Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits Seek To Turn Chimpanzees Into Legal Persons
sciencehabit writes "This morning, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a lawsuit in a New York court in an attempt to get a judge to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons and should be freed from captivity. The suit is the first of three to be filed in three New York counties this week. They target two research chimps at Stony Brook University and two chimps on private property, and are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant 'legal personhood' to a variety of animals across the United States. If NhRP is successful in New York, it would upend millennia of law defining animals as property and could set off a 'chain reaction' that could bleed over to other jurisdictions, says Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and a prominent critic of animal rights. 'But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire.'"
(Full text)
Heinlein saw this coming in 1947.
Free Martian Whores!
Does this mean they will be able to vote?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I'm sorry but there's no difference between livestock (chicken, cows, horses, etc...) and experiment sujects (mice, chimps, dogs, etc...)
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Some people are so darn moronic they make chimps look superior by comparison, yet only people get the vote.
Oot GaRoot for President 2016
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
...if such a thing passes, am I the only one who sees a potential push for marriage laws to be adapted similarly?
Before you freak out totally, I'm not necessarily referring to anything involving humans in the mix, but think of such things as racehorse/purebred animal breeding and etc.
Could become one hell of a can of worms... (oh, wait, that brings up another thought - are worms eventually getting rights too?)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
...I read "Lawsuits Seeks To Turn Lawyers into Chimpanzees".
Well if they all get out their typewriters and start randomly typing.....
Do you think they'd come up with Obamacare?
Oh wait...
If freed, chimpanzees would be unable to follow basic laws and would likely need to be locked up in imprisonment anyway.
If politicians are considered people, chimps certainly would qualify.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Does this mean we'll all gain the constitutionally protected right to fling poo at each other?
Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
Wait, there are other people on the planet who find domestic animal ownership abhorrent? Blimey.
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
I'll start: "You blew it up! You BASTARDS!"
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
On what basis do they draw the line of 'the amount' of self-conciousness between chimps and humans on the one hand and other primates, such as orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, on the other? Have they even quantified it at all? And what about dolphins and elephants?
"abolitionist vegan" = suicide for plants?
We are not eating chimps only because their food is not tasty.
Seems to be more a matter of ready availability. GIS bushmeat and hang onto your lunch, sparky.
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Nope. Chimps aren't human, and don't deserve civil rights. Especially not Second Amendment rights. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU )
But seriously, that doesn't mean we're free to treat 'em badly. We tend to draw a black-and-white distinction between persons and nonpersons. If it's a nonperson, we can do whatever we want with it, torture, butchery, it's all good. But it's not that simple. Living things exist on a spectrum of intelligence and "person-ness", from bacteria to plants to fish to cats to chimpanzees (and from fertilized egg to full-term fetus, if you want to go there). Our morality needs to reflect that.
So no, chimps don't get rights. But they should get the respect they're due as almost-persons.
Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose. The Citizen United case was about speech, which the First Amendment allows regardless of the source. (Seriously, read the 1st Amendment. It just says "speech.") People also have freedom of association rights and their individual rights don't go away when they form groups.
Do you think the New York Times or Slashdot can get censored because the freedom of the press doesn't apply to them because they are owned by corporations?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
Well that rules out corporations....
Seems to me all a chimpanzee needs to do is incorporate, and then they'd be a legal person, just as corporations are people.
Unless ... corporations aren't people?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Old myth, often repeated, with no scientific basis. Based on Functional MRI dolphins are about as smart as pigs. The extra grey matter is sonar processing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
is not merely sentience, but whether one is paying taxes. Taxpayers are paying the salaries of those who decide cases like this.
Also: "right turn, Clyde." *whack*
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Doesn't find it, sad to say.
Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
"But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire."
Maybe NhRP shouldn't monkey around with this.
Step 1: Create a corporation called Chimp Inc. and make its owner a chimp named Bonzo. (People can leave their fortunes to a pet cat, they should be able to leave controlling interest of a corporation to a chimp.)
You don't leave money to a pet, you establish a trust or give money with stipulations for its use to a designated caregiver. Making a chimp owner of a corporation begs the question; animals can't own property.
Step 1: declare chimps person and demand they be released
Step 2: arrest now-homeless person-chimps for trespassing
Step 3: make incarcerated person-chimps do whatever they were doing before as prison labor
Because with rights come responsibility. That corporations have certain responsibilities is seen in the governance laws they must follow.
