Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn.

[sweboy]

http://www.greatapeproject.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

I have a distant memory of a thread about this, but I'm not sure and I couldn't find it by searching. But there was some discussion on the topic of human superiority in the Community thread recently so I figured this could fly either way.

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.

2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.

3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.

So, opinions?

[-1up!-]

Hmm given those great apes cannot acknowledge and participate in the enforcement of that moral community through conscious acts, it's pretty stupid.

[sweboy]

Hmm given those great apes cannot acknowledge and participate in the enforcement of that moral community through conscious acts, it's pretty stupid.

So human children should not be given these rights either?

[-1up!-]

So human children should not be given these rights either?

Err children actually learn to reason and enter social life through socialization but there is no way apes can undergo human socialization in any portion of their life.

[Amit]

i'm all for this as long as science research is allowed to use the poor and mentally retarded for experiments in place of these noble and great apes

[Apollyon]

Err children actually learn to reason and enter social life through socialization but there is no way apes can undergo human socialization in any portion of their life.

Are you serious? Chimpanzees learn how to communicate and make decisions every day. Being able to speak in sign language isn't a symptom of stupidity and neither is utilizing that ability to communicate thoughts and feelings, no matter how primitive they may at this point be. If anything, chimps would be a step ahead of young, human children in those aspects.

However, I don't think it's necessary to give apes equal rights as they don't have the opportunity or necessity to enjoy them.

[lunchforthesky]

The bible thumping lobby would never in a million years go for this. Im unsure it's an interesting question, ive always thought that future generations will loook at us will absolute disgust at how we treat other animals.

[Amit]

depends on how young, jared

also a young child's brain is already far more developed than even an adult chimpanzee's ever will be

[Apollyon]

depends on how young, jared

also a young child's brain is already far more developed than even an adult chimpanzee's ever will be

Yeah it does depend. Give evolution another few hundred (or thousand) years and maybe this group will have a good foundation for their cause.

[Amit]

i don't get it

[Apollyon]

What?

[Amit]

what do you mean by this:

Yeah it does depend. Give evolution another few hundred (or thousand) years and maybe this group will have a good foundation for their cause.

[Apollyon]

I'm just saying, apes will have their turn on the wheel of evolution. They can only get smarter as time goes on. It worked for humans.

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah it does depend. Give evolution another few hundred (or thousand) years and maybe this group will have a good foundation for their cause.

Ha it doesnt work that fast more like a 10,000 or so years :/

I reckon well be able to bring neanderthols back to life from bones in that time.

[Amit]

I'm just saying, apes will have their turn on the wheel of evolution. They can only get smarter as time goes on. It worked for humans.

maybe if we didn't exist

but definitely not since we exist

[Apollyon]

I reckon well be able to bring neanderthols back to life from bones in that time.

Wasn't it in Colorado that they found near perfectly preserved T-Rex tissue and bone marrow? I'm still waiting for the real life Jurassic Park. :-D

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah i heard about that

I think scientists will eventually be able to perform pretty much every thing you could dream of eventually.

teleportation, bringing back the dead you name it.

[HaVIC5]

Err children actually learn to reason and enter social life through socialization but there is no way apes can undergo human socialization in any portion of their life.
What about mentally handicapped people? Chimpanzees meet and exceed the cognative capabilities of many mentally retarded adults that will never develop into anything more advanced. Really, potential doesn't have anything to do with it, and neither does species.

[sexymuffin]

maybe if we didn't exist

but definitely not since we exist

yeah they don't have any reason to adapt now anyways.

but um they're monkeys and you can't like have a conversation with them so i dunno. Like how would a monkey even get pissed off if someone was intruding on their "rights"? they're monkeys.

[RNR]

teleportation, bringing back the dead you name it.

A microwave that doesn't make mini pizzas soggy or mini pizzas that don't get soggy in a microwave? :shiftyeyes: :smoke:

[HaVIC5]

yeah they don't have any reason to adapt now anyways.

but um they're monkeys and you can't like have a conversation with them so i dunno. Like how would a monkey even get pissed off if someone was intruding on their "rights"? they're monkeys.
Sure you can. Ever heard of Koko the gorilla? She was a gorilla that learned a large amount of American sign language, enough to express feelings, emotions, anxieties, and understand a surprisingly large array of abstract concepts. She even had the cognitive power for neologism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

[sweboy]

but um they're monkeys and you can't like have a conversation with them so i dunno. Like how would a monkey even get pissed off if someone was intruding on their "rights"? they're monkeys.

So again; mentally handicapped humans should not be given these rights either? And besides, a tortured ape feels the same pain as a tortured human, why does it matter how well it can inform others about the torture? Again, a human child can't have a conversation and does not get pissed when someone is intruding it's rights.

[MattSharpIsCool]

If you're going to use that argument, you've gotta ask how far you're willing to take it. I'm sure a tree frog feels pain just like a human feels pain, so should we treat them as complete equals, also?

I think this is pretty ridiculus. Sure, monkey's are fun and everything, but do we really need to give them a fair trial before punishing them? Apes may be our closest relatives, but they are still apes.

[italic zero]

I'm just saying, apes will have their turn on the wheel of evolution. They can only get smarter as time goes on. It worked for humans.
This is a fallacy.

[Apollyon]

This is a fallacy.

