Very Interesting - and I agree

143 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/sc...f=science&_r=0

The NonHuman Rights Group has filed to award a chimpanzee legal "person" status.

I've seen films of chimps and apes taught to do things I didn't know they could do. Communicating - holding a conversation - telling their caretakers what they want to eat - expressing anger, sadness, fear, affection.

The argument is that apes have so much DNA in common with humans it's wrong to imprison them or use them as test subjects in scientific experiments.
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I once had a bird that could talk, it would mimic the same words over & over If it heard it enough times. Can a chimp talk? My bird did.

    Animal cruelty is a different story but trying to classify a chimp as a person is crazy.

    What about the bear that rides a bicycle at the circus, is that a person?

    [edit]
    The bear on the blue bicycle was cheating, maybe it is a person, lol.



    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8756778].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Mike - I agree.

      It's not about "human" but a right to autonomy for a living being. It's hard to watch the videos below and think they are "just animals"...




      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8756886].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Horny Devil
        Banned
        Kay,

        In the reverse circumstances, there is a large percentage of the human population I would say, "are they animals?". They look like animals, act like animals, and behave like animals. But then that's just insulting to any animal, so I wouldn't confer that "honour" on just any human being.

        Planet of The Apes is not that far fetched.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8756904].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          December 3rd, 2013

          Remind me to draw a red, puffy cloud around that day on my calendar, for this is the day that I disagree with Kay King.


          Let's set aside the treatment issue for a second. I don't care if a chimpanzee can program websites and shops at Walmart, they are not human. If the sign says "German Shepherds Only", that yapping Chihuahua ain't gonna cut it.

          As far as the treatment issue goes, I am in favor of doing something about it. I am not in favor of letting attorneys, judges and activist further warp the legal system with this folly.

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I once had a bird that could talk, it would mimic the same words over & over If it heard it enough times. Can a chimp talk? My bird did.

      Animal cruelty is a different story but trying to classify a chimp as a person is crazy.

      What about the bear that rides a bicycle at the circus, is that a person?

      [edit]
      The bear on the blue bicycle was cheating, maybe it is a person, lol.



      Bears riding bicycles - YouTube
      No. A chimp can't talk. No animals can but not because they can't understand words or groups of words. It's because their vocal chords are not suited for human speech. Neanderthals were very similar to modern sapiens, yet their vocal chords were also limited and it is thought that is the reason they went extinct.

      You might have missed some entertainment a few years back when one college showed that monkeys can hack voting machines. Many experiments have shown that monkeys of all kinds can communicate when given computers with programs that let them just push buttons to say what they want to.........which requires an ability that we would recognize as "reading". Their communications are contextual and make sense. Ongoing "conversations" with the researchers show the same "frame insert" flow in the conversations as in human only conversations.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758159].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        To me, it's about consigning some species to miserable existences for the benefit or curiosity of humans. It's wrong.

        It's not about humanizing animals - I wouldn't relegate them to that.

        The argument for years was that humans were superior because they were self aware. Scientists now recognize there are other species that are self aware - and chimps are at the top of that list.

        Only the United States and Gabon allow biomedical experiments on the animals
        Chimps were granted certain legal rights by the Spanish Parliament in 2008
        a chimpanzee has qualities, including awareness of self, past and future, that should provide it with a right to bodily liberty. The request is not for the chimps to be set completely free, but to be moved to one of the eight sanctuaries in the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance.



        David S. Favre, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law, who teaches animal law but is not associated with the rights project or the legal action, said Mr. Wise's arguments are "a serious legal strategy,"
        He's not asking for "human status" - he's seeking to have this chimp recognized with the same status we give CORPORATIONS in the U.S.

        A chimp cannot talk - but they can and do communicate with each other and with humans. They do verbalize and the sounds are meaningful and recognizable to those who study it. If people around you are talking in a language you don't understand - they are still communicating with each other.

        I think this is a good test case. For one thing, he chose an animal that is not in extreme circumstances. It's not going to be a big public outcry over cruelty but a reasoned argument about animal rights.

        I understand the need and use of livestock for food. I'm not a vegetarian. Along with that - I think we owe it to those animals to provide quality of life during their short life span and a quick, humane way of killing them at the end. Those standards have improved in the US due to people like this guy who insisted we have to do better and be more humane.

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758650].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          To me, it's about consigning some species to miserable existences for the benefit or curiosity of humans. It's wrong.
          Kay, it's not about curiosity as much as it is about the many advances in medicine that would not have been possible without animal research.

          I assume that you go to the doctor when you are ill. Anyone who does is benefiting from that animal research or even more directly benefiting from animals with medications derived from animals.

          This argument works only if those making it are willing to abandon the vast majority of medical care, which by the way, several well known animal extremists apparently do not. They are diabetics and use insulin daily. They justify by saying that the work they do is too important to die from the lack of insulin. Isn't that special. They are placing their lives above the animals, but don't think that anyone else has the same rights.

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          He's not asking for "human status" - he's seeking to have this chimp recognized with the same status we give CORPORATIONS in the U.S.

          A chimp cannot talk - but they can and do communicate with each other and with humans. They do verbalize and the sounds are meaningful and recognizable to those who study it. If people around you are talking in a language you don't understand - they are still communicating with each other.
          Chimps are not the only species that communicate with each other. In fact, many do. My chickens are quite vocal and they communicate what they consider to be danger to each other daily. They also do a very loud "egg song" when laying an egg.

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          I understand the need and use of livestock for food. I'm not a vegetarian. Along with that - I think we owe it to those animals to provide quality of life during their short life span and a quick, humane way of killing them at the end. Those standards have improved in the US due to people like this guy who insisted we have to do better and be more humane.
          ... and that is animal welfare in a nutshell.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758699].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I am totally against using animals as test subjects. True, it has led to medical improvements but also true is much of the testing done has been for the cosmetic industry and for pure curiosity.

            We aren't the only country with good doctors and scientific medical breakthroughs - and the other countries don't use chimps for experiments.

            This particular argument is timely as there are organizations trying to award "personhood" to a fertilized egg, to a stem cell, etc. I don't agree with those attempts but they make giving chimps the same status as a corporation more logical in context.
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758736].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Kay, it's not about curiosity as much as it is about the many advances in medicine that would not have been possible without animal research.

            I assume that you go to the doctor when you are ill. Anyone who does is benefiting from that animal research or even more directly benefiting from animals with medications derived from animals.

            This argument works only if those making it are willing to abandon the vast majority of medical care, which by the way, several well known animal extremists apparently do not. They are diabetics and use insulin daily. They justify by saying that the work they do is too important to die from the lack of insulin. Isn't that special. They are placing their lives above the animals, but don't think that anyone else has the same rights.



            Chimps are not the only species that communicate with each other. In fact, many do. My chickens are quite vocal and they communicate what they consider to be danger to each other daily. They also do a very loud "egg song" when laying an egg.



            ... and that is animal welfare in a nutshell.
            Oh yeah - and severe torture to test out whether cosmetics are safe, too, when they would be in the first place if they would quit dumping toxic waste into them.

            Sorry - I, like Kay - don't feel we have the right to put another lifeform through torture for any reason. When you start finding excuses to torture for ANY reason, with humans it becomes any reason is good enough. Disease is a feature of natural selection - which keeps populations within carrying capacity limits. I would prefer we take our chances and find our "cures" (many used by our medical industrial complex are worse than the ailment) via methods that don't involve torture -- we have the technology to do that.

            As far as communication -- ALL creatures communicate in one way or another. It's instinctual (yes, even in humans), and life on this planet would not be possible if we all couldn't do so. What my comment was is that animals can communicate with humans. Unfortunately - most humans aren't smart enough to know what their fellow creatures are telling them. Few knew what monkeys were "saying" until they found they could use computers.

            To the guy above that said animals are not cognizant of human rights -- they are sentient enough to know when someone is making their life painful and nightmarish.

            I don't know when humans came to feel that it was their right to treat anything that moves any way they want to. It's actually the single most telling signal that WE aren't all as intellectually advanced as we like to think we are. Instinctually, our emotions are very cross-coded with our intellect, so in a truly intellectual being, there would be enough compassion and empathy to make the idea of torturing ANYTHING for any reason completely repulsive.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759872].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Oh yeah - and severe torture to test out whether cosmetics are safe, too, when they would be in the first place if they would quit dumping toxic waste into them.

              Sorry - I, like Kay - don't feel we have the right to put another lifeform through torture for any reason.
              Thanks for your opinion and I do value it, and I am absolutely certain that you have the courage to back up your convictions with action. I know that someone with such strong convictions on medical research, would never take another medication or medical procedure that was developed through medical research that used animal testing to develop it, even if you were going to die without it. Right?

              As for cosmetics, cruelty free cosmetics have been around for ages now. If you don't like cosmetics based on animal research, you don't have to go far to find cosmetics that are not based on animal research.

              I don't know when humans came to feel that it was their right to treat anything that moves any way they want to.
              I think I read that you do eat meat and animal products. What right do you have to do that since you seem to voice animal rights philosophy rather than animal welfare philosophy? Do you own any hiking boots or shoes or other products with leather? If so, why?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761176].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        You might have missed some entertainment a few years back when one college showed that monkeys can hack voting machines.
        Is that anything like dead people voting in Florida, lol?
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759473].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lcombs
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        No. A chimp can't talk. No animals can but not because they can't understand words or groups of words. It's because their vocal chords are not suited for human speech. Neanderthals were very similar to modern sapiens, yet their vocal chords were also limited and it is thought that is the reason they went extinct.

        You might have missed some entertainment a few years back when one college showed that monkeys can hack voting machines. Many experiments have shown that monkeys of all kinds can communicate when given computers with programs that let them just push buttons to say what they want to.........which requires an ability that we would recognize as "reading". Their communications are contextual and make sense. Ongoing "conversations" with the researchers show the same "frame insert" flow in the conversations as in human only conversations.
        Sorry if this is redundant, but, Coco, the Gorilla made famous by learning to communicate with sign language, was given a pet kitten. She named it "All Ball".
        To me that demonstrates not only intelligence but imagination.
        She expressed great affection for the kitten and cared for it much as a person would.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8760025].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Few knew what monkeys were "saying" until they found they could use computers.
          Long before computers there was ground breaking research. Jane Goodall's work with wild chimps and Dian Fossey's years of observation living with gorillas were turning points. How could anyone not be touched by "Gorillas in the Mist"?
          Signature
          Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

          Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8760163].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Long before computers there was ground breaking research. Jane Goodall's work with wild chimps and Dian Fossey's years of observation living with gorillas were turning points. How could anyone not be touched by "Gorillas in the Mist"?
            Jane Goodall says that chimps are much more violent than humans. They go to war far more often and have a much higher murder rate. There's some folks that think violence is only a human trait, but that's really not so.

