp and later. clearly not vital to humanness

bah, i've seen articles quite recently using them as a subspecies. in any case, we're both descended from some group of what are collectively called archaic homo sapiens.

stupid splitters and lumpers arguments...
In reality, I couldn't care less what genus they belong to - they are extinct. Whether or not they were human is irrelevant now, so arguing over it is really a waste of time for all but those devoted to anthropology.

fully modern homo sapiens first showed up about 200,000 bp.
writing, plows, etc first showed up more like 7,000 bp and later. clearly not vital to humanness
And I never said they were - I said they had evolved among humans though.

Even primitive humans could do these things, if not better. That our reasoning and communication abilities have evolved is undeniable. Unless of course you don't consider them as having improved, but merely as having changed.

Again Washo. Before her(and others) there was no understanding of ASL. She tries to pass it to her young. That's a rather drastic improvement of language skills.

Well duh. The relevance of this to actually creating a culture on par with that of the ancient Greeks?

Subjective measurement.

In chimp culture, you don't see them screwing each other for a percentage.

We can neither prove nor disprove it for now, yes. So until then this is up in the air.

The fact we know it exists kind of makes it lean towards one side. It's more about disproving it now.

I am asking out of genuine curiosity how it is possible to maintain such a double standard - either answer it or admit that you cannot.

It's a topic for another thread since it only serves to distract from the topic at hand.

The fact I don't feel I need to answer it does not prove I can't.

Again, I ask for the relevance of this in humans who are not capable of thinking/communicating. Potential ability does not equal actual ability. Chimps are irrelevant to this.

What part of a human created method of communication being learned by a chimp who inturn is teaching it to her young don't you understand?

In reality, I couldn't care less what genus they belong to - they are extinct. Whether or not they were human is irrelevant now, so arguing over it is really a waste of time for all but those devoted to anthropology.

:D

I am sure the world of science would be stunned to learn this.

You obviously haven't studied it or primates.

Again Washo. Before her(and others) there was no understanding of ASL. She tries to pass it to her young. That's a rather drastic improvement of language skills.
Perhaps so. It is essentially due to human intervention though, isn't it?


The fact I don't feel I need to answer it does not prove I can't.
Then why did you even make mention of it? Why not just leave it to someone who is willing to either answer it or admit they cannot?


What part of a human created method of communication being learned by a chimp who inturn is teaching it to her young don't you understand?
:confused: What part of this being linked to an entirely different argument don't you understand? This has nothing to do with chimps.

:D

I am sure the world of science would be stunned to learn this.

You obviously haven't studied it or primates.
Ermm, all I was saying is that it's pretty much a moot discussion for all but those who study the matter. So why be superfluous about it?

Whether or not they were human is irrelevant now

and the relevance is trying to get at a clear notion of what personhood is and also how you should handle moral consideration for species that are like us in important respects.

Humanity is a term for member of the homo genus, nothing more. Until scientists decide to move Chimps into that genus, they are not human.

and the relevance is trying to get at a clear notion of what personhood is and also how you should handle moral consideration for species that are like us in important respects.
What does it matter if the species in consideration are extinct? Unless of course you have a specific interest in them.

Humanity is a term for member of the homo genus, nothing more. Until scientists decide to move Chimps into that genus, they are not human.
Yep - it would be kinda funny if we decided to include creatures like dolphins as humans too. ^^

Humanity is a term for member of the homo genus, nothing more. Until scientists decide to move Chimps into that genus, they are not human.

That's what the argument is about. Do they belong in the genus homo. They can't be human since human is a species and the chimp is a different species.

This topic is stupid. Chimps are in no way act like humans. They act like animals, and we do too. We all masturbate, we all eat. But we don't throw shit, we don't go AH AH AH AH AH AH AH. However some chimps do act more civilized than some black people I know.

Ah! You finally "reasoned" that one? ;) I guess you meet his guidlines for being a human. :)

I don't like his guildlines. I tend to think that the mentally disabled are people too.

Perhaps so. It is essentially due to human intervention though, isn't it?

But the capability had to exist in the chimps to begin with for it to happen.

