US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court

[Ockham]

Scientific observation has proven it time and time again.

Please provide a valid scientific link and citations.

I don't understand French. Does that mean I can keep a French human locked in a cage as a pet for my own amusement?

Yet French is a documented lanugage. You can learn French to communicate. Chimpanzee is not a documented language you cannot learn Chimpanzee. Therefore your example is irrelevant.

Humans are animals.

Yes, and the most basic logic states humans = animals, but, animals ≠ humans. Did you not know that?

 

[sangha]

Please provide a valid scientific link and citations.

There are literally tens of thousands of such links. Unless you narrow your request to something more specific, this is the best I will do

https://www.google.com/search?newwi...r=100.2..0...1.1.58.serp..2.8.875.JKtGRYe4PTc

Yet French is a documented lanugage. You can learn French to communicate. Chimpanzee is not a documented language you cannot learn Chimpanzee. Therefore your example is irrelevant.

Chimps and other animals have shown the capacity to communicate using a variety of tools. Language is not the only means of communication.

Yes, and the most basic logic states humans = animals, but, animals ≠ humans. Did you not know that?

What you said earlier was:

an animal is an animal and a human is a human.

The thing is, humans *are* animals. Did you not know this?

 

[twixie1]

Cruelty is cruelty. Being human doesn't give anyone the right to be cruel and inhumane to animals. If Joey is being mistreated they should have just filed cruelty charges and try to get him transferred to a more accommodating facility rather than try to give him personhood rights. That's just nonsense.

Or just send him back where he belongs..which is not America..

 

[Ockham]

There are literally tens of thousands of such links. Unless you narrow your request to something more specific, this is the best I will do

https://www.google.com/search?newwi...r=100.2..0...1.1.58.serp..2.8.875.JKtGRYe4PTc

Then please let the Chimpanzee take the stand and plead his case under cross examination.

Chimps and other animals have shown the capacity to communicate using a variety of tools. Language is not the only means of communication.

So do insects... bees being the obvious choice, Katydids, and Crickets and frogs. What rights are they will they require and please, let's put them on the stand as well so they can plead their case.

What you said earlier was:


The thing is, humans *are* animals. Did you not know this?

What I said was true - philosophically. What was said after was speaking about genomes. Certainly you can differentiate discussion between biology and philosophy... yes?

 

[Rogue Valley]

I think the court decision was the correct legal decision. Beyond legalities however, Immanuel Kant's adroitly articulated relational rationale is of value...

"Cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."

 

[sangha]

Then please let the Chimpanzee take the stand and plead his case under cross examination.

In our legal system, plaintiffs not only face no requirement to testify, they need not have the ability to testify.

Newborn humans can't testify. Are you suggesting they have no rights?

Besides, you weren't asking for proof that animals can testify in court. You asked for evidence of animal intelligence, and because you got an answer your didn't like, you're now going to flail around and hope no one notices how very wrong you were about animal intelligence

So do insects... bees being the obvious choice, Katydids, and Crickets and frogs. What rights are they will they require and please, let's put them on the stand as well so they can plead their case.

So now you're admitting that various species can communicate in ways that humans can understand. Earlier, you were denying it.

What I said was true - philosophically. What was said after was speaking about genomes. Certainly you can differentiate discussion between biology and philosophy... yes?

You're grasping. You clearly attempted to distinguish humans as something other than animals even though animals are what humans are.

The issue boils down (philosophically, not legally) to, what qualities must or should an organism possess in order to justify its' having rights? Your flailings do nothing to address this and amount to nothing more than pointing out that various species are not human - a point no one has disputed. Unfortunately, your pitiful attempts have led you to make claims about animal intelligence and emotion that just aren't true.

 

[Ockham]

In our legal system, plaintiffs not only face no requirement to testify, they need not have the ability to testify.

Newborn humans can't testify. Are you suggesting they have no rights?