Oh sorry, evolution doesn't exist and the world was created 2,000 years ago.

Better?

[italic zero]

They can only get smarter as time goes on.

that one

[Apollyon]

that one

Ok obviously they could get dumber, but most living organisms don't stay the same over great periods of time. Way to take me completely literally. :(

[Smokey D]

We don't know what evolutionary pressures might act upon apes in the future. There is nothing to suggest they'll get smarter, so he's right in pointing out the fallacy.

[Apollyon]

We don't know what evolutionary pressures might act upon apes in the future. There is nothing to suggest they'll get smarter, so he's right in pointing out the fallacy.

There's nothing to suggest that humans will exist anytime in the near or distant future. There's nothing to suggest that God really exists. There's nothing to suggest that anything exists beyond the realms of our universe.

If you're looking for suggestive evidence in the argument of future evolution of a given species, you're looking into an empty box. Don't throw the word 'fallacy' at me until you can prove otherwise.

[WhoDidTheElf]

There's nothing to suggest that humans will exist anytime in the near or distant future. There's nothing to suggest that God really exists. There's nothing to suggest that anything exists beyond the realms of our universe.

If you're looking for suggestive evidence in the argument of future evolution of a given species, you're looking into an empty box. Don't throw the word 'fallacy' at me until you can prove otherwise.

You said they can only, there is nothing that can prove that they will only. They may, but to say they will is a fallacy.

[Apollyon]

You said they can only, there is nothing that can prove that they will only. They may, but to say they will is a fallacy.

Again, thanks for analyzing every word in my post. That's not the idea I was trying to convey just so it's clear.

If you don't understand something I've said, ask for clarification before you jump on the "omg ur so rongz" bandwagon.

[Smokey D]

There's nothing to suggest that humans will exist anytime in the near or distant future. There's nothing to suggest that God really exists. There's nothing to suggest that anything exists beyond the realms of our universe.

So?

If you're looking for suggestive evidence in the argument of future evolution of a given species, you're looking into an empty box. Don't throw the word 'fallacy' at me until you can prove otherwise.

It is a fallacy because it does not follow from your logic.

[Apollyon]

You guys have no idea what I'm talking about. I give up.

[Smokey D]

I'm just saying, apes will have their turn on the wheel of evolution. They can only get smarter as time goes on. It worked for humans.

Why can apes only get smarter?

[Apollyon]

I already stated that I wasn't trying to convey the idea that they can "only" get smarter. I just didn't think to myself, "Hey I should say 'may' instead of 'only' because someone is going to horribly misinterpret this and try to start a debate with me."

[spitfirejunky]

If we do this, we'll have to include dolphins.

[Danger Bird]

I think we should work on giving more humans some basic human rights before we move on to Magilla Gorilla over there.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

You's playing a dangerous game, mesays
but the biggest thing's mentionned the least;
It's not that gorillas are people,
but more that all people are beasts.

[PerpetualBurn]

Sure you can. Ever heard of Koko the gorilla? She was a gorilla that learned a large amount of American sign language, enough to express feelings, emotions, anxieties, and understand a surprisingly large array of abstract concepts. She even had the cognitive power for neologism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

It's pretty a completely discarded idea that Koko was actually using intelligence on a par with a human.

Koko knew the sign that led to her getting a drink, but it's anything but established that Koko could comprehend the meaning of thirst.

[sweboy]

If you're going to use that argument, you've gotta ask how far you're willing to take it. I'm sure a tree frog feels pain just like a human feels pain, so should we treat them as complete equals, also?

I think this is pretty ridiculus. Sure, monkey's are fun and everything, but do we really need to give them a fair trial before punishing them? Apes may be our closest relatives, but they are still apes.

Humans are apes. The biological differences between humans and the other great apes are very, very small. That's the reason for this, that we are so incredibly similar. We're not very similar to a frog, which most likely doesn't feel complex fear and such.

You've got a point though, and we humans will probably take the argument further and further as time goes on. We've gone past sex ("but they are still women"), race ("but they are still black") and right now we're moving towards family (biological family) - and from there we'll hopefully go -> order -> class -> phylum and possibly -> kingdom until we will frown upon and prohibit the causing of all suffering. People following the dharmic religions are already there in some aspects, but it will take much longer for the western world, which has been defiled by Abrahamic morals.

Really, I can't understand the "they are still just monkeys" view that the vast majority of the western world shares. Put a baby chimp next to a baby human and tell me why one of them is worth more than the other and why only one of them should be protected from suffering.

If we do this, we'll have to include dolphins.

Sure. The more the merrier. (Literary, since we're talking about the prohibition of torture)

[Amit]

Humans are apes. The biological differences between humans and the other great apes are very, very small. That's the reason for this, that we are so incredibly similar. We're not very similar to a frog, which most likely doesn't feel complex fear and such.

the neurological differences are massive so that's why we are so different plzkthx

[sweboy]

the neurological differences are massive so that's why we are so different plzkthx

I highly doubt that a human will feel massively greater pain than any of the other great apes when for example stabbed with a knife.

[Amit]

umm i'm not talking about that at all wow way to miss my point completely

cortex baby it's all in the cortex

[PerpetualBurn]

Pigs have some physiological similarities to humans but I'm happy to keep harvesting them for food and the occasional spare part for transplant.