:confused: What part of this being linked to an entirely different argument don't you understand? This has nothing to do with chimps.

But that's the point; chimps are exactly what this argument is about.

That's what the argument is about. Do they belong in the genus homo. They can't be human since human is a species and the chimp is a different species.
Then why does it matter? And what's all this talk of rights? Genetics do not grant rights.

Cultures that eat chimps might not like you anymore.

Perhaps so. It is essentially due to human intervention though, isn't it?

Humans trade knowledge. Chimps trade knowledge. :eek:

Then why did you even make mention of it? Why not just leave it to someone who is willing to either answer it or admit they cannot?

Because your comment sought only to distract the topic at hand.


:confused: What part of this being linked to an entirely different argument don't you understand? This has nothing to do with chimps.

Guess we will have to drop it then.

This topic is stupid. Chimps are in no way act like humans. They act like animals, and we do too. We all masturbate, we all eat. But we don't throw shit, we don't go AH AH AH AH AH AH AH. However some chimps do act more civilized than some black people I know.

you're not going to last long.

But the capability had to exist in the chimps to begin with for it to happen.
I don't deny this.


But that's the point; chimps are exactly what this argument is about.
Of course, I was referring to an off-topic argument. So to bring it up with regard to the OP is idiotic.

Cultures that eat chimps might not like you anymore.

Hmmm I wonder where AIDS came from?

This topic is stupid. Chimps are in no way act like humans. They act like animals, and we do too. We all masturbate, we all eat. But we don't throw shit, we don't go AH AH AH AH AH AH AH. However some chimps do act more civilized than some black people I know.

Most chimps act more civilised then most people I know.

Because your comment sought only to distract the topic at hand.

It sought to do nothing of the sort - you are now assuming what my intentions are. It was something I'd like to see answered. Now if no one is able to answer me, fine. No one sticks to the OP with strict rigidity here.

That's what the argument is about. Do they belong in the genus homo. They can't be human since human is a species and the chimp is a different species.
Good, then you admit that calling any rights given to chimps human rights would be simply incorrect? If we give them rights, they may be animal rights, they may be whatever else we arbitrarily decide to call them.

Of course, I was referring to an off-topic argument. So to bring it up with regard to the OP is idiotic.

I fail to see how. Unless you're arguing about something completely irrelevent to the OP, in which case, you should be in another thread.

Hmmm I wonder where AIDS came from?


Eating Chimp brains then having unprotected anal sex ? Some pilot dudes or flight attendents...when they did the study to trace the origions from Africa...they didnt mention eating any chimp brains ...maybe they just buggered a few ?


Could have been homo chimps and if they were really smart they could be genius homo chimps .

We have homo sapiens so why not homo chimps ?

I fail to see how. Unless you're arguing about something completely irrelevent to the OP, in which case, you should be in another thread.
Erm, like other topics on NSG don't shift off-topic? Now you are being pedantic. It was actually completely irrelevant to the OP as it was more of an obiter statement to begin with.

Animals, even ones genetically close to humans, cannot be granted human rights status.
While I am all for the preservation of species due to threat of extinction, human beings by and large are so superior to monkeys in their abilities to reason, create, build, destroy, wage war, etc that it would be an insult to chimps and their instinctive nature for self-preservation to align them with human beings.

Making chimps and bonobos human is a political move rather than scientific or logical move. Once Spain completelyadopts this position the EU will as well I reckon. It is only a matter of time.

Then why does it matter? And what's all this talk of rights? Genetics do not grant rights.

Well there different opinions on the matter. Even in the level of rights.

There are those that view them as our cousins and should be welcomed into the family of man.

There are those that view if they were included into the family of homo then maybe human rights would come into play. Rights such as slavery(ie performing chimps), unlawful imprisionment (ie zoos), and even land rights.

It's an interesting arugment to say the least.

However, by the time it ever gets solved, they will most likely be extinct in the wild.

Making chimps and bonobos human is a political move rather than scientific or logical move. Once Spain completelyadopts this position the EU will as well I reckon. It is only a matter of time.