            On the other hand, benobos, which are close relatives to chimps and often mistaken as chimps, are very peaceful with little violence.
            Signature
            Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
            Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761173].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

          Sorry if this is redundant, but, Coco, the Gorilla made famous by learning to communicate with sign language, was given a pet kitten. She named it "All Ball".
          To me that demonstrates not only intelligence but imagination.
          She expressed great affection for the kitten and cared for it much as a person would.
          This is typical of Koko. She is known to love to make up ryhmes, both phonic ryhmes and "ryhmes" using physical gestures using sign language, such as using a sign with 3 fingers, then one with 4. To me, this shows original thought and creativity and that Koko isn't just memorizing signs, which some critics contend.

          I think one of the greatest stories about Koko is when one day her usual trainer didn't show up for work, Koko was very upset. The next day, when her trainer did show up, Koko asked her (using sign language) why she wasn't there the day before.

          The trainer told Koko that the reason she didn't show up for work the day before was because her baby had died (the trainer had a miscarriage, IIRC). Koko then used the tear sign, saying that she was crying.

          Feeling your own emotional pain is one thing, but expressing pain for another's loss is a very strong indication of high intelligence, and even more impressive, compasion for that other being.
          Signature
          Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
          Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761151].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    I wonder if "person" status should really go do all creatures with
    high level sentience?

    (And not just because I want them to donate to my political campaign!)
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8756805].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
    The reason that our DNA is very similar is that both humans and chimpanzees are both Great Apes.

    Joe Mobley

    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    The argument is that apes have so much DNA in common with humans
    Signature

    .

    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Besides sharing 90% of our DNA with a chimp, we also share 88% of our DNA with a mouse, and 85% with a cow, 84% with a dog, 73% with a zebrafish, 69% with a platypus, and 65% with a chicken.

    We also share quite a bit of DNA with fruit files, honey bees, roundworms and even 18% with yeast.

    We share 50% of our DNA with bananas. Does that make a banana half-human?

    Living things share DNA with other living things . . . that's life.

    I'm all for animal rights. I don't think we need to elevate them to "person" status to achieve that.

    It's not very often I disagree with Kay, but as I see it, human life keeps being devalued. This would only add to that devaluation.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757508].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Maybe DNA isn't a good argument. My feeling is that we have proven in test after test that many species of animals have cognitive ability to reason and conduct complex tasks that require some level of planning.

      Elevating the rights of one species doesn't devalue another species in my opinion.

      Every major change in our society, our way of thinking and viewing what is around us and how it relates to us happens over time. It starts with questions asked by a few...and I think that's where we are with this right now.

      When a few question the way things are - a few more begin to think about it. Gradually, many ideas gain acceptance.
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757569].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Elevating the rights of one species doesn't devalue another species in my opinion.
        You could be right. That's not something I've thought about a lot. I'm open to changing my mind about it.

        On the other hand, would you agree that if all life forms were given "person" status, then that status has lost meaning? If so, then where is the line drawn? At what point does being a person start losing it's meaning?

        On the other other hand, my wife would probably be on your side on this one.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757769].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Besides sharing 90% of our DNA with a chimp, we also share 88% of our DNA with a mouse, and 85% with a cow, 84% with a dog, 73% with a zebrafish, 69% with a platypus, and 65% with a chicken.

      We also share quite a bit of DNA with fruit files, honey bees, roundworms and even 18% with yeast.

      We share 50% of our DNA with bananas. Does that make a banana half-human?

      Living things share DNA with other living things . . . that's life.

      I'm all for animal rights. I don't think we need to elevate them to "person" status to achieve that.

      It's not very often I disagree with Kay, but as I see it, human life keeps being devalued. This would only add to that devaluation.
      Dennis; You're a little off. I read 98% or 99% the same as us for chimps. 50% of our DNA is the same for some bacteria. It isn't how much DNA we share. A brain dead person has 100% of our DNA, but we harvest the organs.

      But Chimpanzees use tools, use symbolic language, share....they can think about as well as any four year old human. It depends on your point of view, I guess. Maybe if they didn't share the same expressions and the same musculature...

      If a mouse looked exactly like us...except thought like a mouse...how would we treat it? I don't know.
      I think experiments on chimps or apes is cruel. And most mammals share nearly as much DNA with us as chimps.

      Anyway, Some animals are self aware. I still can't stand the idea of killing cows.

      But it's all just a point of view.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757584].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Dennis; You're a little off. I read 98% or 99% the same as us for chimps. 50% of our DNA is the same for some bacteria. It isn't how much DNA we share. A brain dead person has 100% of our DNA, but we harvest the organs.

        But Chimpanzees use tools, use symbolic language, share....they can think about as well as any four year old human. It depends on your point of view, I guess. Maybe if they didn't share the same expressions and the same musculature...

        If a mouse looked exactly like us...except thought like a mouse...how would we treat it? I don't know.
        I think experiments on chimps or apes is cruel. And most mammals share nearly as much DNA with us as chimps.

        Anyway, Some animals are self aware. I still can't stand the idea of killing cows.

        But it's all just a point of view.
        Whether I'm a little off or not depends on the source. Mine was National Geographic:

        National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

        Does it matter? Does 8% difference make a difference?

        I'm aware that chimps use tools. So do crows and other animals. Like you, I also don't like animal experiments. I don't like the way slaughterhouses kill the animals we eat either. They suffer pain and probably fear. It's unnecessary, but cheaper that way. I'd rather pay a little more and have it different.

        But animals are not persons. Wanting to call them what they are not in order to affect an outcome doesn't change that. As Abe Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

        Calling an animal a person doesn't make it a person.

        And yes, I am an animal lover. The animals rights arguments should be won on principle, not by blurring the vocabulary to set a legal precedent.

        I could be wrong.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757622].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post


          I could be wrong.
          Dennis; No. I won't let you hog the "I could be wrong" brand.

          It's mine....But I could be wrong.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757650].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            Dennis; No. I won't let you hog the "I could be wrong" brand.

            It's mine....But I could be wrong.
            I didn't know you wanted exclusivity. I'm reasonable, I'll let you have it and change mine to...

            I'm never wrong, but I'm not always right.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8757655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Rights are a human legal concept that non-human animals don't comprehend. I'm for animal welfare ... not animal rights. There are plenty of animal rights extremists that actually do nothing for animal welfare, like PeTA.

    Definition of Animal Welfare: Animal Welfare supports humane treatment and use of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility for their care. Animal Welfare includes responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, those kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners. Animal welfare is based on a principle of ownership of animals, a common sense approach that animals should be treated well and that animal cruelty is wrong. Animal welfare sets standards and guidelines for animal use and management based on sound veterinary and animal husbandry research and practices.

    Animal Rights (AR) is a radical ideology that attempts to elevate species of animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. A core tenet of animal rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.
    Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare - What you should know

    Animal Welfare v. Animal Rights

    What's the difference?

    For the last 50 years or more, the debate has raged over the role of animals in human society, with particular reference to the ways in which we use them for our benefit. Fueling the debate still further has been the emergence, particularly in the last three decades, of a small but vociferous group of adherents to the philosophy of animal rights, which views humans and animals as essentially equal and condemns any and all use of animals for human benefit.

    Animal rights advocates do not distinguish between human beings and animals. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect."

    Animal rights advocates reject all animal use, no matter how humane. Some have even suggested that animal welfare reforms impede progress toward animal rights because they improve the conditions under which "animal exploitation" occurs, making it more difficult to stimulate public opposition to animal use.

    When the interests of humans and animals come into conflict, animal rights advocates put the animals first. PeTA's Newkirk has said, "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
    If you're going to go the "Animal Rights" route, be certain that you are prepared to take a pledge not to use any medical treatments or procedures that have been derived from the use of animals (even to save your life or the life of your children), that you do not eat meat or animal products such as milk and eggs, you do not use any animal products in clothing or shoes, and you do not own companion animals, etc.

    Elevating the rights of one species doesn't devalue another species in my opinion.
    ... elevating the rights of one species to human, does not make it human.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758011].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Rights are a human legal concept that non-human animals don't comprehend.
      That's actually a compelling argument to me.

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      a few years back when one college showed that monkeys can hack voting machines. Many experiments have shown that monkeys of all kinds can communicate when given computers with programs that let them just push buttons to say what they want to.........which requires an ability that we would recognize as "reading". Their communications are contextual and make sense. Ongoing "conversations" with the researchers show the same "frame insert" flow in the conversations as in human only conversations.
      Another compelling argument.

      Here's what I did to try to decide where I stood on this;

      What if chimps didn't look so much like us. Would we feel the same?
      Is it important to think of them as human like? Or just self aware?
      If it's "self aware" then there are several other animals that fit the bill.

      Personally, I'm with sbucciarel on this.

      Animal welfare? Absolutely. Personhood? Maybe not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758612].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    Would this give them voting rights? If so, I'm all for it. It would probably lower the percentage of low information voters.

    And Claude would legally be able to take a chimp bride.
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758654].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Claude would legally be able to take a chimp bride.
      ....assuming one of them would have him and that his wife would let him.
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758667].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author agmccall
      Imagine the turn this whole "Marriage" debate will take

      al
      Signature

      Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me?
      ~Jack Handey~

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      Would this give them voting rights? If so, I'm all for it. It would probably lower the percentage of low information voters.

      And Claude would legally be able to take a chimp bride.
      Yeah, voting rights and the right to marry cross species ... oh wait! That's a right that many of our lawmakers don't want to give to real humans. :p

      With all those human rights comes the responsibility to abide by human laws.