[sweboy]

umm i'm not talking about that at all wow way to miss my point completely

cortex baby it's all in the cortex

Umm I'm not talking about that at all, way to miss my point completely. The reason we have human rights is basically to avoid suffering, right? Intelligence and mental capacity does not come into it, that's why we give human rights even to humans that don't have a large neocortex. We're talking about suffering here, what is your point?

[PerpetualBurn]

The reason we humans have rights is because it's a human society.

If intelligence and mental capacity is to be ignored then bacteria should have a right to life.

[italic zero]

We give things rights based on how much we value them, and that's perfectly fine by me.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Humans are apes. The biological differences between humans and the other great apes are very, very small. That's the reason for this, that we are so incredibly similar. We're not very similar to a frog, which most likely doesn't feel complex fear and such.

Ok yes, humans are indeed apes. And yes, we are biologically very closely related. But anyone can tell, just by looking and watching monkeys, that we are hardly alike. We do a lot of things similarly, but monkeys still function on an instictual level, for the most part.

It's easy to say that apes are our closest relatives, so they should be treated just the same as any human. But when your closest relative is still over a million years behind you in the evolution department, they are not equal or on the same level as humans.

Really, I can't understand the "they are still just monkeys" view that the vast majority of the western world shares. Put a baby chimp next to a baby human and tell me why one of them is worth more than the other and why only one of them should be protected from suffering.

The difference being that chimp will always be a chimp, while that baby will grow into an adult human being. The chimp may learn some sign language to let it's keeper know it's thirsty, and it might learn to dig bugs out of a tree trunk with a stick, but it will never be a human.

[sexymuffin]

Sure you can. Ever heard of Koko the gorilla? She was a gorilla that learned a large amount of American sign language, enough to express feelings, emotions, anxieties, and understand a surprisingly large array of abstract concepts. She even had the cognitive power for neologism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

that's pretty interesting, i really don't know much about this one so i'm just gonna let you guys who do debate the topic. I do know you'll have trouble convincing the blue collar types as they refuse to believe humans and monkeys have anything in common etc, but good luck with it.

So again; mentally handicapped humans should not be given these rights either? And besides, a tortured ape feels the same pain as a tortured human, why does it matter how well it can inform others about the torture? Again, a human child can't have a conversation and does not get pissed when someone is intruding it's rights.

tbh i know nothing about this and had no idea there was even a movement to pass these laws, but it sounds pretty logical. But ultimately i'm too uneducated on the issue to hold an opinion so i'll keep out of this one.

[Amit]

wtf blue collar types

my shirt atm has a pink collar

[sexymuffin]

wtf blue collar types

my shirt atm has a pink collar

collarless shirt atm tbh

[AA-12]

I like this plan :)

[Mr. Ron]

What a potentially great waste of money and resources...

[Kurrpt]

maybe if we didn't exist

but definitely not since we exist

someone needs to go back and watch Planet of the Apes

[Mr. Ron]

Anyways, just because they might have similar mental capacities doesn't mean they should have the same rights as us, because they can't possibly comprehend those rights at all.

[lunchforthesky]

People are gien rights in exchange for contributing to our society or on the assumption that they will contribute at a later stage in their lives, how on earth can anything that is not human contribute to our society, they cant exactly pay taxes can they.

Animals deserve to be treated with great respect, but they are not part of our society and are not entitled to the same rights we are.

[Mr. Ron]

People are gien rights in exchange for contributing to our society or on the assumption that they will contribute at a later stage in their lives, how on earth can anything that is not human contribute to our society, they cant exactly pay taxes can they.

Animals deserve to be treated with great respect, but they are not part of our society and are not entitled to the same rights we are.

yup.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

they're still just ****ing monkeys.

[sweboy]

The reason we humans have rights is because it's a human society.
And back in the day we only had white male rights because it was a white male society. Morality grows over time, and we try to prohibit more and more suffering.

If intelligence and mental capacity is to be ignored then bacteria should have a right to life.

Intelligence and mental capacity does not come into it, (...) We're talking about suffering here, what is your point?

Ok yes, humans are indeed apes. And yes, we are biologically very closely related. But anyone can tell, just by looking and watching monkeys, that we are hardly alike. We do a lot of things similarly, but monkeys still function on an instictual level, for the most part.

It's easy to say that apes are our closest relatives, so they should be treated just the same as any human. But when your closest relative is still over a million years behind you in the evolution department, they are not equal or on the same level as humans.

Evolution is not a contest to become the species with the most advanced brain and there is not a evolutionary "ladder", even though that's what most of the western world thinks, thanks to Abrahamic brain washing.

The difference being that chimp will always be a chimp, while that baby will grow into an adult human being. The chimp may learn some sign language to let it's keeper know it's thirsty, and it might learn to dig bugs out of a tree trunk with a stick, but it will never be a human.

I don't see a how potential is relevant in any way. They both feel the same pain, why does it matter what they will become in the future? Should infants with uncurable diseases that will make them die at a very low age not be given human rights?

People are gien rights in exchange for contributing to our society or on the assumption that they will contribute at a later stage in their lives, how on earth can anything that is not human contribute to our society, they cant exactly pay taxes can they.

Animals deserve to be treated with great respect, but they are not part of our society and are not entitled to the same rights we are.