You saying the demos and repubs wouldn't do it if they could figure out away to control their votes? :p

So a human is what you outlined above, but also included in that group are individuals of the same species as those that fit your description. Thus, we can accept children and mentally disabled people as humans.


Well put darkness,I am inclined to agree with you to a certain point.Chimps do share alot of our DNA there is however there behaviour and that small percentage of DNA that separates us from them.Im against cruelty to animals and I can understand were there coming from on this but chimps cannot be given human status because they are simply non-human.

Most chimps act more civilised then most people I know.

I haven't had humans toss crap at me....yet. ;)

Making chimps and bonobos human is a political move rather than scientific or logical move. Once Spain completelyadopts this position the EU will as well I reckon. It is only a matter of time.


If they Vote the democrats are all for it . So the US will follow.

I haven't had humans toss crap at me....yet. ;)


If you look in the personal adds you can find someone who will .

some make you pay though .

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

Well, although I agree that the similarities between chimps and humans are quite extraordinary, and that Chimps are extremely intelligent, even capable of language develpment and abstract thought, they are not human. Also, that 0.5-0.1(It varies from test to test)% genetic difference, although extremely close, is also extremely important in our differences. They are not human, not a human ancestor, and are actually somewhat distant relatives to us(Think second or third cousins-we have them, but we are not directly related to one another in recent history). There is about 6 million years(about the time we diverged from the common ancestor we have with chimps) of difference between us and apes. They should definately be protected, of course, but that is largely due to their protected, and near-endangered, status.

And the question must be asked: Say if you kill a chimp, you are tried for murder. But if a chimp kills a chimp? Or a human? You cannot try them, as they have no understanding of law what-so-ever(They have "rules", which they may punish individuals of a certain troop for "breaking", to ensure the ultimate survival of the troop, but they do not have set laws and a code of punishment in the legal sense).

Basically, you cannot protect non-humans with laws meant to protect humans. You can protect them with laws to protect other animals, but it is illogical and a bit to extreme to to prescribe apes to human laws.

Good, then you admit that calling any rights given to chimps human rights would be simply incorrect? If we give them rights, they may be animal rights, they may be whatever else we arbitrarily decide to call them.

It's against the law to murder a human and it's against to the law to murder a dog. How are they different?

If they Vote the democrats are all for it . So the US will follow.

I doubt that they will be given the vote. Just the right to not be caged.

If you look in the personal adds you can find someone who will .

some make you pay though .

:D

It's against the law to murder a human and it's against to the law to murder a dog. How are they different?
This is what I am getting to - my question is why are some animals more special than others? Why do we deem it alright to kill a cow, but not a dog (I'll leave humans out of this)?

just because they aren't human doesnt mean they aren't intellegent. Human Status doesn't mean anything.

This is what I am getting to - my question is why are some animals more special than others? Why do we deem it alright to kill a cow, but not a dog (I'll leave humans out of this)?


Huge assumption buddy...they eat dogs in some south Philadelphia homes...Korean... I believe.... and in Mexico are not those little ankle biters like chicken ?

different cultures like you find in places like the US have different Ideas on what to consider food .


Like jellied eel ....tripe....pigs feet...chicken feet...worms....dogs,,,,pigeons...

etc..........

This is what I am getting to - my question is why are some animals more special than others? Why do we deem it alright to kill a cow, but not a dog (I'll leave humans out of this)?

It is alright to kill dogs in some instances and it is illegal to kill cows in others. In no case is killing a dog or a cow murder.

Huge assumption buddy...they eat dogs in some south Philadelphia homes...Korean... I believe.... and in Mexico are not those little ankle biters like chicken ?

different cultures like you find in places like the US have different Ideas on what to consider food .


Like jellied eel ....tripe....pigs feet...chicken feet...worms....dogs,,,,pigeons...

etc..........
Yes, of course. My question is why do we only see some animals as worthy of protection, and others as food material? It baffles me.

It is alright to kill dogs in some instances and it is illegal to kill cows in others. In no case is killing a dog or a cow murder.
No, indeed it isn't a murder. Read my response to Ultraextreme Sanity. Essentially, why do we harp on about killing those "poor" dolphins, yet have no qualms in eating a cow - and even breeding it for this purpose? Keep in mind I am not referring to those individuals who are committed to not eating meat at all - I am referring to the majority.