      1. No more running around nude except at clothes optional establishments.
      2. No more having sex in public.
      3. No more using public spaces as a toilet
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758742].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Yeah, voting rights and the right to marry cross species ... oh wait! That's a right that many of our lawmakers don't want to give to real humans. :p
        Well, as long as Claude marries a female chimp...
        Otherwise, he could always get a civil union.

        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        With all those human rights comes the responsibility to abide by human laws.

        1. No more running around nude except at clothes optional establishments.
        2. No more having sex in public.
        3. No more using public spaces as a toilet
        Don't forget #4, most important: No more flinging poop in the presence of polite company. This goes for Claude, as well.
        Signature

        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758758].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          Don't forget #4, most important: No more flinging poop in the presence of polite company. This goes for Claude, as well.
          You hear that Claude. Your poop flinging days are over.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759023].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            I am totally against using animals as test subjects. True, it has led to medical improvements but also true is much of the testing done has been for the cosmetic industry and for pure curiosity.
            I'm against that part 100 percent. Responsible medical research that saves lives is another argument. Again, where do you want to draw the line? No research on any animals, even mice? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I waffle back and forth on this one, though probably lean toward responsible and limited research.


            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            You hear that Claude. Your poop flinging days are over.
            Wait a minute . . . Claude didn't agree to abide by human rules.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759084].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

              I'm against that part 100 percent. Responsible medical research that saves lives is another argument. Again, where do you want to draw the line? No research on any animals, even mice? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I waffle back and forth on this one, though probably lean toward responsible and limited research.
              The cosmetic industry has been under fire by animal rights extremists, as they should be and there are a lot of cosmetic companies that now offer "cruelty free" products ... no animal testing for their cosmetics.

              The fact that some countries may not use animal testing is irrelevant. The many medical breakthroughs that are attributed to animal testing and that research is now a part of the medical knowledge base that is used throughout the world, so whether they did the "dirty work" or not, they still benefit from it.

              From Wikipedia, if you're interested in the huge accomplishments in medicine and the many lives saved due to animal testing, and not all of or even most of it uses chimps. Are rats and mice, cows, horses, pigs, dogs and cats not important? They have all been credited with enormous medical breakthroughs.
              History of animal testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              History of animal testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759110].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                But the point here is that if tomorrow you discover that a tigers and lions are more intelligent than monkeys, are you going to let them roam the cities - as you did so with the apes because you proved in some weird way that apes were as intelligent as humans?
                No one is proposing apes or any other wildlife running free in cities. You don't have a point as you are arguing a different topic for some reason.
                Signature
                Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759144].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ricardo Furtado
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  No one is proposing apes or any other wildlife running free in cities. You don't have a point as you are arguing a different topic for some reason.
                  Was not arguing at all. Sorry if you feel that.
                  Signature

                  Ricardo Furtado

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759150].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author yukon
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  No one is proposing apes or any other wildlife running free in cities.
                  Then your saying chimps would be slaves or prisoners, If a person isn't free what's left?
                  Signature
                  Hi
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759486].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
              Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

              Fascinating stuff!
              But, if survival itself is reason enough, then why not use
              animals for experiments and research?
              If survival isn't reason enough, then what is?

              I've already stated that I waffle back and forth on animal research, but probably lean toward responsible and limited research, so I'm probably not the right person to ask that question.
              Signature

              Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763344].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      Would this give them voting rights? If so, I'm all for it. It would probably lower the percentage of low information voters.

      And Claude would legally be able to take a chimp bride.
      Hey, Did you know that I can read everything you're saying?

      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      ....assuming one of them would have him and that his wife would let him.
      Hey...Hey!!! I'm right here, Guys!
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      Well, as long as Claude marries a female chimp...
      Otherwise, he could always get a civil union.
      Don't forget #4, most important: No more flinging poop in the presence of polite company. This goes for Claude, as well.
      Am I going to have to separate you two?


      Sorry, I mean..
      blah, blah, blah, Claude insult, blah, blah, fetish, blah, blah....monkey costume, blah, blah, Riffle's size, blah blah, party, blah, blah, lotion, blah blah....
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758933].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/sc...f=science&_r=0

    The NonHuman Rights Group has filed to award a chimpanzee legal "person" status.

    I've seen films of chimps and apes taught to do things I didn't know they could do. Communicating - holding a conversation - telling their caretakers what they want to eat - expressing anger, sadness, fear, affection.

    The argument is that apes have so much DNA in common with humans it's wrong to imprison them or use them as test subjects in scientific experiments.

    If it goes all the way to the SCOTUS who knows what will happen?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758821].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      If it goes all the way to the SCOTUS who knows what will happen?

      I'm pretty sure they'll side with their own kind.
      Signature

      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8758854].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricardo Furtado
    I guess they want to see a real version of Planet of the Apes.

    These bureaucrats and scientists will do anything to get into the limelight and show the world what they have done – and make their 2 bucks from it.

    Of course, their 2 bucks is a “LOOT”lot of bucks for sure!

    But the point here is that if tomorrow you discover that a tigers and lions are more intelligent than monkeys, are you going to let them roam the cities – as you did so with the apes because you proved in some weird way that apes were as intelligent as humans?

    Well goodbye Earth, welcome…
    Planet of the Apes – Based on real life events!

    Regards
    Signature

    Ricardo Furtado

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759106].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    The idea of classifying animals as "persons" is ludicrous, another example of the "educated" class mistaking taxonomy for reality.

    The idea of treating animals kindly should come from a basic respect for life, not some silly artificial construct.
    Excellent point. Goes right back to what I said about us being "all that" when it comes to intellect in the first place.

    Unfortunately, the human subspecies is extremely cruel and abusive (I say that referencing the fact humans are splitting into 2 species). They need to be told they will be tortured if they do that kind of crap because they can't figure things out on their own without mommy there slapping them when they turn into killing machines.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8759979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Unfortunately, the human subspecies is extremely cruel and abusive (I say that referencing the fact humans are splitting into 2 species).
      Sal; I don't know enough to just say that this is wrong or right. Do you have anything to back this up? I mean other than observation?

      Honestly, I've never heard this before.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762448].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Sal; I don't know enough to just say that this is wrong or right. Do you have anything to back this up? I mean other than observation?

        Honestly, I've never heard this before.
        Just go to WalMart.
        Signature

        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762487].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Read it and weep.

        Human race will 'split into two different species' | Mail Online

        Way too much H. G. Wells for that guy.
        Well, at least it's not all bad news

        Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.
        Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry. Not much of a change there.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762535].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Read it and weep.

        Human race will 'split into two different species' | Mail Online

        Way too much H. G. Wells for that guy.
        That's not even a theory. It's a guess. (I mean based on the article) Although, that doesn't mean it won't happen, or isn't happening now. There has to be something more credible out there.

        Some evidence of genetic divergence...something.

        It would be a lot easier to show that we are developing two subspecies (like two breeds of dog), but different species? That's a harder argument to prove. Honestly, I think I see it myself, but there needs to be evidence to say it as though it's a fact.


        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Well, at least it's not all bad news

        Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

        Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.
        See? Now you have two things in common with Riffle.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762554].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          That's not even a theory. It's a guess. (I mean based on the article) Although, that doesn't mean it won't happen, or isn't happening now. There has to be something more credible out there.

          Some evidence of genetic divergence...something.





          See? Now you have two things in common with Riffle.
          I'm not sure if this is a compliment for me or an insult for Suzanne.

          Wait a minute.

          You're saying...

          Ah.

          Definately an insult for me.
          Signature

          If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762572].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          See? Now you have two things in common with Riffle.
          I sincerely hope that you mean glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts. lol.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762588].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

          I am bemused by the Riffle-Whitacre bromance.

          It's kinda touching.
          Unfortunately for Whitacre, not the kind of touching he'd prefer.
          Signature

          If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762708].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Sal; I don't know enough to just say that this is wrong or right. Do you have anything to back this up? I mean other than observation?

        Honestly, I've never heard this before.
        Actually, Claude - I don't know much about it. I know it's been declared by some scientists. Not sure how "scientifically processed" that information is. Whether we are looking at just a beginning or are in the midst of a change or if it was just some scientists making general observations while smoking fatties together - or what's going on with it.

        It makes sense to me, though. I've seen human intellect crashing to points that indicate many humans are just too stupid to survive if someone isn't telling them every move to make. Body shapes are changing.......and this is mostly due to chemicals loaded into them and GMO foods.

        Okay - now consider that the composition of the body is determined by the molecules taken into the body -- how much deviation from normal human goes on when Mommy is loaded down with toxic sunscreen chemicals, has a deficiency of Vitamin D3 as a result, is eating aspartame or sucralose every day, drinks water, eats produce etc loaded down with sodium fluoride.....keep that list going.........and is pregnant. That fetus developed with all that crap going on, right? It's going to have some alteration from the "norm". Now take a whole society where people are tanking out on the same chemicals - same basic health issues (Vitamin D deficiency is rampant - and that's a hormone, not just a vitamin) - - it's GOT to register on the fetuses of the mothers and since what is going in is chemically the same as everyone else is getting............ well.

        It all makes very strong sense to me..........and...........

        I like the theory. It would explain a LOT of the stupidity and extreme fat going on right now.

        So when I toot off about the "split in the species" - I am half serious and half tongue-in-cheek.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Larry - Coco also coined the term "sweet water" for water melon. They might not have had computers when they taught her, but they had sign language. Animals have higher cognitive functions. in general and when humans finally admit that, there will be a lot less abuse. Right now they try to deny it mainly because they have to live with themselves for the way they treat them. I can't imagine torturing a mouse. I've raised several and they are not only smart as heck, they are rather emotionally receptive. I had one that would sit on my shoulder and rub on my neck when I was upset. How can someone think it's okay to torture a life form? ALL life deserves respect.

    Ya know - if an intelligent species were to come from space to try to save this planet - when they saw what humans are doing to the rest of the life on this earth - it would be US that they eradicated. We are the Raptors and TRexes of our time........other than those creatures didn't torture other life for convenience or fun. They just killed to eat.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8760278].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    The NonHuman Rights Group has filed to award a chimpanzee legal "person" status.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8760368].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Maybe awarding "status" should flow both ways???
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8760753].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Maybe awarding "status" should flow both ways???
        I'm with Ken on this. The idea of "awarding" status to a species is ridiculous. You are a human because you are born a human. You are a chimp because you were born a chimp. Self awareness is not a test for being human any more than "flinging poo" is a test for being an ape.