No, people are not given rights in exchange for anything, they are given rights simply because they are human (just like how whites used to be given different righs than blacks simply because they were whites). Even severely mentally damaged people are given the same rights even if it's clear that they will be a burden on society.

And just to make it clear, no one is saying that the other apes should be given the same rights as humans, only the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture. Don't kill 'em, don't captivate 'em, don't torture 'em. I really can't see what's so abhorrent about that (unless you're a Christian of course). But essentially, how can you deny rights to an orangutan that you give to a brain damaged human with the same mental capacity, the same intelligence and the same ability to feel pain?

[lunchforthesky]

were part of the great apes too you know.

[Amit]

Umm I'm not talking about that at all, way to miss my point completely. The reason we have human rights is basically to avoid suffering, right? Intelligence and mental capacity does not come into it, that's why we give human rights even to humans that don't have a large neocortex. We're talking about suffering here, what is your point?

then why can't we give human rights to other non-humans like mice and old world primates

what will research be conducted on then? :-X

[Avalanche.]

Sure you can. Ever heard of Koko the gorilla? She was a gorilla that learned a large amount of American sign language, enough to express feelings, emotions, anxieties, and understand a surprisingly large array of abstract concepts. She even had the cognitive power for neologism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

I'd never seen that, thanks for the link.

Another concern that has been raised about Koko's ability to express coherent thoughts through the use of signs is that interpretation of the gorilla's conversation is left to the handler, who may see improbable concatenations of signs as meaningful. However, Dr. Patterson has documented Koko inventing new signs to communicate novel thoughts. For example, she claims that nobody taught Koko the word for "ring", therefore to refer to it she combined the words "finger" and "bracelet", hence "finger bracelet".
I thought that was really cool.

[griftadan]

are we also going to put the chimps in jail when they **** public?

this is retarded.

[PerpetualBurn]

And back in the day we only had white male rights because it was a white male society.

Lol.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Give Apes the Vote - You Wont Regret it!

[sexymuffin]

so like if we do this are monkeys gonna start contributing to society or what?

[PerpetualBurn]

It's only fair.

We stop the medical research and they start behaving like respectable citizens.

Tax the monkeys!

[sweboy]

were part of the great apes too you know.
Humans are apes.
then why can't we give human rights to other non-humans like mice and old world primates

what will research be conducted on then? :-X

You've got a point though, and we humans will probably take the argument further and further as time goes on. We've gone past sex ("but they are still women"), race ("but they are still black") and right now we're moving towards family (biological family) - and from there we'll hopefully go -> order -> class -> phylum and possibly -> kingdom until we will frown upon and prohibit the causing of all suffering. People following the dharmic religions are already there in some aspects, but it will take much longer for the western world, which has been defiled by Abrahamic morals.

Lol.
Yes, but again, it's not about making the other apes part of our society and have them studying at our universities and running little cafés on the corner. My point was that morality changes over time. Back in the day, torture of females was cool, today it's not.

Give Apes the Vote - You Wont Regret it!

Parody works better if you know what you're making fun of. Atleast check out the wikipedia page.
so like if we do this are monkeys gonna start contributing to society or what?

And just to make it clear, no one is saying that the other apes should be given the same rights as humans, only the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture. Don't kill 'em, don't captivate 'em, don't torture 'em. I really can't see what's so abhorrent about that (unless you're a Christian of course).

[sexymuffin]

well why give them all these freedoms if they're not even going to contribute to society somehow?

[sweboy]

It's a question of morals, not a question of utility/profit.
Should infants with uncurable diseases that will make them die at a very low age not be given human rights?
Even severely mentally damaged people are given the same rights even if it's clear that they will be a burden on society.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes, but again, it's not about making the other apes part of our society and have them studying at our universities and running little cafés on the corner. My point was that morality changes over time. Back in the day, torture of females was cool, today it's not.


I don't give a crap about morality, but torturing women was always a retarded thing to do. Equally, it would be retarded to try and raise apes to the same level as people in our society.

[sexymuffin]

It's a question of morals, not a question of utility/profit.

but humans as a whole contribute to society and we take care of the ones who don't because we feel bad for them

monkeys however contribute nothing

and morality isn't an idea many people can agree on

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Give Apes the Vote - You Wont Regret it!

:lol:

"And it's with great honour that I swear in America's first ape president..."

"Oook!"


or even

"And it's with great honour that I swear in America's first ape president..."

"Flellow Ameri-McCains...."

[sweboy]

I don't give a crap about morality, but torturing women was always a retarded thing to do. Equally, it would be retarded to try and raise apes to the same level as people in our society.
And just to make it clear, no one is saying that the other apes should be given the same rights as humans, only the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture. Don't kill 'em, don't captivate 'em, don't torture 'em. I really can't see what's so abhorrent about that (unless you're a Christian of course).
To make it even clearer: No one is talking about raising apes to the same level as people in our society.

And why is torturing women retarded if you don't give a crap about morality?
but humans as a whole contribute to society and we take care of the ones who don't because we feel bad for them

monkeys however contribute nothing

and morality isn't an idea many people can agree on
I don't see a point in seeing "humans as a whole". Chimp or human, they're both products of aimless evolution and feel the same pain. Don't focus so much on the specific definition of species that we currently use; look at the induvidual organisms in reality instead (unless you're a Christian).

Severely mentally handicapped humans contribute nothing, chimps contribute nothing. But again, it's a question of morals, not a question of utility/profit.