Cultures that eat chimps might not like you anymore.

Well, actually, it's kind of funny with cultures that eat chimps. Diseases that are rather benign in chimps can be spread through ingestion to humans, and become extremely malignant.

For instance, SIV(Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) can be spread to humans, which causes HIV(Human Immunodefiency Virus). Now, SIV rarely causes AIDS in primates, however when cross-contamination between species occur, the chance of AIDS is huge. Humans do not have the same resistances to SIV that primates do(as over time those primates with SIV resistances had a better chance of survival and passing on those resistant genes, whereas humans have not had much time to adapt resistance of HIV into the populations), and it can be extremely dangerous to ingest primate meat. These cultures should be informed greatly on the dangers of ingesting Chimpanzees, and other primates, and it might be a good idea to even outlaw the eating of many primates that have high chances of SIV, for the over all safety of the people.

It is alright to kill dogs in some instances and it is illegal to kill cows in others. In no case is killing a dog or a cow murder.

What is a major measurement of murder? Premeditation.

If you plan and kill a neighbors dog because it yaps too much.....

Yes, of course. My question is why do we only see some animals as worthy of protection, and others as food material? It baffles me.


Meh ...why do Hindus worship cows and starve to death ?


Culture religion and pragmatism .

We share something like 90% of our DNA with cabbages, so you can't really argue for rights for chimps on those grounds. Where do you draw the line?

No, indeed it isn't a murder. Read my response to Ultraextreme Sanity. Essentially, why do we harp on about killing those "poor" dolphins, yet have no qualms in eating a cow - and even breeding it for this purpose? Keep in mind I am not referring to those individuals who are committed to not eating meat at all - I am referring to the majority.

I dont harp on about killing dolphins. I dont harpoon about killing whales either.

It's against the law to murder a human and it's against to the law to murder a dog. How are they different?

Well, actually, there are subtle differences. First off, in most cases(Except killing a police dog, for example), the punishment is often vastly different. Killing a human can net you at least 20 years, up to life in prison, which is often indeterniment in span. For instance, 15-life refers to the possibility of parole at 15 years, but can span to the point you die. Rarely, however, are life imprisonments these days actually for the remainder of your life(barring repeat-offenders and obviously heinous crimes).

When one kills a dog, there is a possibility of prison time(which often is only a few years at most), or just a fine, depending on the nature of the crime(for instance, if the dog was killed in a cruel manner, the person is more apt to get prison than those who would shoot a dog, killing it instantly).

Second off, killing a dog is often considered property destruction. If a person kills another person's dog, it can be considered destruction of property depending on the circumstances(for instance, if you kill a dog that is attacking a person or yourself, you have very little chance of any punishment). As most of the time, destruction of property is a civil offense, it is not necessarily going to lead to jail time.

But, that's how I see it, in terms of the law.

What is a major measurement of murder? Premeditation.

If you plan and kill a neighbors dog because it yaps too much.....

It's not murder. The definition of murder, in the legal sense, applies solely to humans. It can be considered animal cruelty, and property destruction, but it is not murder.

Well, actually, it's kind of funny with cultures that eat chimps. Diseases that are rather benign in chimps can be spread through ingestion to humans, and become extremely malignant.

For instance, SIV(Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) can be spread to humans, which causes HIV(Human Immunodefiency Virus). Now, SIV rarely causes AIDS in primates, however when cross-contamination between species occur, the chance of AIDS is huge. Humans do not have the same resistances to SIV that primates do(as over time those primates with SIV resistances had a better chance of survival and passing on those resistant genes, whereas humans have not had much time to adapt resistance of HIV into the populations), and it can be extremely dangerous to ingest primate meat. These cultures should be informed greatly on the dangers of ingesting Chimpanzees, and other primates, and it might be a good idea to even outlaw the eating of many primates that have high chances of SIV, for the over all safety of the people.

Something I saw disturbing. I saw Jeff Corwin doing an interview and he mentioned Bushmeat was being imported to North America :eek:

Haven't validated it myself but jebbus!

