I'm somewhat puzzled by this article ,is it just plain insanity or just a sign of the politically correct time's we live in today ?BBC News - US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court
Printable View
I'm somewhat puzzled by this article ,is it just plain insanity or just a sign of the politically correct time's we live in today ?BBC News - US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court
Mad as a March hare.
Runs true through these civilisations.
Consider the source.
Good reply :)Quote:
Originally Posted by thaimeme
No one ,and I do mean no one abhors keeping former wild animals in captivity such as what is displayed here in this article than I do ,but to make some weak Insane excuse about the Chimp is some how human is plain barmy ,what about all the millions of Birds and other Animals who are kept in "prison" for the rest of their lives ,do they not deserve the same humane considerations that these loonys prescibe for the Chimp? :)BBC News - The battle to make Tommy the chimp a person
Piwanoi the PETA activist, who knew?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
In my wildest dreams I thought you might have addressed the sheer lunacy of the article ,but knowing you as I do I should have known that you never pass up a chance to play to the gallery :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
So Piwanoi is against human rights but for animal rights. Yep. A sign of the times.
My take on it would be that they were not really trying to make a case for human rights for chimps, they were trying to get a lot of publicity for their cause (the plight of animals in captivity) and it worked. Just one step up from the "naked rather than wear fur" type campaigns. All publicity is good publicity!
Thanks for your opinion ,however my take on it is they would have made a case for wild Animals in Capitivity far better if they had made a video of the various zoo's World wide showing the horrible and squalid conditions some are kept in and put it on Youtube ,as it is many including myself think they are barking mad ,and of course the "usual suspects"on TD will be far too busy cracking infantile wise cracks about me rather that make any comments about the article in question :)Quote:
Originally Posted by November Rain
Now you're only talking logicQuote:
Originally Posted by November Rain
. . . completely missing the point . . . as usualQuote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
^ Stalker alert ,stalker alert !:dtroll:
You have me, and a dozen other posters, on 'ignore' . . . remember . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Aside from that, NR is quite right
Well, unlike you I actually read it. You are arguing against a strw-man as usual, that or you didn't bother to read all of it, so I don't think there is much point in trying to talk about it with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
See:
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE
The argument is not about if they are human, it is not even about their treatment in captivity per se, it is about legal personhood.
That sounds insane on its face but if you cast your mind back to the last US presidential election there is a famous clip of Mitt Romney saying "Corporations are people too my friend."
About 20 seconds in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
He was referring to a court decision that essentially extended the corporate personhood rules to grant a corporation protection under the first amendment (the free speech one) and decided that this corporate person could spend money to try and influence elections. If you look at it from that perspective it isn't quite such a stretch to see a court granting the same to a chimp.
Personally I disagree with it and I think it is stupid. It is stupid for exactly the same reason that all those people who say that gay marriage will lead to perverts marrying children or their dogs: A child, a chimp and a dog cannot give informed consent.
Another thing that occurs to me is if you give a chimp legal personhood then it seems that you could also charge it with a crime if it broke the law.
Since this isn't Hartlepool in the early 1800s hopefully the case will get tossed.
Apart from the claim that the article is "just plain insanity", Piwanoi actually hasn't said what he thinks is wrong with the article.
The article is a report about a court case in the USA. The article seems fine to me.
Regarding the court case, it seems a reasonable decision to me.
Does Piwanoi agree or disagree with the court's decision? Piwanoi hasn't mentioned that at all. Funny that.
Read the article again Knobhead it says the Court has adjudged that the Chimp should not be afforded the same rights as a Human ,not that a Chimp is some how human:rofl:, and if there is no point in talking to me, which in your first post you did'nt any way, just your fucking usual playing to the gallery wise crack ,why not just fuck off and start a thread of your own instead of like the other kunts follow me round like I'm the pied piper of Hamlyn whenever I start a new thread :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
not unusual amongst his sort.
A bit of a frivolous legal action but it does raise the interesting question of stratification of animal rights.
Animals used to have no rights and torturing them was considered wholesome fun. Now they have some rights but generally only if they are vertebrates and preferably warm-blooded.
I think it would make sense to afford higher order primates (and other animals capable of demonstrating more developed emotional reactions and complex social behaviour) more rights than lower order vertebrates.
One may free the Frogs
Be PC with the wogs
Save tfor summat he whales
Cook garlic with the snails
Authentic Soi aroma Dogs
Furry and cuddly helps,Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Having two black eyes sure to get the old bare aresed Panda empathy.Save the whale the donkey sancuary,few bucks in termite rustling or adopt a slug:cmn:
The money wasted on Pandas is criminal. Piwiannoy should be allowed a voice. If only to remind us to turn the gas off when we leave.
There are hundreds if not far more such videos. People still visit even the worst of those zoos. A new way of getting attention isn't such a bad idea. I boycott all zoos and marine parks and have done for decades - I am firmly in the vast minority, despite the news articles, Youtube vids etc. Getting people thinking and talking, however outlandish the reason has its meritsQuote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Sure Animals should have a certain amount of rights ,as I said in an earlier post ,they should be looking at the terrible conditions that animals are kept in in THIRD World zoo's for openers .Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
A simple challenge to ANY of you out there show me an UNEDITED VERSION of ANYWHERE I wrote I do not agree with World wide human rights ,what I did say is I do not hold with Tony B liars 1998 UK version of his UK"human rights act" along with millions of others ,he himself tried to water the act down in 2006 but by then it was too late as the Genie was well and truly out of the bottle,and in closing if the complete clown who wrote the accusation had an ounce of Fucking brainpower and not so much a lying Kunt he would know that there is one hell of a difference between Blairs idea of Human rights ,to that of almost every other County in the World .Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwillyQuote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
not unusual amongst his sort.
Why not ask him to produce the complete and unedited post where I stated I was against World wide human rights ,Or does YOUR sort believe anything with out asking for proof of any serious allegation?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwillyQuote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
not unusual amongst his sort.