But essentially, how can you deny rights to an orangutan that you give to a brain damaged human with the same mental capacity, the same intelligence and the same ability to feel pain?

[Amit]

But essentially, how can you deny rights to an orangutan that you give to a brain damaged human with the same mental capacity, the same intelligence and the same ability to feel pain?

because he's human and the orangutan isn't

humans get human rights and animals get animal rights; there are already pretty extensive laws against every day animal torture

what exactly is wrong here

[sweboy]

What's wrong is that is illogical and that you can't justify it.

[PerpetualBurn]

To make it even clearer: No one is talking about raising apes to the same level as people in our society.

Yeah, so there's no reason to give them any then. People get a right to life because people ARE society.

And why is torturing women retarded if you don't give a crap about morality?

Lol.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

What's wrong is that is illogical and that you can't justify it.

Society itself is absurd and illogical.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's really not.

[sexymuffin]

I don't see a point in seeing "humans as a whole".

um i do because if that retarded person had no parents and no family then i doubt anyone would give two shits about him. However, those retarded people DO have family members who care about them and are essential tools in society and thus we give them the same rights as any human because they are human and they have other humans who care about them.

monkeys don't have any family members who contribute to society thus giving them all this freedom isn't giving anything back to us but monkeys that should be allowed to throw feces in public because they're just from a different culture.

Chimp or human, they're both products of aimless evolution and feel the same pain. Don't focus so much on the specific definition of species that we currently use; look at the induvidual organisms in reality instead

so why aren't you proposing we give these rights to all organisms?

Severely mentally handicapped humans contribute nothing, chimps contribute nothing. But again, it's a question of morals, not a question of utility/profit.

yes but severely mentally handicapped people have other humans who care about them where as most people don't give a **** about some monkey who knows sign language.

[HaVIC5]

because he's human and the orangutan isn't

humans get human rights and animals get animal rights; there are already pretty extensive laws against every day animal torture

what exactly is wrong here
What exactly makes an entity a human? We can't just say something with human DNA, because that would make individual skin cells human, since each cell contains the entire complete human genetic makeup. The way you must define humanity is in more abstract concepts, like rationality, sentience, conciousness, etc, because saying "humans are members of the species homo sapiens" doesn't cut it. And when we define humanity to be these more abstract concepts, chimps and greater apes start to appear to be more human.

[sexymuffin]

havic where in md do you live?

[Elmo McCheese]

When I read this the first thing that came to mind was an orangutan wearing a suit and tie sitting on a witness stand and scratching his head because he has no idea what's going on.

[spitfirejunky]

What exactly makes an entity a human? We can't just say something with human DNA, because that would make individual skin cells human, since each cell contains the entire complete human genetic makeup. The way you must define humanity is in more abstract concepts, like rationality, sentience, conciousness, etc, because saying "humans are members of the species homo sapiens" doesn't cut it. And when we define humanity to be these more abstract concepts, chimps and greater apes start to appear to be more human.

The way we refer to humans as homo sapien sapien relies on all the traits you just mentioned. What do you think "sapien" means?

[jaredong]

you could say that great apes don't have souls if you're religious. Cuz if we go on and say that about what constitute a person then we're gonna have a lot of "persons". Maybe they do.... but then heaven's gonna have a lot more souls running about.

Although.... then lets say in the future, with artifical intelligence and robotics improving so much, that we make robots. Do we also give them the same rights as humans because they are rational, sentient and self conscious? If we do then its pretty icky (though would make sense if we totally replace a human into a robot say brain by liver by heart). If we dont then we'd carry out the Animatrix final episodes and then boom! Neo!

[HaVIC5]

The way we refer to humans as homo sapien sapien relies on all the traits you just mentioned. What do you think "sapien" means?
You missed my point entirely. How do you define "human"? I just showed you how you can't define humanity in terms of genetics and the classification "homo sapien", because otherwise, a skin cell would have the same rights as people. Skin cells are genetically homo sapien.

[Amit]

havic please tell me you aren't serious

i'm astounded by your logical fallacy

[Smokey D]

You missed my point entirely. How do you define "human"? I just showed you how you can't define humanity in terms of genetics and the classification "homo sapien", because otherwise, a skin cell would have the same rights as people. Skin cells are genetically homo sapien.

No, a skin cell doesn't possess all the characteristics of humanity.

[Mr. Ron]

Why the hell are people in this thread so enthralled about giving monkeys human rights? THEY AREN'T HUMAN.

[Surgicalgod]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the 5 pages, but anyway giving the other great apes human rights won't work and is ridiculous. Why? Because their brains aren't as developed as ours. kthx.

[HaVIC5]

No, a skin cell doesn't possess all the characteristics of humanity.
Right, exactly. So the only way you can define humanity is in its characteristics. Great Apes have most of these.

[PerpetualBurn]

So because we share characteristics with, we must be the same as.

Errr....

