NationStates Jolt Archive

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

Ha ha, yeah sure.

Ha ha, yeah sure.
But let's not use that as an excuse to get off track. Is there any reason that a non-human should have human rights?

Where's that end?

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America...

And you still think you can speak for a continent...

It's because of this kind of nonsense.

"I see it's also primatology that your large swaths of ignorance cover", m'éttonai-je.

But let's not use that as an excuse to get off track. Is there any reason that a non-human should have human rights?

Where's that end?

Obviously they should have rights, but not the same rights. For instance, they shouldn't have the right to vote (picked obvious one for sake of clarity).

My flying monkey should have the right to VOTE! It is more sensible than most humans I know.

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

I made a thread about this some time ago.

Why is it ridiculus for a thinking, feeling sentiant being to fight a leagl battle not to be 'owned' not to be property but it's own 'person' ?

Can only a human be called a 'person'?

If an animal can be shown to be sentiant, have feelings, can be emotionaly crippled by mistreatment, then isn't it a form of negative predudice to mistreat them, lets call it speciesism.

You do know what the Darwin award is, right?

Right?

Oh, that's right, you don't, cause this has nothing to do with it.

You do know what the Darwin award is, right?

Right?

Oh, that's right, you don't, cause this has nothing to do with it.

Um, "In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize"

Didn't actually read, did you?

Regardless of some joke award, you do know what Darwin ACTUALLY refers to, yeah? So he actually properly references Darwin and it offends your sensibilities?

i thought the Darwin awards were for people who killed themselves in stupid ways :confused:

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

Saying promoted makes no sense because humans are not better than chimpanzees.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

Not because you are afraid the chimp will turn out to be a better person than you ?

Seriously - what is needed to call someone a person ? If we would encounter a hypothetical alien race (or Angels if you prefer. Hey - over 50% of humanity believes in those) of equal or superior intelligence should we dismiss the notion that they could be persons as silly ? What if we finally develop AI ?

If you would acknowledge superiors or equals as persons - how about beings that are slightly less intelligent ? At what level of "less" should personhood be denied ? Or are other factors important when deciding if someone is a person or not ? Are "retards" persons ? Are babies ?

And where in this grand scheme of things do Americans and other chimps fit?

Saying promoted makes no sense because humans are not better than chimpanzees.

And Majors are not better than Captains, but we call that promoted. In the eyes of the law, this chimp is trying to move up the ladder. It's a promotion.

He's not being declared a human. He's being declared a person. THAT is a promotion.

And Majors are not better than Captains, but we call that promoted. In the eyes of the law, this chimp is trying to move up the ladder. It's a promotion.

He's not being declared a human. He's being declared a person. THAT is a promotion.

How so?

How so?

:rolleyes:

Because he wasn't classed as a person before? Hence it being a promotion.

How so?

Because persons get a lot of protection under the law. Nonpersons do not.

And Majors are not better than Captains

Yes they are. They are better paid.

:rolleyes:

Because he wasn't classed as a person before? Hence it being a promotion.

No he is not legaly know as a person. I say he already is one.

No he is not legaly know as a person. I say he already is one.

..but not legally, which is the point.

Obviously they should have rights, but not the same rights. For instance, they shouldn't have the right to vote (picked obvious one for sake of clarity).
Liberty?

Because persons get a lot of protection under the law. Nonpersons do not.
Animals are pretty well protected, too. Don't you remember the kerfuffle about Michael Vick and the dog fighting?

To achieve the purpose of caring for this animal, why isn't simple ownership okay?

The answer is more political than practical, isn't it?

Saying promoted makes no sense because humans are not better than chimpanzees.
Am I really breaking into new linguistic territory? Promote means, among other things, to advance, to raise, both of which fit.

And this is also beside the point.

Why isn't simple ownership sufficient to care for the chimp. Why is guardianship necessary?

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.Oh, man. This is coming from someone who lives in the state north of the one where a teacher was fired for wizardry...