Non-humans do not have the capacity for honoring the idea that their rights end where your nose begins.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
As humans, I believe we have a responsibility to treat creatures with a humane stewardship but this lawsuit is pushing an agenda other than humane stewardship. This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion. As such, they are a mix of social contract, classical liberalism, and human rights. Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#John_Locke.2C_Immanuel_Kant
If a corporation can be a person, why can't a chimp?
Step 1: Create a corporation called Chimp Inc. and make its owner a chimp named Bonzo. (People can leave their fortunes to a pet cat, they should be able to leave controlling interest of a corporation to a chimp.)
Step 2: Once Bonzo the chimp has control of the Chimp Inc. corporation, have Chimp Inc. buy Bonzo the chimp.
Step 3: Bonzo is the sole owner of Chimp Inc.
and the only property of Chimp Inc. is Bonzo.
Chimp Inc. is a legal corporate person.
Chimp Inc. = Bonzo the chimp.
Therefore Bonzo the chimp is a legal person.
The owner/CEO is not the corporation, the corporation is a separate legal entity. As such, the rights of a corporation cannot be transferred to the owner/CEO.
Besides, Bonzo would just get indicted for embezzling bananas...
That's offensive to chimps.
Table-ized A.I.
As an abolitionist vegan (but one who doesn't generally respect "angry protest" culture), I'm bracing myself for a slew of uninformed pseudo-intellectual doublethink and cognitive dissonance in the comments to follow.
I don't even know what you just said.
I saw this coming when I decided on a sig line.
I'd rather have a law to turn some obnoxious humans into chimpanzees
I imagine that chimps imprisoned in human jails might make some interesting reality TV shows.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons
_...because it benefits corporations and corporations have lots of money and with that money comes power. This is a condition that predates our nation (USA).
A corporation is not a person. It is is a MOB constructed to shield that mob from the legal consequences of their actions.
As an entity with limited legal responsibilites, it should also have similarly limited rights.
It's kind of like a child or a chimp in this respect.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Will those chimps be required to petition for citizenship? If they are given citizenship will they be required to pay taxes? Will they be required to get Affordable Healthcare?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
"abolitionist vegan" = suicide for plants?
Perhaps they smuggle carrots via the Underground Safeway
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Will they also get the right to vote if this passes?
Or is that the real use of this nice way to get a big block of votes.
Could they be charged with attempted murder for ripping faces off?
I, for one, welcome our new chimpanzee overlords.
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But hey, at least we'd be entertained!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's well documented that some animals have the mental capacity of a typical 3 year old human child. (See Alex the african grey parrot, Koko the gorilla, etc.)
Personhood implies social responsibility.
This is much more than paying taxes, it involves a wide range of social interactions including employment, self-reliance, participation in government etc.
Chimps if "released" could not function in our society. Releasing them into the wild would be a death sentence for most lab animals.
They would still need to be cared for, and are unlikely to be able to contribute much.
I do not see how a judge could make a finding of personhood under (what little I know of) American law.
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
How is that... remotely relevant? The fact they are different has nothing to do with one set of attributes requiring an inference of "rights", and another set of attributes requiring an inference of "no rights". Is there the vaguest connection there in your own mind, or is it a total non-sequitur?
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Seems clear enough. But if you prefer to argue it in terms of Enlightenment philosophy, I'm game. Show your direct connection between empirical reality and "rights". I think you'll find rights were in fact presumed, and the history of philosophy during that time is largely unproductive arguing about whose subjective, unanchored secular notion of them was best.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
...there is hope for me, a code monkey !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Use to be that a person owed a dog no better treatment than they did a chair or silverware. The idea of animals as mere "chattel" has been slowly chipped away at over time. As people have come to view animals as having a higher status than a bookshelf, the law has slowly moved the same way. Animal abuse is generally a crime everywhere. Further the state can take away animals from people who mistreat them.......the same is not true for one who "mistreats" their wooden desk, no matter how public and violent the act may be.
The risk that these animal rights activist face is that of setting unfavorable precedent which, under the legal concept of stare decisis, could serve as a roadblock to courts future recognitions of animal "rights". There are also a myriad of peripheral issues that such a finding would raise. If a chimp is legally considered a person, what is their citizenship? Does the U.S. Constitution apply to them? Can they vote? The list goes on.
...should legaly be considered Chimpanzees.