Newborns have parents who are responsible for their lives - they speak for newborns. In the case of animals = newborns that's silly. Unless you're claiming newborn animals. However, human kind does have a responsibility to manage and speak for the animals - but there are limitations to that. We do not for example see the right to healthcare for animals, nor do humans issue drivers licenses to animals primarily because animals cannot pass the written or (if they cannot write) spoken version of the test. One has to identify the limitations of animals - as they do not have the same ability nor capability as humans.

This is why you cannot address the obviousness of language and having a goat, for example, taking the stand to communicate they can understand what their rights are and have the ability to utilize those rights. Frankly the subject is ludicrous but I'm indulging this subject out of pure curiosity.

Besides, you weren't asking for proof that animals can testify in court. You asked for evidence of animal intelligence, and because you got an answer your didn't like, you're now going to flail around and hope no one notices how very wrong you were about animal intelligence

How can an animal identify their intelligence other than in some form of communication? The chicken who plays checkers may be a good example .... can she (or is it a rooster) communicate to human kind why it has a right to say....rent controlled housing in NYC?

So now you're admitting that various species can communicate in ways that humans can understand. Earlier, you were denying it.

The point isn't can they communicate, it's can they communicate they can understand and use rights that have been so far used by humans. The answer is obviously no... but please, put a toad on the stand and question him. It's great television.

You're grasping. You clearly attempted to distinguish humans as something other than animals even though animals are what humans are.

The point of this thread is animal rights... you're simply being silly. You're attempting to credit animals with the ability to understand and communicate they can comprehend what animal rights are, and can utilize those rights. Ask the cricket in your basement how he feels... :lamo

The issue boils down (philosophically, not legally) to, what qualities must or should an organism possess in order to justify its' having rights?

The cricket has no rights. Animals have what rights humans believe they should have, not rights that animals think they have.

Your flailings do nothing to address this and amount to nothing more than pointing out that various species are not human - a point no one has disputed. Unfortunately, your pitiful attempts have led you to make claims about animal intelligence and emotion that just aren't true.

Ask your cricket how he feels about being stepped on and tell me what he says. What's pitiful is insane attempts to apply human rights to animals which clearly cannot either communicate, understand, nor exercise those rights. I'm sure it gives people like me something to laugh at, and lawyers something to do; as well it gives silly people something to squawk about.

 

[Papa bull]

I think the court decision was the correct legal decision. Beyond legalities however, Immanuel Kant's adroitly articulated relational rationale is of value...

"Cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."

That has been my take on it, precisely. It is not a duty we owe the animals to eschew animal cruelty but one we owe ourselves. It debases a human being to take joy in cruelty or to harm anything merely for puerile purposes.

 

[Goshin]

It's a matter of definitions, isn't it?

Human rights. Are chimpanzees and other great apes humans? That'd be no.

If you want to bestow on them rights, which is fine, but then those rights would be chimpanzees and great apes rights, and wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same as Human rights, as there is a difference between chimpanzees and great apes and humans.

:yt .....

 

[sangha]

Newborns have parents who are responsible for their lives - they speak for newborns. In the case of animals = newborns that's silly. Unless you're claiming newborn animals. However, human kind does have a responsibility to manage and speak for the animals - but there are limitations to that. We do not for example see the right to healthcare for animals, nor do humans issue drivers licenses to animals primarily because animals cannot pass the written or (if they cannot write) spoken version of the test. One has to identify the limitations of animals - as they do not have the same ability nor capability as humans.

I never said that "animals = newborns", so that is a strawman. The point is, you asked for evidence concerning animal intelligence and when I posted some, you went on a tangent about animals testifying in court - an idea that has nothing to do with the specific point we were discussing or with the issue of this thread.

This is why you cannot address the obviousness of language and having a goat, for example, taking the stand to communicate they can understand what their rights are and have the ability to utilize those rights. Frankly the subject is ludicrous but I'm indulging this subject out of pure curiosity.

Language is not what you asked about nor was it a part of your original claim, which was a denial of Napolean's statement that "The great apes are capable of reasoned thought, complex perception, and complex emotions. I think they do have natural rights."

