The great apes--- rights of life and liberty.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SHEBREEDS

Yesterday I saw a dog walk himself across the street, alone, leash in mouth. He's likely far more mature and responsible than many here.

In fact, many of the posters here recently abandoned the trees, adopted the wearing of underpants, and support themselves catching pennies and collecting cigarette butts from disposal cans. I dont know that any of it qualifies as intelligent life or even consciousness.

 

[Guest]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/Monkeys/poo-flinging_monkeyinrange.gif

 

[Emperor_Nero]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/Monkeys/poo-flinging_monkeyinrange.gif

shouldn't you have shown us this before he posted

 

[Guest]

shouldn't you have shown us this before he posted

I know.

Unfortunately monkeys tend to throw poo in an unpredictable manner.

Although come to think of it, whenever there is a topic of seriousness, poo flinging monkeys tend to congregate.

It should be a disclaimer on every thread, perhaps.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I know.

Unfortunately monkeys tend to throw poo in an unpredictable manner.

Although come to think of it, whenever there is a topic of seriousness, poo flinging monkeys tend to congregate.

It should be a disclaimer on every thread, perhaps.

Or you could change the monkey to a Troll.

 

[shereads]

SHEBREEDS

Yesterday I saw a dog walk himself across the street, alone, leash in mouth. He's likely far more mature and responsible than many here.

In fact, many of the posters here recently abandoned the trees, adopted the wearing of underpants, and support themselves catching pennies and collecting cigarette butts from disposal cans. I dont know that any of it qualifies as intelligent life or even consciousness.

They say you were adorable as Clint Eastwood's little sidekick in that trucker movie.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I was. I still get perfumed letters from fans.


Oh! No! Not a troll! I'll never smile again if I get called a troll.

 

[Guest]

I was. I still get perfumed letters from fans.

We'll start calling you Clyde, then.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Works for me.

 

[Pure]

rights

roxanne opined the following about animal rights, in the European Human Rights threads.

"Animal Rights" is a "stolen concept" with no meaning. Rights is an abstract concept related to a real thing, which is humans needing to live together in peace and to our mutual benefit. It becomes a "floating abstraction" and "stolen concept" when it's applied to creatures.

it's hard to detect an argument here. it's ayn rand ontology, with its apparent nominalism. e.g. your toaster is real, but not your marriage.

human needs, however, are declared to be 'real things,' or at least those relating to social living.

the fact of humans needing, in some way, to respect and come to terms with their environment, and ensure its preservation is presumably NOT real according to rox.

humans apparently want, if not need, pets around. that's part of human living, the dogs and cats that are our companions.

hence, it's obvious, to all but a Rand-er, that, for starters, our pets have a right not to be treated cruelly.
---

yet the fundamental problem is the arbitrary declaration that HUMAN needs are real while animal needs are not. my right not to be attacked on the street by a mad objectivist, is, i would hold, no different from my pet's right, not to be attacked on the street by a 'mad dog.'

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Voluptuary: Could it possibly be that today's hunters are well aware of such things as CITES, good game management (which works a lot better than just letting "environmental balance" go it's own way), conservation based on what works rather than what feels good?

---
i don't think most hunters hunt to help 'manage' game, escept a few pros. they hunt for sport.

as to game managment, there are lots of screw ups due to human misjudgment. but i suppose these have to be remedies, in some cases with further intervention.

ecological balance is a tricky concept, but it partly has to do with sustainability. but it's important to realize it's a fluctuating thing:
studies, for instance, of wolves and rabbits --predators and prey-- find a fluctuation: when wolves reach a certain level the negative feedback loop kicks in.

none of this has much directly to do with the thread topic, though i suppose the general issue of "Lord of the Universe" thinking in humans, is involved: I do what i fucking well please to my surroundings, as long as there's no human neighbor or my human neighbor is not immediately and directly harmed. Example: i buy a tract of land with a small forest; i cut down the forest and make a commercial golf course.

not to say the maxim endorsed by some, around here--JBJ?---if it's juicy and not human, it's fine to kill it and eat it [with a few qualifications]. This is applied to great apes, by some cultures.

not to say the maxim,
if it cant talk about its pain and can only yawp or squirm, humans have every right to assume no pain [or ignore it] and do whatever they please for any commercial, medical, entertainment purpose.

This was the state of US law, up to the late 19th century, iirc.

I think this was all settled in Harltlepool, England a couple hundred years ago.