You didn't follow the phrase "begs the question" with a question, which begs the question, which question is begging to be asked?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Corporate personhood derives from the personhood of the people who constitute the corporation. Corporations have free speech rights because their share holders have, and the share holders (by virtue of buying shares in the corporation) have chosen the corporation to speak for them. When they want the corporation to stop speaking for them, they sell their shares.
Why shouldn't groups of people be able to get together and voice their political opinions in the form of a corporation?
Does that mean they have to attend school? Do they have to pay taxes? Can they apply for unemployment benefits? Are they recognised as citizens? Can they not be discriminated based on race/species? Is throwing poop protected by freedom of speech?
Stop being fucking stupid you animal huggers.
Judging by some of what I've seen in the local Walmart, some people are closer than others...
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I view PETA as a core of crazy surrounded by well-intentioned and reasonable animal lovers who just don't realise how batshit insane the leaders are.
Remember when we questioned whether or not a monkey could own a copyright? Well, if this happens...
We can do it that way, sure. It'll be just as effective as weighing each guy (with or without carrot nose of course) against a duck.
Lots of humans can't have offspring. Are they then a different species?
That's not analogous. If you take one random male human and one random female human (of child-bearing age), the odds are almost assured that they will be able to reproduce. I challenge you to find even one case where a male human and a female chimp or vice versa can successfully mate and produce fertile offspring. You're being obtuse.
we know that there is no magical 'stuff' that humans have that animals don't.
Oh look, here we go again asserting that we've somehow proven that something doesn't exist. I would love to see some citations for that assertion.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
New Zealand recently granted a river the same rights that apply to a company, if you abuse/damage the river it can sue you.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, and science disproved racism convincingly: human "race" is not a biologically meaningful concept. In contrast, the differences between chimps and humans are biologically real and significant.
Feel free to argue that it is wrong to treat chimps in certain ways (I certainly would). But that argument has to start with the biological fact that chimps are a different species from humans. And you have to recognize that if you make that argument for hominid animals, why you wouldn't also make it for non-hominid animals, like food animals.
You don't have to understand a contract to be a legal person with rights. That's how lawyers justify their existence.
I'm not saying consciousness is magic God dust but this is an area where there is a hell of a lot we don't understand so it seems premature to make blanket statements.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Of course, they'd have to be represented pro-bono. Bo.
> They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose.
Total nonsense. Corporations became legal persons OVER time based on greed TO LIMIT LIABILITY. Corporations want all the benefits and do everything in their power to avoid having to pay for them.
Date Decision, Legal Right Affirmed
1889 "Minneapolis and St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith", Right for judicial review on state legislation
1893 "Noble v. Union River Logging R. Col", Right for judicial review for rights infringement by federal legislation
1906 "Hale v. Henkel", Protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
1908 "Armour Packing C. v. United States", Right to trial by jury (6th)
1922 "Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon", Right to compensation for government takings
1962 "Fong Foo v. United States", Right to freedom from double jeopardy (5th)
1970 "Ross v. Bernhard", Right to trial by jury in civil case (7th)
1976 "Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council)", Right to free speech for purely commercial speech (1st)
1978 "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Right to corporate political speech (1st)
1986 "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility Commn of California", Right against coerced speech (1st)
Reference:
* A Short History of the Corporation
http://cnx.org/content/m17314/latest/
Also see:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314
Specifically, "The Corporation complete film transcript (PDF)"
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt1%20copy.pdf
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf
To add to my previous point ...
First, a corporation is effectively a psychopath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk
Secondly, Corporations pay no death tax (estate tax) because corporations NEVER die. That fact right there is a HUGE problem. It slowly strips the wealth (power) out of individuals and consolidates it -- that is total anathema to the original intent of State and Federal separation and balance of power.
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
Fourth, Corporations can effectively print their own currency via stocks.
Fifth, the value of a Company's stock is IMAGINARY worth. The fact that a company's value can fluctuate wildly over night means the value is a total sham.
Sixth, quoting http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/157829.shtml
--
The best thing about America? Capitalism! The worst thing about America? Capitalism!
It seems to me that scientists have judged animals as guilty of being unconscious until proven conscious.
Except that, in this case, chimps have been proven to be conscious. They've been taught sign language, are able to articulate feelings and desires and have shown the ability to understand concepts that are quite sophisticated. They're not at the level of normal humans, but their IQs correspond with moderately-retarded humans who do have legal rights.