Note how it says nothing about language.

How can an animal identify their intelligence other than in some form of communication? The chicken who plays checkers may be a good example .... can she (or is it a rooster) communicate to human kind why it has a right to say....rent controlled housing in NYC?

If you are unaware of the methods scientists use to gauge animal intelligence, I suggest that you make Google your friend. In the meantime, your ignorance of the scientific methods does not mean they don't exist.

The point isn't can they communicate, it's can they communicate they can understand and use rights that have been so far used by humans. The answer is obviously no... but please, put a toad on the stand and question him. It's great television.

The point of this thread is animal rights... you're simply being silly. You're attempting to credit animals with the ability to understand and communicate they can comprehend what animal rights are, and can utilize those rights.

You see, now *there's* an argument that is on point. Note how it's different than your absurd "Put a cricket on the witness stand"

As I've said several times in this thread, the crux of the issue is what qualities imbues humans with rights and whether or not animals have those same qualities. If you want to argue that animals don't have rights because they can't understand the concept of rights, that is on point. Arguing that other animals are incapable of "reasoned thought, complex perception, and complex emotions" is not only not on point, it's flat out untrue

 

[Moot]

Or just send him back where he belongs..which is not America..

That would be very cruel since the chimp has never lived outside of his cage let alone in the wild.

 

[Moot]

Newborns have parents who are responsible for their lives - they speak for newborns. In the case of animals = newborns that's silly. Unless you're claiming newborn animals. However, human kind does have a responsibility to manage and speak for the animals - but there are limitations to that. We do not for example see the right to healthcare for animals, nor do humans issue drivers licenses to animals primarily because animals cannot pass the written or (if they cannot write) spoken version of the test. One has to identify the limitations of animals - as they do not have the same ability nor capability as humans.

This is why you cannot address the obviousness of language and having a goat, for example, taking the stand to communicate they can understand what their rights are and have the ability to utilize those rights. Frankly the subject is ludicrous but I'm indulging this subject out of pure curiosity.

How can an animal identify their intelligence other than in some form of communication? The chicken who plays checkers may be a good example .... can she (or is it a rooster) communicate to human kind why it has a right to say....rent controlled housing in NYC?

The point isn't can they communicate, it's can they communicate they can understand and use rights that have been so far used by humans. The answer is obviously no... but please, put a toad on the stand and question him. It's great television.

The point of this thread is animal rights... you're simply being silly. You're attempting to credit animals with the ability to understand and communicate they can comprehend what animal rights are, and can utilize those rights. Ask the cricket in your basement how he feels... :lamo

The cricket has no rights. Animals have what rights humans believe they should have, not rights that animals think they have.

Ask your cricket how he feels about being stepped on and tell me what he says. What's pitiful is insane attempts to apply human rights to animals which clearly cannot either communicate, understand, nor exercise those rights. I'm sure it gives people like me something to laugh at, and lawyers something to do; as well it gives silly people something to squawk about.

Perhaps it's more about...primate rights. A chimp shares 98% of our human DNA...a chicken and a cricket do not. Chimp behavior and emotions are almost identical to human. I think the point is that chimps are not and should not be kept as pets. Trying to give chimps personhood rights might have been well meaning but was in fact a stupid waste of time and money and it didn't help that poor chimp in the cage at all.

Jane Goodall speaks fluent chimpanzee.....




If you can't see the similarities you're not human.....

 

[Ockham]

I never said that "animals = newborns", so that is a strawman.

You made the comparison.

The point is, you asked for evidence concerning animal intelligence and when I posted some, you went on a tangent about animals testifying in court - an idea that has nothing to do with the specific point we were discussing or with the issue of this thread.

The point is irrelevant as animals do not have enough intelligence nor communication skills to understand what rights are.

Language is not what you asked about nor was it a part of your original claim, which was a denial of Napolean's statement that "The great apes are capable of reasoned thought, complex perception, and complex emotions. I think they do have natural rights."

How else are they to communicate and demonstrate "reasoned thought, complex percept and complex emotion" ? Circular logic 101.