It's not murder. The definition of murder, in the legal sense, applies solely to humans. It can be considered animal cruelty, and property destruction, but it is not murder.

Oh I know.

I think what the people are trying to change is giving them more of level then simply animal. Animals laws really don't discourgage espeically when people have Europas mentality of "hey it's just an animal"

That's the problem with Bushmeat. "Hey it's just an animal"

No, indeed it isn't a murder. Read my response to Ultraextreme Sanity. Essentially, why do we harp on about killing those "poor" dolphins, yet have no qualms in eating a cow - and even breeding it for this purpose? Keep in mind I am not referring to those individuals who are committed to not eating meat at all - I am referring to the majority.

Culture. There are many cultures which would have no qualms with eating a dolphin, and there are cultures in which eating certain animals that we eat extremely unsettling(Hindus and cows for example). American culture has definitions, not written or by mandate, but by cultural norms, of what is and isn't food.

I would have no problem eating a dolphins if the purpose arises(for instance if I need food). However, I would not normally for several reasons:

First, many species are reaching endangered status(and some are protected), and killing them for food when other types of food are bountiful is not a good idea for environmental concerns.
Second, they are not plentiful, thus it is difficult to attain meat from dolphins.
Third, there are no dolphins where I live(Minnesota).

Also, as far as cultural norms go, there are many types of food which Americans would never eat, which other cultures eat. Insects are a great source of protein and very abundant, however most Americans consider it a "disgusting" act to eat one, even though they have no more bacteria than on them than everything we eat(some even cleaner than other. Example-flies, which clean themselves CONSTANTLY). It's not so much that don't eat dolphins and eat cows because it is moral, it's that that moral of what is and isn't food is part of our cultural norm.

I'm not disputing what you said, I'm just explaining why it is like that.

Meh ...why do Hindus worship cows and starve to death ?


Culture religion and pragmatism .
Which proves one thing really - humans are more concerned about fluffy, cute animals in general or those on the brink of extinction than those they consume/regard as ugly. Shallowness ftw. ^^

Something I saw disturbing. I saw Jeff Corwin doing an interview and he mentioned Bushmeat was being imported to North America :eek:

Haven't validated it myself but jebbus!

That would incroach a number of international, safety, and trade laws, I would think. You should never, under almost all circumstances, eat an African primate(which is where SIV is most prevalent, as it does not exist at all in South America, and is not abundant in most of Asia). It is definately not safe to eat.

It's not so much that don't eat dolphins and eat cows because it is moral, it's that that moral of what is and isn't food is part of our cultural norm.

I'm not disputing what you said, I'm just explaining why it is like that.
It's a satisfactory answer. :) We could of course breed dolphins to eat them - I am not sure what the relative ease of this is though.

Which proves one thing really - humans are more concerned about fluffy, cute animals in general or those on the brink of extinction than those they consume/regard as ugly. Shallowness ftw. ^^

Not necessarily. Only those with a great deal of "luxuries" consider it such. In many parts of Asia, where the general populations is considered in poverty levels, cats and dogs are eaten rather regularily. Now, these countries do keep these animals as pets, and their pets are rarely used for consumption, and they do understand the difference between dogs which can be eaten and those which shouldn't(Pet dogs aren't eaten).

I wouldn't have any qualms with eating a dog as long as I knew it wasn't a pet. I'm not going to go out and "hunt" dogs, as I do rather like the animals, and food is plentiful. However, if I needed food, it wouldn't be any different to me than eating beef. Although from what I heard, dog meat is tough and stringy, and not to tasty.

Only those countries which can afford to base their diets on "cuteness" and such. Other countries which have food norms usually have them for other reasons, usually religious beliefs.

Only those countries which can afford to base their diets on "cuteness" and such. Other countries which have food norms usually have them for other reasons, usually religious beliefs.
I have Western cultures in mind. :) From what I've heard though, the reason felines (and especially cats) are not popular in Asian cuisine is because they taste bad. Perhaps an evolutionary feature of theirs to make sure they are not preyed upon?