Their lack of legal rights, at this point, cannot be attributed to any lack of proven consciousness. It's specifically their lack of personhood that prevents them from having rights. While that might seem like a synonym for intelligence and consciousness, it isn't currently.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
But this is stupid. Really stupid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...if they rip your face off they will go to jail?
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Because evolution happens at the level of species, and a priori, chimps are a species that we are in competition with (of course, they lost long ago). Human social structures, empathy, justice, and morality in human relationships are built into all of us through evolution (our "creator") because they are useful. So, if you want to extend notions of human justice and morality to other species, you need to make a utilitarian argument for that. People have done that, and it roughly ends up where we are today: we outlaw animal cruelty (because of the bad effect it has on people), but we don't outlaw the killing or use of animals for scientific purposes, labor, or food. I don't see any reason to revisit that.
Shareholders pay death duties on the value of their shares when they die, so they get the money that way.
I think it must mean ending the enslavement of vegans by their non-carniverous masters. So what we need is a Maneatsbacon Proclamation, by Abraham Lincoln.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
So you're saying the test of humanity is whether you can enter a contract or not?
In that case I suppose post partum abortions would be reasonable up until the age of humanness has arrived. Which I hope is before teanagerhood, or else the race will be wiped out in a single generation!
So, if humans can sue to say that monkeys are not property, but deserve rights as humans, then what is to stop my cat from suing to have me legally declared it's property and servant? After all, that would only be making the de facto the de jure.
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Not really compatible with Deism, unless one is arguing men were given rights from "the beginning", that is, before they existed. But you seem to be arguing what you're uncomfortable with, rather than the argument at hand. I said "theism", that is the case. Christianity would be one form. There is no form that makes your argument with respect to rights coherent.
Because evolution happens at the level of species, and a priori, chimps are a species that we are in competition with (of course, they lost long ago). Human social structures, empathy, justice, and morality in human relationships are built into all of us through evolution (our "creator") because they are useful. So, if you want to extend notions of human justice and morality to other species, you need to make a utilitarian argument for that.
Not really. I can instead that that utilitarianism isn't a valid basis for anything regarding answering whether or not rights exists in human or non-human, for or against. Nor, really, a basis for any usable ethics, and devoid of any connection to a metaphysics by which to justify it. Why would a utilitarian answer, even potentially, be the objectively valid one? Nor, is the fact we feel something as an evolutionary byproduct any justification for its validity. Nor, is there any question that "Creator", capitalized, does not refer to non-sentient processes of evolution.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
If corporations keep pressing forward toward legal personhood, I wonder if you could make a 13th amendment argument against them owning other corporations...
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
first they made these zoos called googleplex and apple ring. there the monkeys were fed and made to work all day and night. then someone demanded they be released from their privacy sucking imprisonment and they were released to the wild..
Highly informative, thanks a lot.
I am surprised about the 6th. Does that mean they have the right to be judged by their peers, i.e. other corporations instead of a human jury? How far of is that, do you think?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why not giving up on the habit of incarcerating chimpanzees in zoo, but the transition will be troublesome. A chimpanzee who always lived in a zoo will find freedom in the jungle quite unpleasant — if he/she/it even survive the experience.
So chimpanzee rampages through the streets of Manhattan killing some civilians, is put on trial (being a person and all) and is found to be mentally incompetent and placed in a special home with bars for the rest of its life. Or otherwise is found competent to stand trial and is still placed behind bars. Meanwhile a "back to Africa for chimpanzees" is started except that the law prohibits deporting persons born in the US. Later the Supreme Court rules that chimpanzee poop thrown at the president was a legitimate form of free speech, which becomes a milestone in the decline of civilization.
That's fine, as long as a corporation can also be thrown in prison for it's crimes.
Obviously you're one of those soft on monkey-crime liberals who just want to make excuses for law-breaking apes. "Oh it's his up bringing! His parents didn't throw enough feces at him when he was growing up!" Well Charlton Heston showed us what happens if you don't stand up to the rampaging primate hordes. It's a mad house! A MAD HOUSE!!!!!
That is a VERY interesting line of thinking! The lawyers no doubt would be against it but that might be one way to covertly change the current corrupt system. The bigger problem is finding an honest judge who is aware of the problems corporations create. The other problem is that corporations want to play the pseudo-person card: They are a person when it suits them, and not a person when it doesn't.