        Should bottlenose dolphins, elephants and magpies also be awarded human status and rights? If not, why?

        See also: Animal consciousness and Mirror test

        Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes,[13] and elephants may have the capacity to be self-aware.[14] Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurt show that magpies may also possess self-awareness.[13] Common speculation suggests that some other animals may be self-aware.
        Self-awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761208].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          I'm with Ken on this. The idea of "awarding" status to a species is ridiculous. You are a human because you are born a human. You are a chimp because you were born a chimp. Self awareness is not a test for being human any more than "flinging poo" is a test for being an ape.

          Should bottlenose dolphins, elephants and magpies also be awarded human status and rights? If not, why?
          Are "human rights" and "person status" two different things? :confused:
          Signature

          The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

          ...A tachyon enters a bar.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761649].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            Are "human rights" and "person status" two different things? :confused:

            Who really knows. This thread is the first I've ever heard of "assigning" person status to anything ... Oh wait... the supreme court assigned person status to corporations. You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't. :rolleyes:

            Human rights would be "assigned" to non-human species that have been "assigned" person status. lol.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761683].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Are "human rights" and "person status" two different things?
              According to the law, they are two different things. Corporations have "person" status - are they human? Are they likely to become "human".

              My belief is we have no right as humans to impose our will or our experimentation on other self aware species.
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761793].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                According to the law, they are two different things. Corporations have "person" status - are they human? Are they likely to become "human".

                My belief is we have no right as humans to impose our will or our experimentation on other self aware species.

                I don't think comparing animals to corporations is a proper comparison in this context. I don't see this movement being started so that chimps can enter contracts, sue, be sued, or taxed (well, maybe taxed).

                The slant here seems solely to give animals human rights. The first step is to redefine "person."

                Having said that, I don't see the difference between self aware and non-self aware species experimentation. If we're going to cry foul on one, we might as well cry foul on all.

                It's a strange dichtomy, experimentation. On one hand, I completely disagree with cruel treatment of animals. On the other, I (typically) value human life and the advancement of certain sciences over the lives of lesser species. I don't have an answer for that.

                I do know this: If a chimp has to die so that my child may live, it's bedtime for Bonzo.
                Signature

                If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761941].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                  I don't think comparing animals to corporations is a proper comparison in this context. I don't see this movement being started so that chimps can enter contracts, sue, be sued, or taxed (well, maybe taxed).

                  The slant here seems solely to give animals human rights. The first step is to redefine "person."

                  Having said that, I don't see the difference between self aware and non-self aware species experimentation. If we're going to cry foul on one, we might as well cry foul on all.

                  It's a strange dichtomy, experimentation. On one hand, I completely disagree with cruel treatment of animals. On the other, I (typically) value human life and the advancement of certain sciences over the lives of lesser species. I don't have an answer for that.

                  I do know this: If a chimp has to die so that my child may live, it's bedtime for Bonzo.
                  To call it experimentation is not quite accurate. Medical research is far more than just waking up one day and deciding to do an experiment of no consequence just to see what happens. Medical research performed that results in the many breakthroughs and saves many lives is far more than experimentation.

                  I agree completely with you. When it comes to animal cruelty, I don't differentiate between animals. I don't put higher value on a chimp than on a rat ... but I do value the life of humans in regards to life saving medical research over other animals. I'll choose my children lives and grandchildren's lives over the chimp. Sorry chimp. Love ya but not more than my own family.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761993].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    To call it experimentation is not quite accurate. Medical research is far more than just waking up one day and deciding to do an experiment of no consequence just to see what happens. Medical research performed that results in the many breakthroughs and saves many lives is far more than experimentation.

                    I agree completely with you. When it comes to animal cruelty, I don't differentiate between animals. I don't put higher value on a chimp than on a rat ... but I do value the life of humans in regards to life saving medical research over other animals. I'll choose my children lives and grandchildren's lives over the chimp. Sorry chimp. Love ya but not more than my own family.
                    Oh, I completely agree with your first paragraph. I was simply using "experimentation" as a catch-all; a bit of lazy writing.
                    Signature

                    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762026].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                      I do know this: If a chimp has to die so that my child may live, it's bedtime for Bonzo.
                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                      ...but I do value the life of humans in regards to life saving medical research over other animals. I'll choose my children lives and grandchildren's lives over the chimp. Sorry chimp. Love ya but not more than my own family.
                      Fair enough. But what if you were asked to give up the life of, say, a dog you'd had as a family pet for several years so that a human you'd never met could live? Still feel the same?
                      Signature
                      TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762151].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                        Fair enough. But what if you were asked to give up the life of, say, a dog you'd had as a family pet for several years so that a human you'd never met could live? Still feel the same?
                        Tell me more about this human?

                        Even though this is a hypothetical, you can't ask me to personalize my loss without personalizing the gain.
                        Signature

                        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762157].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                          Even though this is a hypothetical, you can't ask me to personalize my loss without personalizing the gain.
                          You get no further info about the human. This is just to see if you'd value a human life, in itself, above that of another species regardless of any emotional attachment.
                          Signature
                          TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762170].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                            Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                            You get no further info about the human. This is just to see if you'd value a human life, in itself, above that of another species regardless of any emotional attachment.
                            Ultimately, the dog's gotta go, Frank.

                            Although, I'll admit, I'm not certain my answer is completely intellectually honest. I'm more emotionally attached to my animals than I am most people.
                            Signature

                            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762198].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                              Absolutely. Life is full of tough choices, but I don't subscribe to the extremist animal rights philosophy that a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
                              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                              Ultimately, the dog's gotta go, Frank.

                              Although, I'll admit, I'm not certain my answer is completely intellectually honest.
                              Yeah. I probably agree. But if push came to shove, I'm not sure how I'd react.

                              I think you're right, Dan, in that it's partly an intellectual exercise. There are solid evolutionary reasons for our attachment to, and protection of, those fellow humans in our immediate, comparatively small, social groups. When you take it to a global level, it gets more into the realms of the philosophical.

                              Thanks to you both for your answers.
                              Signature
                              TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762243].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                                Yeah. I probably agree. But if push came to shove, I'm not sure how I'd react.
                                There's no doubt that it would be with the deepest sorrow to have to make that choice. My 2 dogs are companions and they are dearly loved, but I know that choosing one of my dogs over a human would haunt me for the rest of my life.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762264].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                  There's no doubt that it would be with the deepest sorrow to have to make that choice. My 2 dogs are companions and they are dearly loved, but I know that choosing one of my dogs over a human would haunt me for the rest of my life.

                                  Maybe I'm a monster, but, depending on the human, it would haunt me for the rest of my life choosing a human over one of my dogs.
                                  Signature

                                  If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762277].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                    Banned
                                    Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                                    Maybe I'm a monster, but, depending on the human, it would haunt me for the rest of my life choosing a human over one of my dogs.
                                    Yeah, but given the terms ... that we do not know anything about the human, I'd have no choice. Give me a choice between a serial killer or a pedophile and my dog and I guarantee you the dog would stay.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762285].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                        Fair enough. But what if you were asked to give up the life of, say, a dog you'd had as a family pet for several years so that a human you'd never met could live? Still feel the same?
                        Absolutely. Life is full of tough choices, but I don't subscribe to the extremist animal rights philosophy that a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762196].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                        Fair enough. But what if you were asked to give up the life of, say, a dog you'd had as a family pet for several years so that a human you'd never met could live? Still feel the same?
                        I wouldn't give up my dog's life for most people I DO know. You better be my family (Father, sister, niece, nephew) if you expect that to happen. I'm sorry - but considering the depth of communication I develop with my dogs, I don't feel them much different than any other kid.

                        Heh. Had no idea you were such an authoritarian.
                        There are one or two issues that I actually consider myself to be extremely fascist about.



                        .
                        Signature

                        Sal
                        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                        Beyond the Path

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763142].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
                          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                          I wouldn't give up my dog's life for most people I DO know. You better be my family (Father, sister, niece, nephew) if you expect that to happen. I'm sorry - but considering the depth of communication I develop with my dogs, I don't feel them much different than any other kid.


                          There are one or two issues that I actually consider myself to be extremely fascist about.
                          Possibly. I can't be 100% certain, but I think you would give your own life to save a complete stranger, though.


                          There are one or two issues that I actually consider myself to be extremely fascist about.
                          Bwahahaa, if you had one fascist cell in your blood, you'd put leeches on yourself until that one cell was removed.
                          Signature

                          I

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763205].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          I'm with Ken on this. The idea of "awarding" status to a species is ridiculous. You are a human because you are born a human. You are a chimp because you were born a chimp. Self awareness is not a test for being human any more than "flinging poo" is a test for being an ape.

          Should bottlenose dolphins, elephants and magpies also be awarded human status and rights? If not, why?
          I agree with you, but perhaps for a reason different than you.

          Humans have person status because they are expected to act a certain way within society and have a certain expectation, etc... GRANTED many humans would FAIL there and TECHNICALLY, such humans are to be sued or thrown in jail. If a given country goes too far out of bounds, there is generally a WAR. HECK, even KIDS often don't measure up, so they aren't allowed to do certain things, and given leniency elsewhere.

          But WHY would a person want to be considered a person under the law? To get CREDIT? MONEY? A JOB? A REPUTATION? The normal things that come in a society?

          Another species wouldn't fully understand that or even CARE! HECK, they might RESENT it!

          Magpies do things AGAINST human society, so why would there be a question? Dolphins can't be on land and neither they or elephants could easily communicate, or fit in.

          But would ANY of them want it? NOPE!

          As for having a habitat, etc... people have been invading and destroying that to a large degree for DECADES. I wonder how much longer before they will only have a few reserves and/or zoos. But THAT is what those animals would care about.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    Mike, I would think that "person status" would lead directly to "human rights."

    I.E.:

    A person is a human.
    Humans have rights.
    Ergo, a person has human rights.