My advice to our simian relatives... be careful what you "sign" for.

-KC

 

[Pure]

take 2

rox:

"Animal Rights" is a "stolen concept" with no meaning. Rights is an abstract concept related to a real thing, which is humans needing to live together in peace and to our mutual benefit. It becomes a "floating abstraction" and "stolen concept" when it's applied to creatures.

beneath the fancy terminology, this is a version of Ayn Rand's little argument, which goes as follows:

To Prove : Only humans matter, ultimately.

Premise 1: Humans say, "only humans matter, ultimately"

Premise 2 What humans say, and only that, matters ultimately.

Conclusion: Only humans matter ultitmately.

---
Proof of Premise 2:

Only humans matter, ultimately. Hence,

What humans say, and only that, matters ultimately.

---
Indirect proof of Premise 2

Suppose for the sake of argument that what some other being--K, the bonobo--said or indicated, mattered ultimately.

Then it is possible that K might say, "What happens to bonobos matters ultimately."

Yet we know that to be false. Why, because only what happens to humans, matters ultimately.

Hence the initial supposition is false.

Hence, nothing but a human could matter, ultimately.

 

[Pure]

too keeb,

to keeb

I think this was all settled in Harltlepool, England a couple hundred years ago.

can you explain?

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

to keeb

I think this was all settled in Harltlepool, England a couple hundred years ago.

can you explain?

Sure!
(http://www.thisishartlepool.co.uk/history/thehartlepoolmonkey.asp)

The Hartlepool Monkey, Who hung the monkey?

The monkey-hanging legend is the most famous story connected with Hartlepool. During the Napoleonic Wars a French ship was wrecked off the Hartlepool coast.

During the Napoleonic Wars there was a fear of a French invasion of Britain and much public concern about the possibility of French infiltrators and spies.

The fishermen of Hartlepool fearing an invasion kept a close watch on the French vessel as it struggled against the storm but when the vessel was severely battered and sunk they turned their attention to the wreckage washed ashore. Among the wreckage lay one wet and sorrowful looking survivor, the ship's pet monkey dressed to amuse in a military style uniform.

The fishermen apparently questioned the monkey and held a beach-based trial. Unfamiliar with what a Frenchman looked like they came to the conclusion that this monkey was a French spy and should be sentenced to death. The unfortunate creature was to die by hanging, with the mast of a fishing boat (a coble) providing a convenient gallows.


That was rather obtuse.... sorry. But a great story.... even today Hartlepool United Football fans are known to react violently to the taunt "monkey hangers"

In short, our primate friends would do well NOT to be treated as humans... well, Frenchmen anyway.

-KC

 

[Pure]

In short, our primate friends would do well NOT to be treated as humans... well, Frenchmen anyway.

it's a funny story, and i know you're tongue in cheek. that said, the convention on primates does not propose to treat them 'as humans', but simply to grant them a right of life and liberty and freedom from torture.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

In short, our primate friends would do well NOT to be treated as humans... well, Frenchmen anyway.

it's a funny story, and i know you're tongue in cheek. that said, the convention on primates does not propose to treat them 'as humans', but simply to grant them a right of life and liberty and freedom from torture.

But I think the reason why you are having a little problem with this is the discussion about "rights" and "liberty" and "freedom" in the context of a non-humans, really has no meaning. It's tough enough defining these things (for most of us, anyway) for humans..

Most folks here, including me, would favor better treatment for higher primates, dolphins, etc.. given their close cousin status with us... but it would be more to the point to just say that... Don't hurt the damn chimps.. leave them alone whereever and whenever possible.. re-think our treatment of them (and all animals, for that matter) in our zoo's to ensure they are not mstreated.... Hell.... we do that for dogs and horses and cats anyway....

Realisitically, granting them "rights" by some convention is going to do nothing to help them.... but it will create a whole new body of law to debate. For every example of human behavior toward our cousins which is deemed to be abhorrant, just write it down and do not allow it (after a vote)... to make meaningless blanket statements about "rights" will not help.

Will we arrest, try and punish chimps which murder other chimps?

Maybe hang them? In Hartlepool?

-KC

 

[Pure]

Will we arrest, try and punish chimps which murder other chimps?

do we arrest, try, and punish children who murder other children?

 

[Pure]

Keebler's argument, applied to US Black slaves:

Keebler revised by pure; pure changing less than 10 words.