There definitely needs to be a re-balancing of corporations. I don't see that happening until the system implodes upon itself. :-/ However, In the mean time what we CAN do is educate people and try to come to a BALANCED approach between zero corporations and corporations usurping power. e.g. Since politics dictates the rules, and money corrupts politics, money needs to be removed from politics. One way to do that would be to make a new rule: "Donations" MUST be split / shared amongst ALL parties so they all have a "voice" instead of companies providing kickbacks to certain politicians who want to push their agenda.
I'll second this, and move to abolish the organization.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
So now we could marry the chimp of our choice. Wait! i already did that. My first wife must have been some sort of monkey!
Rubbish. The Jewish view of marriage is pretty much just as a legal contract with some added fluff. There is even exchange of consideration. It would be better the other way round religion should keep its nose out of marriage.
Seems rather silly, doesn't it?
That's what started this whole "corporate personhood" thing, though. Corporations needed a legal status to allow them to enter contracts, and just as importantly, allow them to decline contracts... but that means that a corporation can now have choices, and those choices have an impact on the rest of the world, meaning they have political influence, as well, but the corporate stakeholders already have their regular vote in government, so now they get two ways to influence government, compared to the single vote everybody's supposed to have. Some folks understandably think this is unfair.
Underlying the debate is the question of whether it's possible for an entity to have a free choice without having the freedom to affect politics. Relatedly, should corporations even be allowed to have choices, or should they be required to follow strict nonpartisan rules to govern their behavior, and who gets to decide those rules?
With regard to humans, the similar question is indeed what point an adolescent understands the world and its interactions enough to responsibly and conscientiously enter a contract... and who gets to decide when that happens?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Perhaps but it would open up all other kinds of questions about things like the buying and selling of the animal (slavery), using the animals in entertainment settings or medical testing without concent. This isn't as simple as it seems on the surface.
If 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters accidentally recreate copyrighted works they could be sued.
Corporations can't vote because the managers know that one more vote isn't going to make much difference.
Dude, companies don't decide who can legally vote or not. It's not like it's a choice companies have, or ever will make.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans. Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans.
The point is not whether chimps are human; it's whether they are persons.
An old story arc of the Piranha Club comic involved Ernie Floyd having chimpanzees as maids or drivers. When the maid chimpanzee got pregnant by the driver chimpanzee, it went to court (with Sid Fernwilter as the only licensed monkey lawyer) and Ernie was ordered to pay alimony.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
You haven't made an "argument". You claimed that the Declaration of Independence showed that religion is the basis of US law. But the Declaration of Independence has no legal power, it wasn't intended by its authors as the basis of US law, religion cannot be used as the basis of court decisions in the US, and it is not used to justify the rights in the US Constitution. There are many legal systems in the world that are rooted in religion, and they differ in many of these points from ours. Hence your proposition that "religion forms the basis of US laws" is wrong.
There are two kinds of ethics: descriptive and normative. The utilitarian answer is descriptively true since it coincides with what we know from evolutionary biology about why people are the way they are. So in that sense, it is "objectively valid" and it is also relevant to the discussion. Normatively, there are many possible ethical systems. But whatever system you choose, the burden is on you to explain what its relationship to objective reality is and why many real people choose to behave differently from your system. (Personally, I'm not a strict utilitarian, I simply explained to you why the species concept is relevant.)
Well, then do. So far, you haven't argued for something, you have merely repeatedly stated that you don't like other people's assumptions or basis of reasoning. You're not going to change anybody's mind without actually starting to make an argument for a position.
Taxes? Corporations have other taxes than people. No surprise. Corporations don't die, but people don't pay dividends. More importantly, corporations in particular are rather unique in that they hold property on behalf of the ultimate owners. Those can be people, but also trusts, associations and other non-owned non-human entities. The latter are really worrying: unlike corporations, they do take away wealth from people.
Ownership? Either you want to bar international companies (which sets you back to 19th century prosperity) or you have to allow companies to own other companies across international borders. To ban domestic ownership would then just encourage corporate offshoring.
Printing stocks? Look at Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany how effective that is. And even today, the biggest printer by far is still the Fed. Not at all a point against corporations, by any stretch of the imagination.
Imaginary wealth? Really, you are grasping at straws here. "Value" as you use it seems to be the stock price. Be honest, and say that is what fluctuates. The exchange rate of the stock against the dollar. Continue to be honest, and say that also reflects the valuation of the dollar. The all-time high of the Dow Jones (in dollars per stock) is really just a low for the dollar, since those are printed like crazy. There are individual variations, yes, but those typically do reflect real value changes.