The answer is more political than practical, isn't it?

Of course. But why is it not also the morally right thing to do in your eyes ?

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

well, as the chimp's guardian and a declared person, won't the chimp then be covered by health insurance and other such coverages that the guardian would provide?

would the chimp be elegible to be claimed as a dependant for Tax Porposes?

perhaps even have life insurance on the chimp?

perhaps even have life insurance on the chimp?

I'm sure this exists already for animals. Come on, it even exists for works of art, so why not animals?

i thought the Darwin awards were for people who killed themselves in stupid ways :confused:it's awarded to those who remove themselves from the gene pool.

being killed is typical, but one can still win the award if they remove their ability to have children.

I'm sure this exists already for animals. Come on, it even exists for works of art, so why not animals?
ah, but is Animal Insurance the same as insurance for persons in every shape and form?

seriously, I really don't know... :confused:

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

Ah, it's only another american.
They are a bit delusional, so it's best to ignore his/her post.

Saying promoted makes no sense because humans are not better than chimpanzees.

We're higher up the evolutionary chain than they are.


And as for calls of "Speciesism"...I personally refuse to acknowledge that an ape is the equal of a human being insofar as being a person. Does it have the right to be treated fairly? Of course. Protection from abuse? Of course. All then normal protections a human being deserves it should have, thats a no brainer. Hell the lady thats fighting so hard for protective custody of this chimp should have it if shes willing to care for it. I don't see why a little red tape can't be laxed. But legally declare it a person and thus the legal equivalent of a human being? No. Absolutely NOT.

Not because you are afraid the chimp will turn out to be a better person than you ?

Seriously - what is needed to call someone a person ? If we would encounter a hypothetical alien race (or Angels if you prefer. Hey - over 50% of humanity believes in those) of equal or superior intelligence should we dismiss the notion that they could be persons as silly ? What if we finally develop AI ?

If you would acknowledge superiors or equals as persons - how about beings that are slightly less intelligent ? At what level of "less" should personhood be denied ? Or are other factors important when deciding if someone is a person or not ? Are "retards" persons ? Are babies ?

And where in this grand scheme of things do Americans and other chimps fit?

Well fucktard, I wouldn't know since you don't actually address the issue and just fling crap around.

They're higher up the evolutionary chain.




No they are not higher on the evolutionary chain. There is no such thing as higher on the evolutionary chain.

Well fucktard, I wouldn't know since you don't actually address the issue and just fling crap around.
Flinging feces is more of a monkey thing than a chimp thing, isn't it? I guess we're narrowing down what species Alma Mater belongs to.

No they are not higher on the evolutionary chain. There is no such thing as higher on the evolutionary chain.

I edited it when I re-read how I wrote it. And in the sense of developing the capability for abstract thought, there is. We have it, they don't. They operate on instinct whereas we do not.

Well fucktard, I wouldn't know since you don't actually address the issue and just fling crap around.

Maybe he's a chimp too.

Flinging feces is more of a monkey thing than a chimp thing, isn't it? I guess we're narrowing down what species Alma Mater belongs to.

The namecalling was over reacting, but the dude was flamebaiting in an extremely offensive way.

Why are we giving chimps rights when we should be eating them?:confused:

You are rigth....

this is all a plot of the veganofacist... first theyll give monkeys right...

then dogs and cats...

then cows, pigs, chikens

and we will have to be all vegan!!!!


dont let this happen!!!!:sniper:

How so?

Because legally persons have rights that non-persons do not.

No he is not legaly know as a person. I say he already is one.

Who are you calling a legaly? You're a legaly!!! How do you like that?

(Making up the meanings of words is fun.)

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

I think the question is... why should we 'naturally' assume that Matthew doesn't have a claim to 'human rights'. Are we insisting that such rights can only ever be allowed to those who fit a very tight DNA profile, or do we allow that it is POSSIBLE some other lifeform could deserve such 'rights'?