Most folks here, including me, would favor better treatment for black slaves. given their close cousin status with us... but it would be more to the point to just say that... Don't hurt the damn slaves. leave them alone to do their work whereever and whenever possible.. re-think our treatment of slaves on our plantations to ensure they are not mstreated.... Hell.... we do that for dogs and horses and cats anyway....

Realisitically, granting them "rights" by some convention is going to do nothing to help them.... but it will create a whole new body of law to debate. For every example of human behavior toward our slave cousins which is deemed to be abhorrant, just write it down and do not allow it (after a vote)... to make meaningless blanket statements about "rights" will not help.
------

Pure: My point: The argument as it stands is clearly too broad, and hence deficient.


Keebler said, originally:
KCMost folks here, including me, would favor better treatment for higher primates, dolphins, etc.. given their close cousin status with us... but it would be more to the point to just say that... Don't hurt the damn chimps.. leave them alone whereever and whenever possible.. re-think our treatment of them (and all animals, for that matter) in our zoo's to ensure they are not mstreated.... Hell.... we do that for dogs and horses and cats anyway....

Realisitically, granting them "rights" by some convention is going to do nothing to help them.... but it will create a whole new body of law to debate. For every example of human behavior toward our cousins which is deemed to be abhorrant, just write it down and do not allow it (after a vote)... to make meaningless blanket statements about "rights" will not help.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Keebler revised by pure; pure changing less than 10 words.

Most folks here, including me, would favor better treatment for black slaves. given their close cousin status with us... but it would be more to the point to just say that... Don't hurt the damn slaves. leave them alone to do their work whereever and whenever possible.. re-think our treatment of slaves on our plantations to ensure they are not mstreated.... Hell.... we do that for dogs and horses and cats anyway....

Realisitically, granting them "rights" by some convention is going to do nothing to help them.... but it will create a whole new body of law to debate. For every example of human behavior toward our slave cousins which is deemed to be abhorrant, just write it down and do not allow it (after a vote)... to make meaningless blanket statements about "rights" will not help.
------

Pure: My point: The argument as it stands is clearly too broad, and hence deficient.


Keebler said, originally:
KCMost folks here, including me, would favor better treatment for higher primates, dolphins, etc.. given their close cousin status with us... but it would be more to the point to just say that... Don't hurt the damn chimps.. leave them alone whereever and whenever possible.. re-think our treatment of them (and all animals, for that matter) in our zoo's to ensure they are not mstreated.... Hell.... we do that for dogs and horses and cats anyway....

Realisitically, granting them "rights" by some convention is going to do nothing to help them.... but it will create a whole new body of law to debate. For every example of human behavior toward our cousins which is deemed to be abhorrant, just write it down and do not allow it (after a vote)... to make meaningless blanket statements about "rights" will not help.

Call me ego-species, if you would like, but excuse me if I wish to confine our laws, "right" and "liberties" to homo sapien sapien.... I find your parody repulsive and not even remotely analogous.

In addition to a basic "How the fuck dare you?" kind of response to your suggestion equating human slaves to our primate cousins.... I guess it never occured to you that would be offensive..... well it is.

You have strayed over the line of decency and respect here and I am appalled by it. Shame on you.

But ignoring that....

Although I thought your "do we try children for murdering children?" retort was germaine.... the ironic answer is.... yes we do; more every year.

But we do not, that I am aware, acknowledge children have a "right" to liberty... on the contrary, we have established custodial rights for adults over them. Even that "right to life" thing is contentious as you well know.

Why do you stop with the higher primates in the bequeathing of rights and liberties? Because you do not happen to eat them? Why not cows and chickens, dogs and cats, blades of grass? If this is a DNA thing, perhaps pigs?

Your desire to find something to argue about has left you floundering in the world of the absurd..... THIS IS ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR... If you do not wish to harm gorilla's, I can support that as I noted above, but you need not equate them with humans to do so. The idea, after all, is to control HUMAN behavior towards them.

But give me a single solitary objective from this "rights" campaign that is not adequately or perhaps more specifically and effectively addressed in our current animal protections laws? Absent any, it is just so much noise with no practical benefit for anyone, particularly higher primates.

You are supporting a sweeping, utterly undefined and unlimited statement supporting “rights to life, liberty… and the pursuit of smaller primates” for certain of our genus and you find MY ARGUMENT TOO BROAD??????

You might consider laying off watching all those 'Planet of the Apes" re-runs... it is really getting to you....