First you add a qualifier, namely "human". Now you invent a bullshit distinction between knowing something and knowing that you know it.
I think I'm going to invest in whichever logistics company you employ to move the goalposts around.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I take it you didn't watch the link. You should, I think you might see some people you recognise.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Good for Jews. But that doesn't stop a lot of (Christian) people from trying to dictate who can or can't marry who based on their religion - I am, of course, referring to the opposition to gay marriage. So it would be best to officially secularize the state-concerning legal aspects of marriage, and let various churches, sects and suicide cults conduct whatever rituals they want for who they want on whatever basis they want.
They won't, and the state doesn't have the authority to demand they do. On the other hand, the state does have the authority to separate any religious aspecs from the legal aspects, to not give them any consideration or the power of law. The end result is the same.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
Nah, we put the rights don't exist guy in a raging chimpanzee, step back and ready our rain coats.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
Nah, we put the rights don't exist guy in a raging chimpanzee, step back and ready our rain coats.
in WITH a. Putting a guy in a chimp would just be cruel and unusual.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It seems to me that scientists have judged animals as guilty of being unconscious until proven conscious.
Except that, in this case, chimps have been proven to be conscious. They've been taught sign language, are able to articulate feelings and desires and have shown the ability to understand concepts that are quite sophisticated. They're not at the level of normal humans, but their IQs correspond with moderately-retarded humans who do have legal rights.
Their lack of legal rights, at this point, cannot be attributed to any lack of proven consciousness. It's specifically their lack of personhood that prevents them from having rights. While that might seem like a synonym for intelligence and consciousness, it isn't currently.
Pigs are relatively intelligent too. They have demonstrated the ability to count and I think very basic sums. When you see those rows of pig pens in a field or where ever each pig will go back to the same one every night. They may even be able to be taught sign language only they don't have arms or hands, I don't think trotters would work. Should they be considered for personhood too if it's a matter of IQ?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If a chimpanzee were granted the rights of "personhood", then it would be by applying the standards of humanity. Applying those same standards, he would also be declared legally incompetent. His "imprisonment" would merely be re-defined as "protective custody", and no standard of care would be granted beyond that which could have been gained by applying laws against animal cruelty. IOW, I think this is a wasted exercise. However, IANAL, therefore I'm not stupid enough to think otherwise. ;)
Though I am willing to entertain the, "Yeah, but chimps are assholes" argument.
I hope you're joking. Petitio principii, or begging the question, does not involve demanding that a question be asked.
I don't think you need a religious justification for people having rights. If that were the case, the US couldn't have people having any rights since we have a secular government. As much as the fundies would love to argue otherwise, we aren't a "Christian Nation." We're a nation made up of a lot of Christian people, but also a lot of Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, and other various religious/non-religious types. Therefore, so as to not make any laws concerning religion (e.g. declare an official State Religion or require that all government workers say a prayer to Jesus Christ daily), our government is secular in nature.
Our rights are "naturally existing." You can read that as being "from God" or as being "the natural correct way things should be" depending on your personal preference. The government doesn't need to address WHERE the rights came from. It just needs to recognize that the rights are there and not get in the way of them.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
As soon as those chimpanzees apply for their rights by themselves I am all for it.
In the meantime, could somebody provide some psychiatric help to those members of the Nonhuman Rights Project?
"So it would be best to officially secularize the state-concerning legal aspects of marriage, and let various churches, sects and suicide cults conduct whatever rituals they want for who they want on whatever basis they want."
This is already how it is done. You go to city hall or county office, etc, to get a marriage license. There is no requirement to go to a church, sect, or cult, but you may not be viewed as married by those institutions. Similarly, if you only go to a church/sect/cult and don't go to city hall, you're not married in the eyes of the law (exception: states with common law marriage).
If your pro-bono does that mean you actually like Sonny and Cher? Disgusting.
Only if the chimmies are able to pass the galactic standard uplift ceremony should they be treated as legal persons. Until then we are still their patrons...
Also Dolphins...
I like your 13th amendment, idea....
So if we follow the logic of our Supreme Court that argues that corporations are people ( apparently based on prior case law that can only be described as a typo ) then ipso facto, a corporate merger and leveraged buyout is Slavery.