Kill the monkey and serve it with potatos and gravy! :mp5:

I
Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.


Since you brought it up, how much does it cost to buy a chimp? And in this case, who "owns" the chimp?

An anonymous businessman has offered a substantial amount to cover his care, but under Austrian law only humans are entitled to have guardians.

So, they could have just used the money to care for the chimp without technically being his guardians. Or they could have tried to change the law about only humans having guardians. Instead they are trying to give chimpanzees human rights.


Aiming the bar pretty high, there.

An anonymous businessman has offered a substantial amount to cover his care, but under Austrian law only humans are entitled to have guardians.

So, they could have just used the money to care for the chimp without technically being his guardians. Or they could have tried to change the law about only humans having guardians. Instead they are trying to give chimpanzees human rights.


Aiming the bar pretty high, there.

Anyone want to raid a zoo and liberate enslaved chimps?

I think the question is... why should we 'naturally' assume that Matthew doesn't have a claim to 'human rights'. Are we insisting that such rights can only ever be allowed to those who fit a very tight DNA profile, or do we allow that it is POSSIBLE some other lifeform could deserve such 'rights'?

And there is the question that should be asked. Pretending like the question is already answered in either direction is just silly.

And stop calling me Naturally. Got it?

An anonymous businessman has offered a substantial amount to cover his care, but under Austrian law only humans are entitled to have guardians.

So, they could have just used the money to care for the chimp without technically being his guardians. Or they could have tried to change the law about only humans having guardians. Instead they are trying to give chimpanzees human rights.


Aiming the bar pretty high, there.

Misses this part The legal wrangle began in February 2007, when the sanctuary where Matthew lives with another chimp, Rosi, plus a crocodile filed for bankruptcy protection.
Activists want to ensure the apes do not wind up homeless.

Considering it costs four thousand sterling a month for upkeep, if the sanctuary goes bankrupt, that donation goes nowhere and won't end up helping the chimps.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

That'd make it a pet. You can't keep chimpanzees as pets in most of the Western world, last I checked.

Well fucktard, I wouldn't know since you don't actually address the issue and just fling crap around.

*raises eyebrow*
I DID address the issue. Unless you can explain how pointing out that one needs to define personhood before one can decide if apes can qualify is irrelevant to the issue at hand ?

And, yes I am indeed part of the poo flinging family of apes.
Are you poo ?

And there is the question that should be asked. Pretending like the question is already answered in either direction is just silly.

And stop calling me Naturally. Got it?

Naturally, I have. Errr. I mean, Surely, I have. Um.

With science progressing in the way it currently is, I don't think it'll be long before really hard questions about rights have to start getting some answers. Matthew might be a test-case for some really contentious issues, later.

Psychotic Moongooses raises an important point - the sanctuary goin bankrupt is going to leave Matthew S.O.L. if some loophole can't be found - against the wishes of both the sanctuary and the original donor(s). It looks like - if we can't be concrete sure Matthew could NEVER have a claim to such protections, erring on the side of caution might be the only fair thing to do.

That might give some people a hard time, I guess... but - to be honest, if it comes to proift margins and legal convenience, I'm not too worried about inconveniencing them.

That'd make it a pet. You can't keep chimpanzees as pets in most of the Western world, last I checked.
Then start a rescue foundation. I'm sure there's an alternative to making them persons.

I think the question is... why should we 'naturally' assume that Matthew doesn't have a claim to 'human rights'. Are we insisting that such rights can only ever be allowed to those who fit a very tight DNA profile, or do we allow that it is POSSIBLE some other lifeform could deserve such 'rights'?
In my opinion, it's an all or nothing condition -- being human and exercising human rights that is. Matthew can't claim those rights for himself and no chimp can ever be expected to understand the idea of rights. That does kind of make them equivalent to Democrats, but I hurt my argument. Anyhow, Matthew and his kind are never going to be able to participate in society or share any of the responsibility that comes with rights.

