For a second, I forgot that monkeys aren't really people.

Originally posted by GCG
looks like we should debate the rights of the ape vs the rights of man?

where do we draw the line?
black, white, or shades of grey?

That's my point. Drawing lines in general is a bad idea, because there will never be a good place to make one.

The most intelligent apes are more intelligent than most young children and mentally deficient. So the intelligence argument goes out the window with that, because if we are denying them rights based on a lack of intelligence then we really need to start considering mentally handicapped people as sub-human. It's clearly

It's just a species bias. Sure, they aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unecessarily. But they are nearly as sentient as us, and we have no reason to believe they don't have emotions like we do (happiness, joy, pain, fear, sorrow, etc.).

Animals get animal rights. Humans get human rights. Apes != humans.

If people really think an ape should have the same rights as a human, then lets give apes the rights to vote, drive and own a gun.

Originally posted by Robtard
If people really think an ape should have the same rights as a human, then lets give apes the rights to vote, drive and own a gun.

I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

thats the point

Nobody is saying that apes aren't biologically close to humans

However, that statement is not the same as giving apes legal personhood.

I think everyone agrees with the strict biology, but the implications of this from a socio-political context are, quite literally, apes owning guns and having the exact same freedoms you do.

For instance, since an ape is a person, if it contracted rabies and attacked someone, it would have to be arrested, tried, and put in jail.

I don't even think people would be against special rules for highly evolved animals, but to give them legal personhood is not a good idea.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We're sentient enough to contemplate our own sentience. I'm pretty sure that counts as deserving the same rights.

Of course, this brings up the issue of sentience--what if we aren't so hot on the sentience block? What if there are things with more sentience than we have? What would that be like? How can one be more sentient than we are?

We may not be sentient enough to know.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

People are trying to have the chimp in question "declared a person", so what I said isn't a strawman and it is on topic, did you actually read the story or just the title?

Originally posted by Robtard
People are trying to have the chimp in question "declared a person", so what I said isn't a strawman and it is on topic, did you actually read the story or just the title?

No, I read the story.

This statement summarizes my thoughts:
"They aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unnecessarily."
...basically, I see a lot of the non-personhood reflecting nothing but a species bias that has us perceiving us as somehow more privileged than them. This is wrong.

But there's nothing wrong with accepting their cognitive limitations and catering their rights as such. It's the same reason we make legal ages for children for alcohol consumption, smoking, owning a gun, etc. This is no different.

Being declared a "person" (an amorphous distinction anyway) doesn't mean unrestricted freedom.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, I read the story.

This statement summarizes my thoughts:
"They aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unnecessarily."
...basically, I see a lot of the non-personhood reflecting nothing but a species bias that has us perceiving us as somehow more privileged than them. This is wrong.

But there's nothing wrong with accepting their cognitive limitations and catering their rights as such. It's the same reason we make legal ages for children for alcohol consumption, smoking, owning a gun, etc. This is no different.

You're ****ing dense...

"An animal-rights group had sought to have the chimp, Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person, hoping to gain guardianship of the animal"

Point being, if the chimp were to be legally declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person; of which would include what I said and several other rights.

Edit:

In response to the the last line you added, yes, it would have restrictions just as we do, as people, since it would legally be "a person." i.e. if it mudered someone, it could be jailed etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're ****ing dense...

"An animal-rights group had sought to have the chimp, Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person, hoping to gain guardianship of the animal"

Point being, if the chimp were to be legally declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person; of which would include what I said and several other rights.

Edit:

In response to the the last line you added, yes, it would have restrictions just as we do, as people, since it would legally be "a person." i.e. if it mudered someone, it could be jailed etc. etc. etc.

No need for insults.

😬

So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No need for insults.

😬

So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level.

You're right, I apologize.

WTF? I did no such thing, re-read what I said. I am saying that if it were to be declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person. Also, this chimp is at least 25 years old and can live to be around 60. So it would have the rights of an adult, not a child, in the case of this chimp.

Giving the animals rights, i.e. making it illegal to murder it, torture it, abuse etc., is one thing (of which I agree with), but this story is about "declaring it a person." Which is what I did and am responding to.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No need for insults.

😬

So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right, I apologize.

WTF? I did no such thing. I am saying that if it were to be declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person. Also, this chimp is at least 25 years old and can live to be around 60. So it would have the rights of an adult, not a child, in the case of this chimp.

Giving the animals rights, i.e. making it illegal to murder it, torture it, abuse etc., is one thing (of which I agree with), but this story is about "declaring it a person." Which is what did and am responding to.

You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There wouldn't be restrictions if they would just be accepted as "persons" right now in our legal system. Besides, what's the point in granting them the status of a "person", they aren't by definition. We could give them rights without having to compromise our language in the process.

Ok, so if you want to grant them more rights but not use the word, that's fine. Not much more than semantics, but if it dodges more controversy while have the same result, I'm fine with it.

I am against that proposal because it would give them more rights than they should have and would create more problems. I don't have a problem with giving them a large portion of rights, they just have to be reasonable. I doubt anyone is arguing against that either. Just what those people were trying is bullshit.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.

There's no logical reason to grant a chimp the legal status of a person, there are laws for animals already, we don't need to redefine the meaning of the word person.

Originally posted by Robtard
"In all likelihood", sure, if specific laws were made, are you sure they would be? As it stands now, if the ape were to be declared a human, then it would legally have the rights of a human, which part of that can't you grasp?

There's no logical reason to grant a chimp the legal status of a person, there are laws for animals already, we don't need to redefine the meaning of the word person.

As you word it (and as the article describes it), I'd also be against it. So I guess we are, in fact, in some agreement. I just see it as something that's potentially possible, and even preferable to no rights or grouping others as "animals" and us as "humans", but it would have to be done with the limitations in mind that I mentioned.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.

yes

however, if an ape is declared a "person", simply because of how laws work, they get the same rights as adults.

Ya, semantics are lame, but in the case of legalese, the distinction between "person-hood" and "child-hood" are monumental

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As you word it (and as the article describes it), I'd also be against it. So I guess we are, in fact, in some agreement. I just see it as something that's potentially possible, and even preferable to no rights or grouping others as "animals" and us as "humans", but it would have to be done with the limitations in mind that I mentioned.

Animals do have rights. If I were to curbstomp my dog, it would be illegal and I could serve time in jail.