    In essence, redefining what it means to be a person also defines what is meant by "human rights." At least, this is the argument I can see being made.
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8761681].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author katboss07
    Might as well dress the monkey in the suite and tie and hand him/her an award or medal...lol

    Monkey See, Monkey Do
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762137].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures
    I'm pretty sure this has already happened. LQQK VVVVVVVVVVVVV
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762550].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


    The argument is that apes have so much DNA in common with humans it's wrong to imprison them or use them as test subjects in scientific experiments.

    Awww, it's so heart warming and uplifting to see so many people concerned for animals whose DNA resembles that of humans. Yes indeed. Sooo sweet.

    Bit of a problem though as we're willing to kill babies inside the womb who have 100% human DNA.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8762876].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      Awww, it's so heart warming and uplifting to see so many people concerned for animals whose DNA resembles that of humans. Yes indeed. Sooo sweet.

      Bit of a problem though as we're willing to kill babies inside the womb who have 100% human DNA.
      Oh, snap!!
      Signature

      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763070].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      Having said that, I don't see the difference between self aware and non-self aware species experimentation.
      I think the difference is in the degree of suffering?
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763129].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

        Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post
        Having said that, I don't see the difference between self aware and non-self aware species experimentation.

        I think the difference is in the degree of suffering?
        I don't think degree of suffering. Pain is pain. And I believe most animals feels pain in the same way we do.

        Interesting questions. For which I have no answer.



        Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

        Ugh, I was wondering how long it would be before this truly interesting
        thread started morphing into one of those...


        The simple fact is that you cannot take the rights of one creature
        to its own body and give it to another, and that includes a
        FETUS in the womb. (Which has far less sentience
        than our hypothetical dog, by the way.)
        Mike; Now you've done it!

        Please, I beg all of you, stop this train of thought now, it will certainly get this thread cancelled. I know, I know, everyone is nice...

        But we've seen this exact thing play out in dozens of threads that no longer exist.

        Or, as my friend Dan Riffle says ....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          Or, as my friend Dan Riffle says ....
          This won't end well.
          Signature

          If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763146].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          I don't think degree of suffering. Pain is pain. And I believe most animals feels pain in the same way we do.

          Interesting questions. For which I have no answer.
          So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
          of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
          Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
          Signature

          The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

          ...A tachyon enters a bar.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763186].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
            of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
            Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
            Survival of the fittest. Death of the tastiest.
            Signature

            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763201].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
            of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
            Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
            Humans aren't the only meat eaters on the planet. We are biologically constructed to be omnivorous. That's a painful fact for us.

            Being a meat eater does not excuse torture. In fact - it goes against the grain of good health sense. Animals in pain and in depression or despair release chemicals into their bodies that aren't all that good for us to be ingesting -- so the torture goes against the grain of any common logic at all. Exactly what does a human get out of causing another lifeform's life to be a nightmare of an existence?

            Can you imagine how many life's have existed in excruciating pain because some cosmetic manufacturer wants to dump a chemical in their makeup that might not be good for us.........especially when there are natural options that are already known to not be harmful? That's just illogical cruelty. It's not a "good thing", it's monstrous.

            I hear people talk about torturing human murderers for their crimes, too. I don't consider that a logical human reaction either. If someone is that sick that they can torture someone to death, there is something dysfunctional in their brain. Why would someone who considers themselves an "intellectual being" stoop to torturing someone for a defect - even a dangerous one. Put them down, fine - as a safety for society you might have to.........but torture them? What the hell kind of sick perversion of intellect is that? That's emotion with NO intellect guiding it whatsoever.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763226].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
            of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
            Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
            Survival. We have to kill something to eat to live. Studies have shown that plants respond to pain:

            Do Plants Respond to Pain? | Smithsonian Channel

            Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University, argues that plants can see, smell and feel. Plants can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory, Chamovitz claims.

            Do Plants Think?: Scientific American

            Scientists at Bristol University used powerful loudspeakers to listen to corn saplings - and heard clicking sounds coming from their roots.

            Maybe Prince Charles was right after all: British scientists reveal plants really do talk | Mail Online

            Some believe plants are sentient, have souls, are capable of emotions, and some even call for the ethical treatment of plants.

            Some life form has to transfer it's energy to us if we are to live.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763242].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Humans aren't the only meat eaters on the planet. We are biologically constructed to be omnivorous. That's a painful fact for us.

              Being a meat eater does not excuse torture. In fact - it goes against the grain of good health sense. Animals in pain and in depression or despair release chemicals into their bodies that aren't all that good for us to be ingesting -- so the torture goes against the grain of any common logic at all. Exactly what does a human get out of causing another lifeform's life to be a nightmare of an existence?

              Can you imagine how many life's have existed in excruciating pain because some cosmetic manufacturer wants to dump a chemical in their makeup that might not be good for us.........especially when there are natural options that are already known to not be harmful? That's just illogical cruelty. It's not a "good thing", it's monstrous.

              I hear people talk about torturing human murderers for their crimes, too. I don't consider that a logical human reaction either. If someone is that sick that they can torture someone to death, there is something dysfunctional in their brain. Why would someone who considers themselves an "intellectual being" stoop to torturing someone for a defect - even a dangerous one. Put them down, fine - as a safety for society you might have to.........but torture them? What the hell kind of sick perversion of intellect is that? That's emotion with NO intellect guiding it whatsoever.
              Nearly perfectly said, I think. But do we have a responsibility
              to limit our consumption of sentient creatures, especially considering
              the utter misery of the animals that are sold to most of the public?


              Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

              Survival. We have to kill something to eat to live. Studies have shown that plants respond to pain:

              Do Plants Respond to Pain? | Smithsonian Channel

              Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University, argues that plants can see, smell and feel. Plants can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory, Chamovitz claims.

              Do Plants Think?: Scientific American

              Scientists at Bristol University used powerful loudspeakers to listen to corn saplings - and heard clicking sounds coming from their roots.

              Maybe Prince Charles was right after all: British scientists reveal plants really do talk | Mail Online

              Some believe plants are sentient, have souls, are capable of emotions, and some even call for the ethical treatment of plants.

              Some life form has to transfer it's energy to us if we are to live.
              Fascinating stuff!
              But, if survival itself is reason enough, then why not use
              animals for experiments and research?
              Signature

              The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

              ...A tachyon enters a bar.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763291].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                Nearly perfectly said, I think. But do we have a responsibility
                to limit our consumption of sentient creatures, especially considering
                the utter misery of the animals that are sold to most of the public
                ?




                Fascinating stuff!
                But, if survival itself is reason enough, then why not use
                animals for experiments and research?

                Very simply - yes we do. When people stop trying to outsmart nature, life on this planet will be happier for all life forms. I do eat meat. I limit the amount of it I eat - never an everyday food for me. I know people that eat meat 3 times a day. That's just ridiculous, from an ecological, humanitarian, and health point of view. That much meat is not good for you........even if it's organic meat. Eating meat several times a day is pure selfish gluttony when there are 7 billion people on the planet who need meat, too. Our very physiology should tell us that.

                As far as plants being sentient? I hate to say this -- but not many people are paying attention to quantum physics or religion, either one. The question becomes quite philosophical at this point.

                There is nothing solid. Everything is energy. That means this planet, and our very existence, is a hologram. How our energy exists in other dimensions has long been thought, and seems scientifically aligned to, the energy we attract right here. Is there an interested entity in control that watches how much respect we show for this planet? Is the ultimate control disinterested energy, in which case the energy we teach ourselves to resonate with in this life will determine our future existence quality in alternate dimensions?

                I can't answer those questions - none of us can even though some dogmatic people think they "know for sure". I do believe very strongly that we are meant to examine existence here and do what is logically best for the entire planet. Torturing life forms does not fit into "logic" in any way shape or form.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763326].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
              Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

              Survival. We have to kill something to eat to live. Studies have shown that plants respond to pain:

              Do Plants Respond to Pain? | Smithsonian Channel

              Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University, argues that plants can see, smell and feel. Plants can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory, Chamovitz claims.

              Do Plants Think?: Scientific American

              Scientists at Bristol University used powerful loudspeakers to listen to corn saplings – and heard clicking sounds coming from their roots.

              Maybe Prince Charles was right after all: British scientists reveal plants really do talk | Mail Online

              Some believe plants are sentient, have souls, are capable of emotions, and some even call for the ethical treatment of plants.

              Some life form has to transfer it's energy to us if we are to live.
              Simple solution. All we have to do is genetically engineer ourselves to produce chlorophyll in our skin, and bury or feet into the ground. No need for food, violence, gasoline, economy, politics, ect.

              I haven't worked out all the specifics yet, like reproduction. And there are the differences in mitosis, meiosis, the cell wall, and other minor things like that. But I'm working on it and I'll keep you apprised of my progress.

              The guys are getting bark to cover themselves, women are fine the way they look now.

              (P.S. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to joke around.)
              (P.P.S. Life responding to stimuli -- who woulda thunk?)
              Signature

              I

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763317].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
            of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
            Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
            I don't have the answer. But I have an observation.
            We all see the world through our own lenses. And these lenses are warped.

            The discussion we have been having on this thread is kind of unique. We all share similar passions and intellects. But think about the "My dog or a stranger" argument. Intellectually, most of us would say"kill the loved dog, save a human stranger's life." And I would say that too.

            But would we really?

            If I said "Cut off your hand right now, or 1,000 human strangers die somewhere on Earth". And if you knew it was real....what would you do?

            You would save your hand. It would be a near physical impossibility to go through with cutting off your own hand.

            Now..."Cut off a finger, and your dog lives for another 20 years, pain free"
            I think lots of fingers are coming off. Because you love the dog. But you do not love the 1,000 strangers. 1 finger, dog lives. one hand 1,000 people live.

            My son asked me once "If I committed murder, and I told you about it, would you turn me in?" I said "It would kill me, but Yes".

            But, I would really never do it, because he's my son.

            We believe in the sanctity of all life. Ask anyone, and few would argue with that. But I believe, deep in my soul, that we would nearly all let human strangers die, if it meant saving our dog. Because it's our dog. our family.

            We can know that cows are slaughtered, and still eat them...but most of us would never slaughter a cow. I know I couldn't.

            This is very muddy water.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763368].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
              Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

              If survival isn't reason enough, then what is?

              I've already stated that I waffle back and forth on animal research, but probably lean toward responsible and limited research, so I'm probably not the right person to ask that question.