[sweboy]

um i do because if that retarded person had no parents and no family then i doubt anyone would give two shits about him. However, those retarded people DO have family members who care about them and are essential tools in society and thus we give them the same rights as any human because they are human and they have other humans who care about them.

monkeys don't have any family members who contribute to society thus giving them all this freedom isn't giving anything back to us but monkeys that should be allowed to throw feces in public because they're just from a different culture.
(...)
yes but severely mentally handicapped people have other humans who care about them where as most people don't give a **** about some monkey who knows sign language.
Ok, so human rights should only be given to retarded humans if they have family members? No rights for orphans, I can dig it. And how about a family of retards, where no one contributes to society? Really, if you're going to base the rights a person gets on his/hers ability to contribute to society, things are gonna get ugly.

so why aren't you proposing we give these rights to all organisms?I've answered that two times already, read the thread. I'd requote if but it doesn't seem to work anyway.

Why the hell are people in this thread so enthralled about giving monkeys human rights? THEY AREN'T HUMAN.
If you're not going to read the thread or the website, atleast read the wikipedia article, it's very short and legible. No one, except you, PerpetualBurn and other straw man lovers in this thread, is talking about giving them human rights - it's Great Ape rights.

And you might want to think about how well that avatar suits you when you're criticizing this, seeing how Richard Dawkins not only supports the project but contributed to the book that spawned it.

[Mr. Ron]

Ok, so human rights should only be given to retarded humans if they have family members? No rights for orphans, I can dig it. And how about a family of retards, where no one contributes to society? Really, if you're going to base the rights a person gets on his/hers ability to contribute to society, things are gonna get ugly.

I've answered that two times already, read the thread. I'd requote if but it doesn't seem to work anyway.


If you're not going to read the thread or the website, atleast read the wikipedia article, it's very short and legible. No one, except you, PerpetualBurn and other straw man lovers in this thread, is talking about giving them human rights - it's Great Ape rights.

And you might want to think about how well that avatar suits you when you're criticizing this, seeing how Richard Dawkins not only supports the project but contributed to the book that spawned it.


I know Dawkins supports this, I've known for a while. I don't have to agree with him on everything and i think he's silly for doing this.

Common animals cannot comprehend liberties, rights and protections. Now, I fully support SOME animal rights, to guard against abuse and extinction, but to give them civil liberties? I don't think most people would like to share their liberties, which uncounted lives have been sacrificed to obtain, with animals that throw their **** at each other.


Would you support turtle liberties? Parrot liberties? Or perhaps snail liberties?

[Krabsworth]

imagine trying to give an ape a parking ticket

[PerpetualBurn]

If you're not going to read the thread or the website, atleast read the wikipedia article, it's very short and legible. No one, except you, PerpetualBurn and other straw man lovers in this thread, is talking about giving them human rights - it's Great Ape rights.

Erm, the inalienable right to life is a human right.

[sexymuffin]

Ok, so human rights should only be given to retarded humans if they have family members? No rights for orphans, I can dig it. And how about a family of retards, where no one contributes to society? Really, if you're going to base the rights a person gets on his/hers ability to contribute to society, things are gonna get ugly.

but an orphan still has people who care for them without be blood related. You don't have to be strictly blood family to feel compassion for another human being because you realize it's unfortunate that they had to be born into a life like that. However, hardly anyone feels compassion for a monkey becuase it's a monkey and isn't human. The same rights should not apply to the monkey becuase it's not of the human species.

I've answered that two times already, read the thread. I'd requote if but it doesn't seem to work anyway.

You've got a point though, and we humans will probably take the argument further and further as time goes on. We've gone past sex ("but they are still women"), race ("but they are still black") and right now we're moving towards family (biological family) - and from there we'll hopefully go -> order -> class -> phylum and possibly -> kingdom until we will frown upon and prohibit the causing of all suffering. People following the dharmic religions are already there in some aspects, but it will take much longer for the western world, which has been defiled by Abrahamic morals.

so why not take the argument further now? are you compromising your logic because of the unlikelihood of anything past great ape rights occuring in the near future? But meanwhile all the pigs i eat for breakfast are having their rights stripped from them in the name of bacon. How tragic.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because gender and race don't limit your ability to take part in society.

Species does.

And before you say it, we give basic human rights universally, yes, but whether we should give them to retarded people is a different issue. There's still nothing to suggest we should give them to other species.

[Amit]

Right, exactly. So the only way you can define humanity is in its characteristics. Great Apes have most of these.

so?

we share over 90% of our genome with pigs

i don't see what the point of giving the sort of rights we enjoy to a pig

you (ought to) define humanity by physiology and neurophysiology

even chimps vary greatly on humans on this

our brains are just too different

[sweboy]

I know Dawkins supports this, I've known for a while. I don't have to agree with him on everything and i think he's silly for doing this.

Common animals cannot comprehend liberties, rights and protections. Now, I fully support SOME animal rights, to guard against abuse and extinction, but to give them civil liberties? I don't think most people would like to share their liberties, which uncounted lives have been sacrificed to obtain, with animals that throw their **** at each other.

Would you support turtle liberties? Parrot liberties? Or perhaps snail liberties?

The proposed rights are essentially to guard against abuse and extinction. Or more specifically, to guard against killing, captivity and torture. That's it. The goal is to protect them from suffering, not to have gorillas run for parlament.

As for turtle rights, the Western world is not ready. Would you ask a follower of for example Jainism though, he'd say that it's obvious that all animals should be protected from suffering. But the key here is that the other great apes are so similar to us - you could practically say that they are retarded humans, whereas turtles and snails are way behind in mental capacity and ability to feel pain and fear. Because that's what it is about, protecting them from suffering - the very same type of suffering that we protect humans from by using human rights (and a type of suffering that turtles can't experience).