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I nominate KEEBLER to adjudicate monkeys, and spank them if theyre bad. I cant think of anyone who has more experience spanking monkeys.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

I nominate KEEBLER to adjudicate monkeys, and spank them if theyre bad. I cant think of anyone who has more experience spanking monkeys.

And I owe it all to responding to your posts....


-KC

 

[Pure]

note to keeb.

keeb said,

You are supporting a sweeping, utterly undefined and unlimited statement supporting “rights to life, liberty… and the pursuit of smaller primates” for certain of our genus and you find MY ARGUMENT TOO BROAD??????

the quotation is manufactured and does not reflect my position. it suggests you haven't read the key document, the article on which started this thread.

Declaration on Great Apes
http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php
===

I detect only three arguements in your last enraged post:

KCAlthough I thought your "do we try children for murdering children?" retort was germaine.... the ironic answer is.... yes we do; more every year.

pure: while age limits have been lowered for some penalties, most of us DO find, say, executing 8 year old murderers an offensive idea. you avoid the point of my retort, which essentially says we guarantee life to children WITHOUT holding them criminally responsible. so the practice already exists which would apply to the great apes.



KC But we do not, that I am aware, acknowledge children have a "right" to liberty... on the contrary, we have established custodial rights for adults over them.

This is exactly my point, as above: children's rights of liberty are curbed to protect them, among other things, to ensure their rights to life and health. This is a REASONABLE restriction. The same would apply to great apes. Chimps would not have a right to wander the streets of Chicago, unaccompanied.
===

KC Why do you stop with the higher primates in the bequeathing of rights and liberties? Because you do not happen to eat them? Why not cows and chickens, dogs and cats, blades of grass? If this is a DNA thing, perhaps pigs?

First of all, the basic argument is fallacious or close to it. The alleged slippery slope issue could be raised at any point in rights extension.
I can picture someone in 1860 saying, "you know, you give rights to black men, and, by god, WOMEN, will be next." and the reply is, 'duh...'

So, despite your fallacy and question, there might indeed be no reason to stop at the higher primates; but it's immaterial to the great apes-related arguments. I'm ready to concede to most living creatures with brain stems and nervous systems a 'right to life,' provided human health and safety can be assured.

As to the 'eating' problem, it's not really the thread topic. But the pragmatic way to address it is to say, "As an exemption to a right to life, the following fishes, birds, and mammals, when raised for food purposes, do NOT have a right to live till natural death; they have a right, nowever, to a healthy life free of cruelty up to and including the point of humanely inflicted death: salmon, chickens, cows, pigs, etc."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Yeah, what happens to an ape that kills another ape? Does he get arrested and prosecuted? Or he just has rights but no responsibilities, I guess.

To be serious for a minute: Let's think about animal testing, about a medicine that could save your life or your kid's life but also might kill you and the only way they can find out is by testing on a monkey or human. This law makes it illegal. It's already illegal to give this drug to a human without final testing, so unless we change the law to allow testing of experimental drugs on humans, this protection-of-apes law means you won't get the drug. You or your kid is going to die.

Animal testing is still necessary. There's no way around it. They have it down so only drugs that have passed all these other tests and are known to be safe are tested on apes (monkey testing is very very expensive. You don't want to just inject them with any old crap) and only maybe one out of a million drug candidates makes it that far, but it's necessary. You can't test on human beings.

If this becomes law, what are we going to do about that? No more new drugs? Test on prisoners?

Edited to add: Sorry. I just saw the child-killing-child answer so I changed the post.

 

[Pure]

to dr.

dmYeah, what happens to an ape that kills another ape? Does he get arrested and prosecuted?


answered above, doc. same sort of thing that happens when a five year old kills another five year old.

in simple terms, doc, the argument somehow insinuates--illegitimately-- that basic human rights are co terminous with criminal responsibility.


---

dmwhat's the difference between just protecting them by law and assigning "rights" to them?

maybe little. but the latter facilitates remedial actions. where "A" has a right, he may have "cause of action." where A cannot himself institute action---as with a child-- someone else may institute it on his behalf.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . yet the fundamental problem is the arbitrary declaration that HUMAN needs are real while animal needs are not. my right not to be attacked on the street by a mad objectivist, is, i would hold, no different from my pet's right, not to be attacked on the street by a 'mad dog.'

Silly Pure, it's simple:

WE are humans!