              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              I don't have the answer. But I have an observation.
              We all see the world through our own lenses. And these lenses are warped.

              The discussion we have been having on this thread is kind of unique. We all share similar passions and intellects. But think about the "My dog or a stranger" argument. Intellectually, most of us would say"kill the loved dog, save a human stranger's life." And I would say that too.

              But would we really?

              If I said "Cut off your hand right now, or 1,000 human strangers die somewhere on Earth". And if you knew it was real....what would you do?

              You would save your hand. It would be a near physical impossibility to go through with cutting off your own hand.

              Now..."Cut off a finger, and your dog lives for another 20 years, pain free"
              I think lots of fingers are coming off. Because you love the dog. But you do not love the 1,000 strangers. 1 finger, dog lives. one hand 1,000 people live.

              My son asked me once "If I committed murder, and I told you about it, would you turn me in?" I said "It would kill me, but Yes".

              But, I would really never do it, because he's my son.

              We believe in the sanctity of all life. Ask anyone, and few would argue with that. But I believe, deep in my soul, that we would nearly all let human strangers die, if it meant saving our dog. Because it's our dog. our family.

              We can know that cows are slaughtered, and still eat them...but most of us would never slaughter a cow. I know I couldn't.

              This is very muddy water.

              It's really conversations like these that make me love this forum.
              Signature

              The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

              ...A tachyon enters a bar.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763448].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              .

              We can know that cows are slaughtered, and still eat them...but most of us would never slaughter a cow. I know I couldn't.
              What if your wife and son were starving and could die any day from lack of food?
              Signature
              Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
              Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763463].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                What if your wife and son were starving and could die any day from lack of food?
                Same thing here as Claude already pointed out. A lot of people would not admit it - but if you or your own family are starving, a lot of people would kill other people to feed them. How many would come on here and admit that they'd do that? Probably none. If you look at what happens on Black Friday over a few stupid unnecessary baubles, you can get a real clear picture of what would happen if food ran out.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763496].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                Yes. If you aren't willing to do what is necessary to feed yourself, perhaps you shouldn't eat.

                There are only certain animals I can even imagine having to kill for food - but I'm not hungry right now. People have very limited knowledge of what they would be capable of doing in real catastrophic circumstances. Look at that airplane that crashed and people ended up eating those who didn't survive the crash. Makes you wonder how much longer they would have gone before someone who did survive it made the dinner menu. People will do what they have to do, whether or not they can see that or adjust to it when they have never known the need.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763517].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                What if your wife and son were starving and could die any day from lack of food?
                Then all qualms go away, and I do what I have to. Probably without limit. Morals and conscience are guides that keep society running....but if a loved one is starving, they disappear.

                And, to tell you the truth, I wouldn't understand any other response.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764017].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


                  We can know that cows are slaughtered, and still eat them...but most of us would never slaughter a cow. I know I couldn't.
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  Then all qualms go away, and I do what I have to. Probably without limit. Morals and conscience are guides that keep society running....but if a loved one is starving, they disappear.

                  And, to tell you the truth, I wouldn't understand any other response.
                  Just wanted to clarify your first statement that included "never"...
                  Signature
                  Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                  Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764200].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                What if your wife and son were starving and could die any day from lack of food?

                Many, many Indians starved to death rather than eat cows who they expressed a lot of respect for for due to their religion or a myth/legend of cows somehow saving India.


                Amazing.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764775].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

              So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance? Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
              By the same way that all meat eaters decide what to kill for their own sustenance. Just wander around where meat eating predators roam free and you'll see it in action, if you live long enough . There's no internal discourse. Just kill ... eat.


              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              (Incidentally, because of our But I wonder how many meat-eaters would continue to happily chomp away on their burgers if they actually had to catch and slaughter the animal, rather than pick up one of those convenient, pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped and decidedly un-animal-looking "products" from their local supermarkets. In many ways, desensitizing the process removes us from the horror of having to think about the manner in which much of our "food" is produced.

              Frank

              The majority of the meat I eat has been killed by my father or brother, hunted from the woods, so I don't actually have to kill it, but I do process it (clean and package). If it came down to it, I could also kill it if my brother weren't the avid hunter that he is.

              Neither my brother or father has ever killed an animal for trophy. Every one has been killed for food. I actually feel worse about eating meat from a slaughterhouse than from the woods because I know that the animal did not have an ideal life or death.



              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              I don't have the answer. But I have an observation.
              We all see the world through our own lenses. And these lenses are warped.

              The discussion we have been having on this thread is kind of unique. We all share similar passions and intellects. But think about the "My dog or a stranger" argument. Intellectually, most of us would say"kill the loved dog, save a human stranger's life." And I would say that too.

              But would we really?

              If I said "Cut off your hand right now, or 1,000 human strangers die somewhere on Earth". And if you knew it was real....what would you do?

              You would save your hand. It would be a near physical impossibility to go through with cutting off your own hand.

              Now..."Cut off a finger, and your dog lives for another 20 years, pain free"
              I think lots of fingers are coming off. Because you love the dog. But you do not love the 1,000 strangers. 1 finger, dog lives. one hand 1,000 people live.

              My son asked me once "If I committed murder, and I told you about it, would you turn me in?" I said "It would kill me, but Yes".

              But, I would really never do it, because he's my son.

              We believe in the sanctity of all life. Ask anyone, and few would argue with that. But I believe, deep in my soul, that we would nearly all let human strangers die, if it meant saving our dog. Because it's our dog. our family.

              We can know that cows are slaughtered, and still eat them...but most of us would never slaughter a cow. I know I couldn't.

              This is very muddy water.

              It kind of amazes me that someone would struggle with either notion ... cutting off a mere hand to save 1,000 human lives.

              It's a freaking no brainer to me.

              Cutting off a finger to give my dog 20 pain free years

              Another no brainer

              One thing that no longer surprises me in these animal rights conversations is that extreme animal rights activists are all about the sanctity of non-human life and really have little to no concern for human life (other than their own or their family's lives).

              It's not difficult for me to visualize 1,000 dead humans and to feel the same and more empathy that I feel for abused animals, and I don't know how anyone can be so warped that they don't feel the same.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764370].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                It kind of amazes me that someone would struggle with either notion ... cutting off a mere hand to save 1,000 human lives.

                It's a freaking no brainer to me.

                Cutting off a finger to give my dog 20 pain free years

                Another no brainer

                It's not difficult for me to visualize 1,000 dead humans and to feel the same and more empathy that I feel for abused animals, and I don't know how anyone can be so warped that they don't feel the same.
                Suzanne; Maybe a no brainer to you. I'm talking about humanity in general.

                I wasn't actually talking about feelings or what we think we would do, but what we would actually do...in private...if nobody found out.

                Maybe I have less faith in humans. If 100,000 people die in a flood, in another country...it makes the news...and we feel sorry for them.

                But our cat dies? Our day is ruined. 100,000 people far way is an abstraction. We don't see their faces. We don't know them. It isn't personal to us.

                If someone told us, privately, with the ax in hand, "The hand, or 1,000 strangers die today. Nobody will know what you did, either way"...my guess is less than 10% would give up the hand. But if this were done publicly? Far more would give up their hand. Because of compassion? No. Because of their image.

                These are just guesses.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8765434].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  It seems to me that the amount of empathy humans get is directly proportional to how much choice they had in directing their fate.
                  Well, I've heard the term in these discussions when referring to humans who might be homeless, alcoholic or a drug addict or in poverty conditions ... "that it separates the wheat from the chaff" blah blah blah kind of stuff. I personally think there are many people worthy of second and third chances. One of my daughters is an alcoholic and it's never really occurred to me that her life wasn't worth saving.

                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  Suzanne; Maybe a no brainer to you. I'm talking about humanity in general.

                  I wasn't actually talking about feelings or what we think we would do, but what we would actually do...in private...if nobody found out.

                  Maybe I have less faith in humans. If 100,000 people die in a flood, in another country...it makes the news...and we feel sorry for them.

                  But our cat dies? Our day is ruined. 100,000 people far way is an abstraction. We don't see their faces. We don't know them. It isn't personal to us.

                  If someone told us, privately, with the ax in hand, "The hand, or 1,000 strangers die today. Nobody will know what you did, either way"...my guess is less than 10% would give up the hand. But if this were done publicly? Far more would give up their hand. Because of compassion? No. Because of their image.

                  These are just guesses.
                  If the choice were actually mine to make and 1,000 people would die, I'd save the people. They are more than an abstraction to me. I would not want to die with their blood on my hands.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8765516].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    If the choice were actually mine to make and 1,000 people would die, I'd save the people. They are more than an abstraction to me. I would not want to die with their blood on my hands.
                    I accept it's a completely hypothetical scenario, but unless your hand somehow uniquely contained enough healing properties to save the lives of 1,000 people, I'd say most, if not all, of the culpability would belong to whoever issued such a callous ultimatum - and then carried it out.
                    Signature
                    TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8765553].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                      I accept it's a completely hypothetical scenario, but unless your hand somehow uniquely contained enough healing properties to save the lives of 1,000 people, I'd say most, if not all, of the culpability would belong to whoever issued such a callous ultimatum - and then carried it out.
                      That's absolutely true, but doesn't negate the fact that you have the power to stop it. At any rate, I'm glad it's only hypothetical and I get to keep my hand for now and no one will die because of it
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8765786].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    If the choice were actually mine to make and 1,000 people would die, I'd save the people. They are more than an abstraction to me. I would not want to die with their blood on my hands.
                    I believe you. But many others would choose differently.


                    Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                    I accept it's a completely hypothetical scenario, but unless your hand somehow uniquely contained enough healing properties to save the lives of 1,000 people, I'd say most, if not all, of the culpability would belong to whoever issued such a callous ultimatum - and then carried it out.
                    HA! Absolutely! But, I have to admit...it never occurred to me.

                    And from now on, please don't post something so intelligent..so near one of my posts. The contrast is disturbing.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8765654].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  There's no internal discourse. Just kill ... eat.
                  That's how I've been for most of my life, and I certainly have
                  no plans to stop eating now. But to me that need doesn't mean
                  that I shouldn't consider my actions and make sure they are
                  appropriate and as fair as I can make them?