Erm, the inalienable right to life is a human right.
Yes it is, but what kind of logic is that?
1. We give the right A to all humans
2. The right A is a "human right"
3. Other apes can't get the right A because they are not human

And from that view many animals already have some "human rights", since all rights that animals have, humans also have. But let's ignore that because you, deliberately or not, misinterpreted. The point is that the other great apes would not be included under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There would be a UN Declaration of Great Ape Rights.

[PerpetualBurn]

My point is that because they are patently not-human, there's no reason to give them human rights. And there's already plenty of endangered animal act.

[sweboy]

Now you're using that same logic again. The right to not be treated with unnecessary cruelty is a human right. By your logic, no other animals should have that rights since they are not human.

[PerpetualBurn]

We already have laws preventing unnecessary cruelty.

You're supposed to be convincing me why we can't kill them humanely.

[sweboy]

I just used the unnecessary cruelty right as an example to demonstrate your flawed logic, which you still seem to want to wiggle away from.

Why we can't kill them humanely? I can't really think of a reason. But whatever the reason is, it is the same reason why we can't kill humans humanely (from a moral viewpoint, that is). Because, like I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't see much difference between killing a human baby and killing a chimp baby. So that discussion perhaps belongs in the Why is killing wrong? thread.

Of course you could argue that the reason you give other people human rights is so that they should give you human rights in return - simply a way of protecting yourself. But with that view human rights is not really a moral question, but this Great Ape Project is a moral question.

[PerpetualBurn]

If you don't see a difference between a human and a chimp you've got some problems.

[sweboy]

Continuing to ignore to address the flawed logic in the previous argument, a ludicrous straw man and appeal to emotion, all in one sentence. Very impressive, you should be a politician.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't remeber an appeal to emotion.

It was more of a "how in God's name can you not spot a massive difference between a baby and a chimp".

Basically, when chimps and gorillas start contributing to society, I'll give them the same rights as people.

[Mr. Ron]

You have a weird thing for animals Sweboy.

[sweboy]

I don't remeber an appeal to emotion.

It was more of a "how in God's name can you not spot a massive difference between a baby and a chimp".

Basically, when chimps and gorillas start contributing to society, I'll give them the same rights as people.

Maybe you just would have needed to read harder.

Because, like I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't see much difference between killing a human baby and killing a chimp baby.

And for about the 700:th time, no one is talking about giving them "the same rights as people".

You have a weird thing for animals Sweboy.

It's called morality, and it is what the human rights declared by the UN are based on. Combined with a bit of logic I've come to the conclusion that I don't think it's cool kill and torture hominids. Abhorrent stuff, I know.

[Mr. Ron]

Maybe you just would have needed to read harder.



And for about the 700:th time, no one is talking about giving them "the same rights as people".



It's called morality, and it is what the human rights declared by the UN are based on. Combined with a bit of logic I've come to the conclusion that I don't think it's cool kill and torture hominids. Abhorrent stuff, I know.

I didn't say it's abhorrent. I am in total agreement that animals should be safe from abuse, but giving them liberties that are meant for freethinking, rational people, not beasts.

[Amit]

so?

we share over 90% of our genome with pigs

i don't see what the point of giving the sort of rights we enjoy to a pig

you (ought to) define humanity by physiology and neurophysiology

even chimps vary greatly on humans on this

our brains are just too different

bump for sweboy

also

Why we can't kill them humanely? I can't really think of a reason.

well then i guess this constitutes an /thread

[spitfirejunky]

You missed my point entirely. How do you define "human"? I just showed you how you can't define humanity in terms of genetics and the classification "homo sapien", because otherwise, a skin cell would have the same rights as people. Skin cells are genetically homo sapien.

All the traits you mentioned are directly a consequence of genetics and physiology, and are used in our taxonomy. When we sling the term homo sapien sapien, we directly refer to creatures that are self-aware, compassionate, etc.. Our classification and the traits you mentioned are inseparable.

[sweboy]

bump for sweboy

also


As for turtle rights, the Western world is not ready. Would you ask a follower of for example Jainism though, he'd say that it's obvious that all animals should be protected from suffering. But the key here is that the other great apes are so similar to us - you could practically say that they are retarded humans, whereas turtles and snails are way behind in mental capacity and ability to feel pain and fear. Because that's what it is about, protecting them from suffering - the very same type of suffering that we protect humans from by using human rights (and a type of suffering that turtles can't experience).

Exchange turtles for pigs. Of course, a pig is closer than a turtle, but they are still far behind hominids in terms of cognitive abilities.


well then i guess this constitutes an /thread
You know I did write stuff after that, but whatever. Because of moral reasons I think it's wrong to kill humans, and for the same reasons I think it's wrong to kill any hominids.

And there is already a great ape research ban in several western countries aswell as laws against euthanasia for non-medical and medically unnecessary reasons. What do you say to those countries?

[sexypoptarts]

Umm, like its too bad apes dont have rights and stuff

[lfantwister]

Basically, when chimps and gorillas start contributing to society, I'll give them the same rights as people.

Here I would argue that most people contribute about the same amount to society as chimps and gorillas. Chimps and gorillas bring us scientific advances in the fields of psychology and evolutionary biology and all sorts of things, while most people contribute to the rise of the averge body mass index, if that.