Of course, they can come back and say; "But it's a young company" and thus we get into a custody battle.
To prevent the "foster child" debate, we need to go ahead and show past deeds of all companies as examples of "unfit parents" and at the very least, creepy uncles.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Then something that is actually flesh and blood and looks vaguely like us can be a person.
Fertile offspring might be hoping for a bit much, but
No. That's the definition of a species. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
QED
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring.
Lots of humans can't have offspring. Are they then a different species?
That...no...now you're just being disingenuous. Species as a term has definite scientific meaning. One of the common ways of explaining it to lay people is that (generally) different species can't interbreed. But then...wolves and dogs, horses and zebras, lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, etc. But when you get to the point logically that for all x and all y it is true that x cannot interbreed with y then you can safely say that x and y are two different species. If they can interbreed then you have to do some more hair splitting. In the case of sterile humans, they were quite obviously born of parents who weren't sterile so your argument falls apart.
Their brains are obviously quite different.
The point is?
That we are apex predators.
They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
I'd argue that some humans are more vicious and aggressive.
And we don't let them run around all willy-nilly either.
Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
I'm sure they also didn't recognize blacks as being equal to whites, or that gays should be able to marry. Times change, so does thinking on what's right and wrong.
It seems to me that scientists have judged animals as guilty of being unconscious until proven conscious. This seems backward to me as we know that there is no magical 'stuff' that humans have that animals don't. Also, through evolution consciousness has been built up over the eons through layers in the brain. To say that somehow consciousness was just suddenly switched on 100,000 years ago just seems absurd.
The magical 'stuff' that we have that animals don't include (but are not limited to): civilization, spaceflight, writing, the internet, and abstract reasoning.
As to your other charges, yeah, some of their ideas really didn't survive the test of time, but you know, we don't throw out the theory of gravity just because Newton was a nutter who kept trying to turn lead into gold. Being batshit crazy in one area doesn't discredit everything else you do.
When it comes right down to it, if we weren't so secure in our modern society we wouldn't even be able to talk about if animals had rights. Because we'd be roasting one on a spit and hoping that we didn't freeze to death/starve/get an infection/get eaten ourselves before we could get another one to roast. Your concern for animal "rights" is a very modern indulgence. And it is not an indulgence that we are evolutionarily wired to consider as a species.
We can do it that way, sure. It'll be just as effective as weighing each guy (with or without carrot nose of course) against a duck.
Yes, but with the cage match, we can make a lot more money from sponsoring, ticket sales, and broadcast rights. The potential audience for the duck weighing is probably not so much (although there would probably be some overlap).
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I hope you're joking. Petitio principii, or begging the question, does not involve demanding that a question be asked.
Oh, but it does. You see, "begging" means "asking" or "lacking", and "question" means "question". In other words, there is a question missing, and when you point out that something is begging the question, it is traditional (and good manners besides) to provide the question in question.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So what you're doing is taking the literal meaning of a phrase that is more of an idiom.
Logically, the phrase means what the phrase means.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I might get citizenship.... :D
I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.
A few more monkey votes won't make much of a difference.
I hope nobody ever breaks your heart. It would kill you (literally).
Since our illustrious government/court system has turned corporations into individuals, why not add chimpanzees as persons?
It would definitely be a step up the evolutionary chain for them (the legislators/judges).
And who knows, perhaps some day citizens of this nation might even be afforded the status of legal personhood as well.
There have been times Sir when I have been dumber than a Roomba. I hope you do not think that gives you a right to stomp on me or put me on a hook and feed me to the fishes.
I doubt you appreciate how marvellously simple-minded a Roomba truly is. I speak with certainty when I say that they are dumber than even our most celebrated politicians.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Aww! I was hoping you'd say I was begging the question on that last one.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The real power in America has been transferred to corporations; if you're serious about protecting chimpanzees, incorporate them.
Voila! - instant super-"citizens".
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So we're supposed to let them loose to roam about the US countryside? I can't see this ending badly at all ;)
I suppose as legal people we must teach them all sign language? Give them the right to vote?
Does it also mean that they go to regular prison when they eat people's faces?
Remember this?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/man-lost-face-05-mauling-hell-new-chimpanzee-victim-article-1.364450
This exactly.
Most people just like animals. They don't realize PETA is insane.
Although at times I'm not sure if they're nutty, or just realize they've got a good racket going.
...since they would be required to sign up for Obamacare.