Note how it says nothing about language.

I'm open to how animals are supposed to demonstrate their "rights"

If you are unaware of the methods scientists use to gauge animal intelligence, I suggest that you make Google your friend. In the meantime, your ignorance of the scientific methods does not mean they don't exist.

The scientific methods used are irrelevant. Have the ape provide his testimony. :yawn:

You see, now *there's* an argument that is on point. Note how it's different than your absurd "Put a cricket on the witness stand"

How come - you opened the door by stating animal can communicate - so ... let's hear what they have to say.

As I've said several times in this thread...

If it didn't make sense the first time, saying it several times is a WASTE of time. Have fun.

 

[sangha]

I never said that "animals = newborns", so that is a strawman.

You made the comparison.

No, I didn't compare newborns to animals.

The point is irrelevant as animals do not have enough intelligence nor communication skills to understand what rights are.

Then that is the point you should have made. Instead, you chose to make a claim which science has disproven

How else are they to communicate and demonstrate "reasoned thought, complex percept and complex emotion" ? Circular logic 101.

Again, your ignorance of how it is done does not mean it is impossible. If you want to learn about the subject, I suggest you do your own research.

I'm open to how animals are supposed to demonstrate their "rights"

As am I.

The scientific methods used are irrelevant. Have the ape provide his testimony. :yawn:

Yes, science is irrelevant. :roll:

How come - you opened the door by stating animal can communicate - so ... let's hear what they have to say.

There are forms of communication that are non-verbal. Did you not know this?

If it didn't make sense the first time, saying it several times is a WASTE of time. Have fun.

buh-bye!!

 

[Ockham]

There are forms of communication that are non-verbal. Did you not know this?

And what rights and priveledges do the monkeys want with their non-verbal language? Did science bother to ask?


Sounds to me like someone had one to many magic mushrooms and watched "animal farm". :lamo

 

[sangha]

And what rights and priveledges do the monkeys want with their non-verbal language? Did science bother to ask?

And again, you're going to have to do your own research. I'm not here to edumacate you on the subject.

 

[Ockham]

And again, you're going to have to do your own research. I'm not here to edumacate you on the subject.

I already know the answer because monkeys cannot comprehend human rights.... Tommy will just get frustrated and fling his poo.

 

[sangha]

I already know the answer because monkeys cannot comprehend human rights....

If this thread is any indication, you know very little about the subject

Tommy will just get frustrated and fling his poo.

Your confusing Tommy with the teabaggers

 

[Ockham]

If this thread is any indication, you know very little about the subject

Apparently more than you.

Your confusing Tommy with the teabaggers

Hardly. No hat and the wrong color

 

[Van Basten]

He's a ****ing chimp, of course he doesn't.

 

[Ockham]

He's a ****ing chimp, of course he doesn't.

Apparently there are some in this thread who are surprised by such a thing. That it wasn't thrown out of court on it's face says people in this country are slowly becoming insane.

 

[Ikari]

BBC News - US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court

I'm curious what people think about this case. I feel like chimps, as well as the other great apes, and a few other species of animal inhabit a weird in-between status. They aren't human, but they're clearly more intelligent and self-aware than the vast majority of other animal species.

They may be, but human rights are for humans and chips ain't human. They cannot possess human rights by definition.

 

[sangha]

They may be, but human rights are for humans and chips ain't human. They cannot possess human rights by definition.

Of course not. The constitution gives the govt the power to protect the rights of "persons" only. Chimps are obviously not "persons" so as a legal matter, the suit had no chance or success.

But as a philosophical matter, I find it interesting

 

[twixie1]

That would be very cruel since the chimp has never lived outside of his cage let alone in the wild.

Not really..there are programs for captive chimps to learn how to live back in the wild..they don't just throw them into the wilderness.

 

[Papa bull]

Apparently there are some in this thread who are surprised by such a thing. That it wasn't thrown out of court on it's face says people in this country are slowly becoming insane.

What do you mean by "slowly"?