                  For example, I love lobster, but I've chosen to stop eating them
                  because they mate for life, which tells has lead me to believe
                  there is some kind of high level sentience there that other animals
                  don't have?

                  (Also, I've discovered the wonderful tastes of haddock, dogfish,
                  and especially barramundi!)


                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  It's a freaking no brainer to me.

                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  Suzanne; Maybe a no brainer to you. I'm talking about humanity in general.
                  Few people have your degree of conviction, Suzanne.
                  Signature

                  The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

                  ...A tachyon enters a bar.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8766320].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                    For example, I love lobster, but I've chosen to stop eating them because they mate for life, which tells has lead me to believe there is some kind of high level sentience there that other animals
                    don't have?

                    (Also, I've discovered the wonderful tastes of haddock, dogfish,
                    and especially barramundi!)
                    I didn't know that. I probably won't eat lobster again now because I won't be able to get over eating something's lifelong spouse. Thanks for that.


                    Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                    Few people have your degree of conviction, Suzanne.
                    It's such an easy question for me. I'm grateful to medical researchers for all they've done to cure devastating diseases in both humans and animals. I'm grateful that my children never got polio, smallpox, diphtheria, and there is insulin for treating diabetes and antibiotics that can stop and reverse the progression of tuberculosis and other diseases. Although I'm not manic-depressive, if I were, the common treatment was a lobotomy or electro-convulsive therapy before lithium was created. Complex surgery is now possible due to the creation of general anaesthetics. Then there's the advances in heart valve replacement surgery, organ transplant techniques and anti-transplant rejection medications, the heart-lung machine, antibiotics like penicillin, and whooping cough vaccine and so many more medical breakthroughs that they are too numerous to list. These breakthroughs have benefited both humans and animals alike. I'm sure some of you take your animals to the vet and have had a lifesaving treatment available for them due to animal research.

                    I eat meat, I use leather goods, etc., but I don't kill just to kill and have a deep respect for animals and humans alike. I would never own a fur or use cosmetics that use animals in research. That's a frivolous use of animals, with the exception of those who live in such bitter cold places that fur keeps them warm, and I only condone that if they eat the animal from which the fur came from.

                    When I see turtles in the road, I stop, pick them up and let them go where they won't get squished by cars, I swerve for caterpillers and snakes in the road when I'm driving. It's ridiculous, but if I see them, I can't stand to run over them. I leave spiders alone in my house, although some of them are pretty creepy looking.

                    How could I possibly less concerned for the lives of human than I am for animals? If I made a decision that cost the lives of 1,000 people, how do you live with that?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767177].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            So how to we reconcile the fact that we believe in the sanctity
            of all life, but then we kill and eat them for our own sustenance?
            Because I'm sure that they don't appreciate it any more than we would!
            I don't really hold with Gore Vidal's overly simplistic observation that we're all stone age men in a space age world, but as a species, we're pretty much making it up as we go along. Existence is uncharted territory for us and we don't have any examples or templates of the kind of ideal life we should be aiming for.

            For good or ill, humans possess self-awareness. That makes us conscious of ourselves as agents, and aware of our capacity to affect and transform our environment. Self-awareness also fosters empathy, making it easier for us to imagine ourselves in the place of our fellow humans, as well as other species - especially those that share some of our own physical and emotional characteristics. By instinct, we know we have to kill and eat other living creatures to survive, but when we think about the process, our intellect starts to raise issues about it. The only way we can rationalize this is to accept our biology and our place in the cycle of life. But at the same time, we can assuage our unease by ensuring we don't cause undue suffering. (Incidentally, because of our self-awareness, that guilt is a trait we don't share with many other species. There are few predators in the wild that concern themselves with the suffering or otherwise of their prey).

            Much of the abuse we cause to animals is due to greed or expediency, rather than pure, premeditated cruelty. But I wonder how many meat-eaters would continue to happily chomp away on their burgers if they actually had to catch and slaughter the animal, rather than pick up one of those convenient, pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped and decidedly un-animal-looking "products" from their local supermarkets. In many ways, desensitizing the process removes us from the horror of having to think about the manner in which much of our "food" is produced.

            Frank
            Signature
            TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763533].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post


              Much of the abuse we cause to animals is due to greed or expediency, rather than pure, premeditated cruelty.
              I think some of the abuse involving food producers is that they've become desensitized to death. You really can't have many feelings and send thousands of animals a day to their deaths.

              Farmers and ranchers have a totally different view of animals and death than others.

              But I wonder how many meat-eaters would continue to happily chomp away on their burgers if they actually had to catch and slaughter the animal, rather than pick up one of those convenient, pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped and decidedly un-animal-looking "products" from their local supermarkets. In many ways, desensitizing the process removes us from the horror of having to think about the manner in which much of our "food" is produced.

              Frank
              I agree. I also think that anyone that eats meat should kill and clean at least one large animal and do the dirty work themselves one time. It's way too easy to pass this on to someone else...

              I used to think all hunting was bad, and still hate trophey hunting. But then I grew to accept hunting as long as it was for food and the animal didn't go to waste.

              I now think hunting and killing your own food is more honorable than buying meat in a store. I just want hunters to practice shooting and do their best to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible, which most hunters do, and this adds a "humane" element to hunting and killing that other animals don't have. Wild dogs, wolves and bears eat other animals alive.
              Signature
              Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
              Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763572].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              Existence is uncharted territory for us and we don't have any examples or templates of the kind of ideal life we should be aiming for.

              Frank
              Signature

              The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

              ...A tachyon enters a bar.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763593].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                Yeah, Michio is always interesting. It's a little worrying he equates the ultimate civilization (the Type 3) with that of Star Wars. The human race would be condemned to a diet of chewbacca burgers.
                Signature
                TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763638].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
                  Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                  Yeah, Michio is always interesting. It's a little worrying he equates the ultimate civilization (the Type 3) with that of Star Wars. The human race would be condemned to a diet of chewbacca burgers.
                  I think he feels like his String Theory equation is pretty much his
                  great accomplishment in life, and now he's dedicated himself to
                  marketing physics and making science fun, a la Neil Degrasse-Tyson?

                  As for the burgers, I've wanted to try one ever since RA Salvatore
                  killed him off, anyway...

                  Signature

                  The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

                  ...A tachyon enters a bar.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764266].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                I wonder who is paying Kaku for this! I mean ****I**** am a terrorist because I don't want to see people propagandized, people having to RELY on calculators, and people SERIOUSLY feeling that what USED to be considered basic knowledge is no longer necessary to know because of the INTERNET!!?!?!? ****I**** am a terrorist because I don't want to have a huge amount taken from me, and have my currency devalued and see countries go bankrupt? ****I**** am a terrorist because I don't want to live in a hovel smaller than my master bedroom is now? SERIOUSLY?

                TECHNICALLY, a terrorist is one that plans out sneak attacks that can hit at any time and they only let you know they are doing it. They don't let you know PRECISELY who they are, or when the attack will happen and where. In that way, they strike TERROR in you. The SAME terror that got the US to settle for the TSA at the airports and the DHS.

                By THAT definition, the ones that are planning the devaluation and reconstructing of society and the economy are the terrorists! NOT people like ME!

                NOTE, NOTHING about race, culture, etc.... HECK, the problems I am talking about apparently will affect ALL, at least all that are now considered middle class. And many of them have already started! Some are in the international press. They are talked about in the UN.

                As for the language being ENGLISH? Well, the linqua franca was once Latin, and once French. NOW it is English. THERE TOO, I see English morphing. Will the end result, in say 20 years, look like English, or be as different from English as Danish is from German, or WORSE? If you know enough about German, Low German, and Danish, as I do, you can see how many of the changes occurred. Some are VERY slight. Others are MAJOR. They (german and danish) are two very distinct languages even though many words look nearly identical. And danish looks even CLOSER to some low german.

                As for the internet being the worlds phone, It is built on the old phone network which had to be upgraded. It is interesting how so many are paying so much just to get what they had. We have SO many things happening, it is hard to see where this will end up.

                Will we have VOIP everywhere(I mean with 100% saturation and no more native lines.)? Well, it has to be converted back and forth and go over lines which had to be upgraded. The first system worked by allocating a thin frequency band to a particular call. That is why full duplex modems only went up to 300baud before they had to start playing around with all sorts of variations. In the end, I think only SOME lines got to like 50KB. If you wanted more, the phone company had to get involved.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dmaster555
    it disgusts me to know that people are actually using "they're so similar to us" as a reason to treat them right.. As if were so high and mighty that only human or a creature that comes "close" to being human should be treated with respect on this earth.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763296].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by dmaster555 View Post

      it disgusts me to know that people are actually using "they're so similar to us" as a reason to treat them right.. As if were so high and mighty that only human or a creature that comes "close" to being human should be treated with respect on this earth.
      Why? Humans are innately superior, and most animals certainly
      didn't treat us very well when they had the upper hand? :p
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8763301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Suzanne -
    People can feel more for abused animals because they are innocent and helpless against us and WE are supposed to have the intelligence not to abuse things. We have choices and willfully do the wrong thing - sometimes for no more reason than for our own amusement. We have choices in our own lives, too.

    Of course - when there are no choices, if you notice, people pull together pretty well to help total strangers. Think of relief efforts after natural disasters. People caught in them are reduced to the same suffering that sickens us to see animals go through. The disaster victims are suffering due to no fault of their own - and people feel terrible to see it and respond very actively with kindness.

    It seems to me that the amount of empathy humans get is directly proportional to how much choice they had in directing their fate. For example - If someone is told to evacuate a volcano and refuses, they don't get much more than an apathetic shrug if they are maimed or killed. If people were trapped in a forest fire and couldn't get out - you see empathy and concern - and sometimes even see people go in and try to save them.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8764785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Frank - that is an excellent point. But it also brings a different aspect of situational reaction into play that wasn't in consideration before.

    If someone is making such threats, and people are bending to them and losing a hand to save others - the sociopath will continue to threaten people. It is at that point obligation not to give in to the threat. It might cost 1000 lives, but as long as people are bending, there will be people losing hands.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8766245].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Frank - that is an excellent point. But it also brings a different aspect of situational reaction into play that wasn't in consideration before.