Part of being human is the ability to be compassionate. We do protect animals from abuse and the specter of a homeless Chimpanzee holding a "Will do tricks for food" is frightening. Giving that Chimp the same status as a person is not the answer.

Then start a rescue foundation.
What do think the point of the animal sanctuary is exactly?

I say we should just put this damn dirty ape to sleep. To be a person, you have to be a Emeber of the Specis Homo Sapiens. Simple as that. Nice this chimp does not meet that qualification, it does deserve personhood. Until that monkey can sit down and speak with me in any huamn language, it will not be a person.

Kill the monkey and serve it with potatos and gravy! :mp5:
Damn, that takes me back to my days on the streets of Olongapo... Mmmmmm monkey.

What do think the point of the animal sanctuary is exactly?
Apparently, the current one can't make ends meet. I just don't believe that the _only_ answer to taking care of this Chimp is to make him a ward.

I say we should just put this damn dirty ape to sleep. To be a person, you have to be a Emeber of the Specis Homo Sapiens. Simple as that. Nice this chimp does not meet that qualification, it does deserve personhood. Until that monkey can sit down and speak with me in any huamn language, it will not be a person.

Conclusion: Anything without heavily modified vocal cords capable of making complex sounds cannot be a person, no matter how intelligent.

Conclusion: Anything without heavily modified vocal cords capable of making complex sounds cannot be a person, no matter how intelligent.

Yep. Now you understand.

I say we should just put this damn dirty ape to sleep. To be a person, you have to be a Emeber of the Specis Homo Sapiens. Simple as that. Nice this chimp does not meet that qualification, it does deserve personhood. Until that monkey can sit down and speak with me in any huamn language, it will not be a person.

Don't companies have legal personhood too? Is microsoft a member of the species Homo sapiens?

Incidentally, I find it amusing that you would require a monkey to speak with you for it to be a person, and yet you make so many spelling errors.

Don't companies have legal personhood too? Is microsoft a member of the species Homo sapiens?

Incidentally, I find it amusing that you would require a monkey to speak with you for it to be a person, and yet you make so many spelling errors.

*ahem*

Its called Irony, sir.

Yep. Now you understand.

I'll go inform Stephen Hawking that he's not a person then.

I'll go inform Stephen Hawking that he's not a person then.

Give him an update to his Microsoft sam system aswell please.


Thanks.

That is different, he suffers from a disabilty that has removed that ability. And Corporations are people legally because they are made up of human beings.

*ahem*

Its called Irony, sir.

And it is delicious.

Apparently, the current one can't make ends meet.

I'll bet your solution to not being able to pay back a bank loan, is to get another one from the same bank. Rinse, lather and repeat ad infinitum.

I'll go inform Stephen Hawking that he's not a person then.

According to the Cyberpunk Handbook, he's a f*#king cyborg! :p

We're higher up the evolutionary chain than they are.

What does that even mean? Nothing is "more evolved" than anything else.

All then normal protections a human being deserves it should have, thats a no brainer.... But legally declare it a person and thus the legal equivalent of a human being? No. Absolutely NOT.

I'm not sure how you reconcile these two statements.

Are you advocating a "civil unions" type arrangement? Is the exclusivity of "person" really so important to you?

In my opinion, it's an all or nothing condition -- being human and exercising human rights that is. Matthew can't claim those rights for himself and no chimp can ever be expected to understand the idea of rights. That does kind of make them equivalent to Democrats, but I hurt my argument. Anyhow, Matthew and his kind are never going to be able to participate in society or share any of the responsibility that comes with rights.

Part of being human is the ability to be compassionate. We do protect animals from abuse and the specter of a homeless Chimpanzee holding a "Will do tricks for food" is frightening. Giving that Chimp the same status as a person is not the answer.