Oh I know.

I think what the people are trying to change is giving them more of level then simply animal. Animals laws really don't discourgage espeically when people have Europas mentality of "hey it's just an animal"

That's the problem with Bushmeat. "Hey it's just an animal"

Well, the problem is, it's hard to apply laws which protect humans to animals, as the laws cannot work both ways. Most animals(with the exception of Humans) cannot understand the concept of the legal system, as even though most primates are capable of abstract thought, it is impossible to communicate the nuances of legality to animals, so an animal cannot be tried under the law. If the law cannot work both ways, it cannot exist.

Hell, cultural differences cause confusion in legality, and creates many problems when a certain culture tries to impose it's ideas of legality on other cultures.

aww, they locked my parody :(. it was doing no harm.

I have Western cultures in mind. :) From what I've heard though, the reason felines (and especially cats) are not popular in Asian cuisine is because they taste bad. Perhaps an evolutionary feature of theirs to make sure they are not preyed upon?

Well, I would think it's because of their bioligical make up. What makes beef so tasty is the marbling-those white specks of fat you see in all good steaks. Marbling occurs because of a good diet, and low stress, causing muscles to not become to tough and well-built. Cows have a rather low stress day, with little physical activity(even in the wild, most "cattle" have fairly leisurly days). Also, their diet, especially domestic and food cattle, is very good and plentiful, causing very healthy muscle development.

Cats, on the other hand, have very active days(not pet cats, but strays for example), and they need to have strong, well developed muscles just to survive and hunt. They need all the strength they can get out of their relatively small, but dense, muscles. This causes low amounts of fat, and very tough and stringy muscles, which produces a bad taste.

That's why you dont' see most people eating mammal predators(Canines of any sort, cats of any sort, and bears which apparently taste horrible). Their muscles are more dense, more well developed, and have less fat, causing them to just taste bad.

Also, as far as my point was concerned about cultural norms, I felt it was important to bring up other cultures for reasons of comparison as to why we have our norms. :)

That's why you dont' see most people eating mammal predators(Canines of any sort, cats of any sort, and bears which apparently taste horrible). Their muscles are more dense, more well developed, and have less fat, causing them to just taste bad.
It's a nice defence mechanism really, however it may have evolved. :)

Also, as far as my point was concerned about cultural norms, I felt it was important to bring up other cultures for reasons of comparison as to why we have our norms. :)
It's useful in this instance.

It's a satisfactory answer. :) We could of course breed dolphins to eat them - I am not sure what the relative ease of this is though.

I would be difficult, to near impossibility. Dolphins, for instance, are rather independent animals, and can be rather violent to one another. This would produce the need to have them seperated. Secondly, the cost of maintaining them is high, as first you would need a tank to hold them, regular cleaning of the tank to ensure the health(and over all quality of the meat) of the dolphins, feeding them is more expensive, as most types of food the dolphins eat would be to expense to be affordable for domestic purposes, and they are also extremely hard to domesticate, unlike cows and other domestic animals which have been domesticated for thousands of years. Also, do to American cultural norms, the general populace would not buy dolphin meat, because it would be considered immoral. Because of all this, it would not be easy enough to produce to provide any profit, as the cost of production is high, and there would be little demand.

So, basically it is not economically feasible to produce them for market.

Also, do to American cultural norms, the general populace would not buy dolphin meat, because it would be considered immoral.
Exactly. ^^ The real arguments against it I think are economic.

So, basically it is not economically feasible to produce them for market.
Yes, compared to the production of beef at least, it would be extremely costly.

It's a nice defence mechanism really, however it may have evolved. :)

Well, that is a point I've never considered. Interesting. However, most predators don't need many defense mechanisms, as they have few natural threats from other animals, and most predators don't go after other predators, as it is often times more work and a greater threat than killing off herbivores and smaller and less dangerous animals.

However, it does explain why canabalism, although present in most carnivores, is not very common(Other reasons are also important to this, such as it is usually counterproductive to the survival of a species).