[Loser]

Since the apes are all smart and such, we should ask them what they want.

[lfantwister]

Less that apes are smart and more that humans are dumb

[drewhet]

if you go on youtube and search for "monkeys eating poo", there are like a million videos

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

if you go on youtube and search for "monkeys eating poo", there are like a million videos

Yeah but if you go on youtube and look at the comments on any video there is then you might start to wonder if humans are just as dumb

[spitfirejunky]

Better yet, search humans eating poo.

[PerpetualBurn]

Here I would argue that most people contribute about the same amount to society as chimps and gorillas. Chimps and gorillas bring us scientific advances in the fields of psychology and evolutionary biology and all sorts of things, while most people contribute to the rise of the averge body mass index, if that.

Chimps and gorillas only serve as test subjects. None of them have ever done a research degree. Or even worked in a factory.

Don't be so stupid.

[lfantwister]

Nah I'm just proving the point

[HaVIC5]

Nah I'm just proving the point
It's a stupid point, quite frankly. By that logic, mice would contribute much more to society than the average human.

[PerpetualBurn]

Nah I'm just proving the point

No you're not.

Chimps are only useful to society when a human exploits them.

[lfantwister]

SOrry I meant the point that humans are dumb...
which has been perpetuated in the last few posts here :(

[pedro durruti]

Yeah, but they're nowhere near as dumb as apes. Out of the entire species only a few apes contribute more to human society than individual people, but on the whole... I'd say humans contribute more than any ape species has.

[PerpetualBurn]

Wait...which apes contribute to society?

[pedro durruti]

The ones that are directly responsible for scientific discovery

[sweboy]

Wait...which apes contribute to society?

The apes at the zoo bring in major cash to society, unlike your average brain dead guy. But personally I don't think that contribution to society should be a factor when rights are determined.

If it was scientifically proved that an ethnic group of humans, for example gypsies, don't contribute to society and even affect it negatively, by not working, commiting a lot of crimes etc, should they not be given the same human rights as others?

I'm not a big fan of this whole "contribute to society" reasoning for rights. It's the reasoning behind the Holocaust, the Stalin purge and many other not very nice events. I see rights as a moral issue.

[PerpetualBurn]

The ones that are directly responsible for scientific discovery

So none ever then.

The apes at the zoo bring in major cash to society, unlike your average brain dead guy. But personally I don't think that contribution to society should be a factor when rights are determined.

If it was scientifically proved that an ethnic group of humans, for example gypsies, don't contribute to society and even affect it negatively, by not working, commiting a lot of crimes etc, should they not be given the same human rights as others?

People who commit crimes are put in jail...so yeah, they do lose their rights.

I'm not a big fan of this whole "contribute to society" reasoning for rights. It's the reasoning behind the Holocaust, the Stalin purge and many other not very nice events. I see rights as a moral issue.

The point is that humans ARE society, and monkeys and apes are incapable of participating.

It's not that they're lazy, it's that they aren't capable of doing what humans can. They aren't even capable of language.

[pedro durruti]

No I didn't meant it like that, I meant the ones who upon being experimented on, observed or whatever allow us to learn new things.

[PerpetualBurn]

How do you not think that's a retarded point to try and make?

It's like trying to argue that scalpels are directly responsible for surgery.

[pedro durruti]

I should have said indirectly. You can't operate with your bare hands you know..

[spitfirejunky]

That is a rather weak argument.

Let's give sedimentary rocks the right to life for their contributions to geology...

[PerpetualBurn]

It really doesn't raise chimps to a level above tools or other natural resources.

[MattSharpIsCool]

If monkeys are going to be allowed trials for their crimes, who is going to pay the court and attorney fees? Just throwing it out there.

[pedro durruti]

That is a rather weak argument.

Let's give sedimentary rocks the right to life for their contributions to geology...
What is?

[PerpetualBurn]

I am concerned as to whether or not you have any idea what geology actually is.

Because it should be patently obvious that it involves rocks.

[pedro durruti]

What the hell are you talking about, man? I know what geology is for goodness sake!

[PerpetualBurn]

Then why the inane question?

[pedro durruti]

I was wondering which argument this other fellow claimed was weak.. mostly because he didn't explain which one or why... and his second comment was baffling. I said to myself "um, give rights? To rocks? Sedimentary rocks?" Perhaps he was talking to Sweboy, cause none of my posts have anything to do with rights

[PerpetualBurn]

It was a parody of your argument that gorillas contribute to medicine. They do so only as far as rocks directly contribute to geology.

[pedro durruti]

Oh.. Yes, I never intended that. This is... man, this is all semantics! Unless you have a problem with me saying that INADVERTENT, involuntary contribution to human society by individual apes, and yes, rocks too, proves more useful than certain human leeches. Mmm.... um.

But, now that I look at it, what an arbitrary statement that is. Pardon me. I feel like what I am saying, and what was originally said, is worthless.

[PerpetualBurn]

What I'm saying is that chimps do not really count as "contributing" when we test on them. It is us doing the tests. It is us taking the results. Their part is purely incidental. You can't credit them with having done anything.

Some moron who never progresses past working on the checkout at Tescos however, can be credited with being a part of society.

[sexymuffin]

if we give them rights will we be allowed to test on them anymore anyways?

Then what do they have to contribute?