"Are never"... "no chimp can ever". You claim access to information you just can't possibly have, my friend. You have no way of knowing what ever/never can entail.

You say part of being human is being compassionate... so, if Matthew can be shown to be compasionate, that means he's part-way to being recognised as human, by your measure?

You say chimps can never be expected to understand human rights.... which is an assertion you certainly can't prove. Indeed, given that 'human rights' are an artifact we HUMANS can't fully reconcile, if you consider that an important measure, we can disclude the huamn species from consideration also.

You haven't shown a single objective measure - which is reasonable in the circumstances. Your argument is based on nothing but an emotional response, so, of course there is no objective measure.

I say we should just put this damn dirty ape to sleep. To be a person, you have to be a Emeber of the Specis Homo Sapiens. Simple as that. Nice this chimp does not meet that qualification, it does deserve personhood. Until that monkey can sit down and speak with me in any huamn language, it will not be a person.

http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html

Current research shows apes have language comprehennsion abilities akin to those of small children.

Unless you are going to claim you don't believe small children are people, I guess you'll be recognising Matthew's right to personhood, now?

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.
Yet it is no wonder why no one says a thousand conservatives on a thousand typewriters could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.

Give him an update to his Microsoft sam system aswell please.


Thanks.

That is different, he suffers from a disabilty that has removed that ability. And Corporations are people legally because they are made up of human beings.

So should a commune be given the same rights as a person?

But let's not use that as an excuse to get off track. Is there any reason that a non-human should have human rights?

Where's that end?

It's my understanding that, in order to have rights, you have to 1. be able to understand the concept of rights, 2. be willing to take responsibility for the the consequences of exercising those rights. Using those criteria, animals, children and some adults don't (or at least, shouldn't) have rights. They, however, should have protections under the law.

Animals are pretty well protected, too. Don't you remember the kerfuffle about Michael Vick and the dog fighting
tormenting and torturing dogs to death has nothing at all to do with this story.
In other words, if you had a pencil and a sharpener you might have a point. As it stands, you ain't got squat.

*raises eyebrow*
I DID address the issue. Unless you can explain how pointing out that one needs to define personhood before one can decide if apes can qualify is irrelevant to the issue at hand ?

And, yes I am indeed part of the poo flinging family of apes.
Are you poo ?

Calling me and all Americans "damn dirty apes" (if I may paraphrase) addresses the issue?

I'll go inform Stephen Hawking that he's not a person then.
and every deaf-mute you come across while you're at it.
11

If the chimp is declared a person does that then mean that it could marry another person?


Anyone else have a problem with that?

If the chimp is declared a person does that then mean that it could marry another person?


Anyone else have a problem with that?

Read this.

www.willmorgan.org/Robert_A_Heinlein-Jerry_Was_A_Man.htm

Conclusion: Anything without heavily modified vocal cords capable of making complex sounds cannot be a person, no matter how intelligent.

Either ASL is a human language or deaf mutes are not human by his definitions. I do wonder if he considers Koko eligible for personhood . ..

I bet chimps would have the sense not to elect Dubya. Doesn't say much for the human claim as a superior species.

I bet chimps would have the sense not to elect Dubya. Doesn't say much for the human claim as a superior species.

you kidding. all bush would have to do is make those faces and he would get the monkey votes. I for one do not want to see bush the president of France.

If the chimp is declared a person does that then mean that it could marry another person?

Anyone else have a problem with that?
Only if it was an ugly monkey.

In a different sense than the sarcastic way we usually refer to the Darwin Prize, this ape has a chance to actually be promoted (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do)...

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

Buy the chimp, take care of him as his owner. It's not that hard.

And Europeans wonder why we don't take them seriously in America... It's because of this kind of nonsense.

Doesn't the European Court of Human Rights have anything more important to do? Something involving actual humans, perhaps? What a monumental waste of time.

Can only a human be called a 'person'?There is no reason why. We have called Vulcans and Klingons persons, so why not chimpanzees?