Well, that is a point I've never considered. Interesting. However, most predators don't need many defense mechanisms, as they have few natural threats from other animals.
The most they really have to fear are humans ultimately. So it gives them a good defence against their ultimate (and perhaps only) potential predator. Unless said predator is starving of course. ^^

However, it does explain why canabalism, although present in most carnivores, is not very common(Other reasons are also important to this, such as it is usually counterproductive to the survival of a species).
Potentially yes.

Exactly. ^^ The real arguments against it I think are economic.

Pretty much. Morality plays a bit into it, as some may not be willing to produce it for their own moral reasons, and the consumers do not want to eat it for moral reasons, reducing incentives of producers. But it does all eventually lead to the economics of it all.

[/quote]
Yes, compared to the production of beef at least, it would be extremely costly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Beef is so incredibly easy to produce(as well as poultry and pork), that nobody in their right mind would consider producing dolphin. It just would not be profitable, as the cost of production would be much higher, and the cost to the consumer would be much higher, and with little demand, there would be virtually no market.

Exactly. Beef is so incredibly easy to produce(as well as poultry and pork), that nobody in their right mind would consider producing dolphin. It just would not be profitable, as the cost of production would be much higher, and the cost to the consumer would be much higher, and with little demand, there would be virtually no market.
Hypothetically though, if dolphin were easy to "mass produce," so to speak, and the moral stance on the matter were dropped, it'd probably become another staple food.

Well, the problem is, it's hard to apply laws which protect humans to animals, as the laws cannot work both ways. Most animals(with the exception of Humans) cannot understand the concept of the legal system, as even though most primates are capable of abstract thought, it is impossible to communicate the nuances of legality to animals, so an animal cannot be tried under the law. If the law cannot work both ways, it cannot exist.

Hell, cultural differences cause confusion in legality, and creates many problems when a certain culture tries to impose it's ideas of legality on other cultures.

Today? Yes it's kind of hard to do.

I can't remember where I saw it or read that in the early 1600's they tried and punished animals.

I remember one case were a man "loved" his mare. They were caught tried and set to be hanged. Several of the townspeople spoke in defense of the mare. Said she was a fine horse, good termpermant, proper, etc.

They set her free and hung the man. :D

Exactly. ^^ The real arguments against it I think are economic.

Yes, compared to the production of beef at least, it would be extremely costly.

Not really. It's the cuteness factor as Seangoli pointed out. People remember flipper, seen them in shows, etc.

There is an unground for highly exotic meat. Dolphin would not be a problem if there was a demand for an people were willing to pay exotic prices for it.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.

So i suppose the fact that many simians (gorrillas for instance) have been taught to sign language what they are thinking, so that they can communicate with humans.

And that chimps IN THE WILD have been known to use tools to get their food easyer (sticks, to get ants for instance).

I think those are both pretty strong arguments that these apes have the abillity to reason and think.

As far as debating plato, Humans grow from other humans innovations. If we started spending time to teach entire clans of apes, then they would begin to learn, then teach their children what we taught them. And they would grow intellectually much like humans have. Im 100% sure that many many many man humans in this world could not debate plato with you, beacuse of lack of exposure to it.

Thats my 2 cents (i only read up to like page 4, so forgive me if this was covered.)

:fluffle:

Today? Yes it's kind of hard to do.

I can't remember where I saw it or read that in the early 1600's they tried and punished animals.

I remember one case were a man "loved" his mare. They were caught tried and set to be hanged. Several of the townspeople spoke in defense of the mare. Said she was a fine horse, good termpermant, proper, etc.

They set her free and hung the man. :D

That is rather odd. Would be quite... difficult to hang a horse. You'd have to design an entirely new gallows design, have to make extra-thick rope, and quite frankly, the horse wouldn't die instantly, so it would be very disturbing to watch. Unlike humans, with our rather frail neck and small neck muscles, which die fairly quickly.

So i suppose the fact that many simians (gorrillas for instance) have been taught to sign language what they are thinking, so that they can communicate with humans.

And that chimps IN THE WILD have been known to use tools to get their food easyer (sticks, to get ants for instance).

I think those are both pretty strong arguments that these apes have the abillity to reason and think.

As far as debating plato, Humans grow from other humans innovations. If we started spending time to teach entire clans of apes, then they would begin to learn, then teach their children what we taught them. And they would grow intellectually much like humans have. Im 100% sure that many many many man humans in this world could not debate plato with you, beacuse of lack of exposure to it.

Thats my 2 cents (i only read up to like page 4, so forgive me if this was covered.)

:fluffle:

Actually, it's kind of interesting with the sign language. When shown a cucumber, which the Ape in question(I'll try to find a resource for this, as I learned in my Anthro class) had not been taught the word for "cucumber", and called it a "green banana", Alcoselzer "listening water". Also, Apes have been seen trying to teach other Apes sign, and have succeed on several occasions.

Also, if you listen carefully to the different vocalizations and observe behavior, you notice that different vocalizations mean different, sometimes abstract, ideas. It's not as complex as speech, but it still rather complex.

However, there are major differences. For instance, there is still language barriers, even with sign. For instance, Apes cannot form complete sentences with sign, as the area of the brain devoted to language and vocalizations is not as well developed as our. Their ability to communicate(with humans) is limited, as their brain make up is not as heavily orientated on language as we are. They can teach their young what we may teach them, however it will not be in the same efficiency or retain the level of error that human-human teaching is, as there are barriers between humans and apes that do not exist, or at least not to the degree, of human-human.

I also doubt they would grow along the lines of human intellect, as well. They live in a much different world, with much different stresses and stimuli, and have much different biological tools than we do. They could use what we taught them, but it would be in a vastly different than what we may use such knowledge for. Ape culture would apply our knowledge to their needs, and it would not be the same as we would, and they would develop from there on much differently.

Not really. It's the cuteness factor as Seangoli pointed out. People remember flipper, seen them in shows, etc.
That I pointed out. ;) Yes, I've acknowledged this - and then we made the logical link that this leads to lower demand, hence bad economics.

As far as debating plato, Humans grow from other humans innovations. If we started spending time to teach entire clans of apes, then they would begin to learn, then teach their children what we taught them. And they would grow intellectually much like humans have. Im 100% sure that many many many man humans in this world could not debate plato with you, beacuse of lack of exposure to it.

I'm assuming exposure to it. :)

No. God made chimps different from man. Science is a load of crap, a big steamy pile of it.

Whose puppet are you?

Whose puppet are you?

I'm geussing he's the same as Japanese pride.

I say, Yes! I like monkeys and chimps and I think they should be protected from such things as pedophilia and stolen identity fraud. Bonobos are also my favorite. Who has read De Waal?! Let me hear you!!


I don't drink often.

Human moral consideration, yes. Human status, no. A chimpanzee is not capable of voting; giving it such a right would be pointless.

We should move towards a point where we grant similar status to all mammals.

What discriminates a human from an animal is its ability to reason and think. Depending on their debilitation, they may be human, or merely formally human. Same goes for children in their infancy - until they acquire the powers of reasoning and mature, they are merely formally human.
Humans are animals. As for your rather strange belief that humans are distinguishable not due to their actual traits, but due to an assumed absence of some arbitarily chosen trait among non-humans, how very silly. If we find tomorrow that rats actually do have the same ability to reason and think that humans have, would this make humans suddenly 'not human'?

Humans are human because they are human, not because 'animal X' isnt human.

Human moral consideration, yes. Human status, no. A chimpanzee is not capable of voting; giving it such a right would be pointless.

We should move towards a point where we grant similar status to all mammals.
Even ones we eat? :)



Humans are human because they are human, not because 'animal X' isnt human.
Been through this - I revised what I said ages ago.

Well going through the TV guide I came across a documetary that will be shown this week. This documentary will ask the question if chimps should be given human status, not like votes and benefits but protected under same laws etc. The documetary argues that as there is only 0.% difference between our genetic make up and how chimps have very similar behaviour to humans. I'm not sure but whats your view. For thos interested the documentary is:

Horizon on BBC Two airing Tuesday 9pm

Are there alot of people going around beating up chimps? Besides, there are already certain protected species eggs that are given more rights than unborn humans. Nothing would surprise me what people would try to do.