      If someone is making such threats, and people are bending to them and losing a hand to save others - the sociopath will continue to threaten people. It is at that point obligation not to give in to the threat. It might cost 1000 lives, but as long as people are bending, there will be people losing hands.
      Well that's a way to not answer the intent of the question, so let's pose it a different way.

      Let's say that this a$$hole says and means it that you give up your hand and 1,000 people will live. Don't do it and they will certainly die. Do it, and it will be over. The threat will never be made again. Don't do it and it will be made over and over until someone does do it. So now, potentially many thousands could die.

      One of the people that you could save is a serial killer. One of them would become the person who found the cure for cancer.

      What are you going to do now? Here's question #2

      Let's say that this a$$hole says and means it that you give up your hand and 1,000 chimps will live. Don't do it and they will certainly die. Do it, and it will be over. The threat will never be made again. Don't do it and it will be made over and over until someone does do it. So now, potentially many thousands of chimps could die.

      One of the chimps that you could save would be the next chimp to attack a human unprovoked and chew off their face, ear, nose, eyes and hands (which is what an aggressive chimp does). One of them would become the next adorable little chimp seen in movies and TV commercials and is well trained to communicate with and mimic humans.

      What are you going to do now, and to make it more fun, you can choose to save the humans or the chimps (but not both) or keep your hand.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767165].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Well that's a way to not answer the intent of the question, so let's pose it a different way.

        Let's say that this a$ says and means it that you give up your hand and 1,000 people will live. Don't do it and they will certainly die. Do it, and it will be over. The threat will never be made again. Don't do it and it will be made over and over until someone does do it. So now, potentially many thousands could die.

        One of the people that you could save is a serial killer. One of them would become the person who found the cure for cancer.

        What are you going to do now? Here's question #2

        Let's say that this a$ says and means it that you give up your hand and 1,000 chimps will live. Don't do it and they will certainly die. Do it, and it will be over. The threat will never be made again. Don't do it and it will be made over and over until someone does do it. So now, potentially many thousands of chimps could die.

        One of the chimps that you could save would be the next chimp to attack a human unprovoked and chew off their face, ear, nose, eyes and hands (which is what an aggressive chimp does). One of them would become the next adorable little chimp seen in movies and TV commercials and is well trained to communicate with and mimic humans.

        What are you going to do now, and to make it more fun, you can choose to save the humans or the chimps (but not both) or keep your hand.
        The "and the threat will never be made again" changes the situation completely. Most blackmailers who get rewarded for the blackmail repeat the threat until they can no longer get satisfaction.

        Frankly - I think I'd probably end up in a fight to get this f***ed up sociopath out of my face. And that is the HONEST answer.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767467].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          The "and the threat will never be made again" changes the situation completely. Most blackmailers who get rewarded for the blackmail repeat the threat until they can no longer get satisfaction.

          Frankly - I think I'd probably end up in a fight to get this f***ed up sociopath out of my face. And that is the HONEST answer.
          Sure .. ridding the world of a dangerous, violent sociopath is one option, if you can accomplish that. I wouldn't be adverse to that solution.

          EDIT: ... but you may be giving up more than a hand if you get caught murdering this character.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767497].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Sure .. ridding the world of a dangerous, violent sociopath is one option, if you can accomplish that. I wouldn't be adverse to that solution.

            EDIT: ... but you may be giving up more than a hand if you get caught murdering this character.
            I would figure that, under the circumstances, that I might be giving it all up when I made my first move to try to do so. But, ya know - at some point, the aggressors step over the line and the only response your brain or body will accept is to just go for it. If your brain doesn't disengage at that point and send you into foaming at the mouth action, you will at least be watchful of a time to act which will give you a decent chance of survival.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767572].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              I would figure that, under the circumstances, that I might be giving it all up when I made my first move to try to do so. But, ya know - at some point, the aggressors step over the line and the only response your brain or body will accept is to just go for it. If your brain doesn't disengage at that point and send you into foaming at the mouth action, you will at least be watchful of a time to act which will give you a decent chance of survival.
              I found it very interesting how you changed the discussion from "Would you give up a hand to save 1,000 people" to "how can we kill the guy that gave us the ultimatum"

              All of this is hypothetical, and your question is as valid as mine, I just enjoyed watching how your mind works.

              One thing I should add to the "1,000 people for a hand" discussion. If the people were lined up in front of you, and you could see them, I think the reactions would be totally different. Now the people are not an abstract number.

              I don't mean you personally, I'm talking about averages in our population.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767858].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                If your brain doesn't disengage
                Actually, my brain would have disengaged long before this point - and I would have walked away. I avoid high drama situations and this is far too much intrigue for me:rolleyes:
                Signature
                Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8767948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    This thread has gotten weird. You people are strange. I'd like to party with you.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768026].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      This thread has gotten weird. You people are strange. I'd like to party with you.
      We'll all meet at a bar, and the hostess will ask "Why are you all missing one hand?"

      And we'll say "OK, someone brought up the hypothetical situation about cutting off your hand to save 1,000 people...."

      And she'll look at Sal and ask "Why do you have both hands?"

      And Sal will say "I'm the only one that thought of just killing the guy that was giving us the ultimatum"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768573].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        We'll all meet at a bar, and the hostess will ask "Why are you all missing one hand?"

        And we'll say "OK, someone brought up the hypothetical situation about cutting off your hand to save 1,000 people...."

        And she'll look at Sal and ask "Why do you have both hands?"

        And Sal will say "I'm the only one that thought of just killing the guy that was giving us the ultimatum"
        lol ... except that now poor Sal is a fugitive from justice after being indicted for 1st degree murder of a notorious Internet troll, well known for pranks, having to do with hands and killing 1,000 people, against gullible Internet dweebs. She is being relentlessly pursued by Deputy Samuel Gerard, who doesn't believe her story of a one-handed man for a minute and who won't stop until he gets her. She's also being pursued by the ATF for the use of a fully automatic rifle in the commission of a murder.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768834].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          lol ... except that now poor Sal is a fugitive from justice after being indicted for 1st degree murder of a notorious Internet troll, well known for pranks, having to do with hands and killing 1,000 people, against gullible Internet dweebs. She is being relentlessly pursued by Deputy Samuel Gerard, who won't stop until he gets her. She's also being pursued by the ATF for the use of a fully automatic rifle in the commission of a murder.
          And, Sal will be the only person in the bar where handcuffs will still work.
          Signature
          Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
          Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768841].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            I found it very interesting how you changed the discussion from "Would you give up a hand to save 1,000 people" to "how can we kill the guy that gave us the ultimatum"
            Well, ya know, Claude -- we're talking Principles with every morph of the question. It's all principle, because without those, we're gonna keep our own body parts intact (and yes, I am assuming that our empathy instincts are active in determining our principles). When it starts costing human lives, are you going to go after the oppressor or cower? Leave that sociopath around and you're going to continually be answering stuff like this. As soon as the question turned to "someone is forcing you to decide", my decision was made. This kind of sicko will play with it's pray so you're risking your life complying, too. Go for hero.

            On the other hand -- if it was some disinterested cause that was forcing the decision..........such as 1000 people's lives hang in the balance of you putting your hand into a machine to pull a lever that you know will be the last time you ever see that hand? The answer changes so quickly, doesn't it? I'd probably risk the hand.


            I mean, if we're gonna talk principles - lets talk principles. RIght.

            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            lol ... except that now poor Sal is a fugitive from justice after being indicted for 1st degree murder of a notorious Internet troll, well known for pranks, having to do with hands and killing 1,000 people, against gullible Internet dweebs. She is being relentlessly pursued by Deputy Samuel Gerard, who doesn't believe her story of a one-handed man for a minute and who won't stop until he gets her. She's also being pursued by the ATF for the use of a fully automatic rifle in the commission of a murder.
            LOL - sometimes it's just damned convenient to know how to boggle detection technology and know the back roads into Canada.

            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            And, Sal will be the only person in the bar where handcuffs will still work.
            Yeah - but at least anyone else there they don't work on.......will be an ally.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768867].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Yeah - but at least anyone else there they don't work on.......will be an ally.
              Hopefully they will give you a hand.
              Signature
              Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
              Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768880].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                Hopefully they will give you a hand.
                ... that is, unless they are a little short-handed
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768884].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Well, I would think that if I had gotten that far, I would already have the upper-hand on the situation.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8768896].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    Such punnyness!
    I don't know what hurts more, my ribs or my brain?
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      Such punnyness!
      I don't know what hurts more, my ribs or my brain?
      At least it's not your face - - hand-some is a very good quality.


      Hey folks - I think I deserve a big hand for that one.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769080].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        At least it's not your face - - hand-some is a very good quality.


        Hey folks - I think I deserve a big hand for that one.

        Shhhhhhh! If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of one hand clapping...
        Signature
        Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
        Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769630].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Shhhhhhh! If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of one hand clapping...
          Well they need to stop it. It's making that stupid hands-free light by the TV strobe.

          Steve. The point of giving an animal "personhood" is to make it illegal to torture and kill them. Period. People are too insane not to stop it on their own. They need to be told that they will be captured and caged themselves if caught abusing something else. Your spiel about the robot as an analogy is real cute. I think you're purposely missing the point. Animals are real beings and have real feelings - feel real pain. What is wrong is not the intelligence levels of the animals -- what is wrong is that humans are so vicious that they need to be told they will suffer if caught making life hell for another creature.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8770331].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            Well they need to stop it. It's making that stupid hands-free light by the TV strobe.

            Steve. The point of giving an animal "personhood" is to make it illegal to torture and kill them. Period. People are too insane not to stop it on their own. They need to be told that they will be captured and caged themselves if caught abusing something else. Your spiel about the robot as an analogy is real cute. I think you're purposely missing the point. Animals are real beings and have real feelings - feel real pain. What is wrong is not the intelligence levels of the animals -- what is wrong is that humans are so vicious that they need to be told they will suffer if caught making life hell for another creature.
            The robot was talking about kakos video. I was referring to the robot references HE made! It was NOT related to the animals animals, but "human" animals. HEY, CHIMPS aren't trying to turn our societies upside down!

            As for the animals? WHAT constitutes torture? I bet if you asked THEM, when they were first caged, they would say caging them. Nobody seems to care about THAT! And aren't there ALREADY laws against torturing animals, and killing many animals? I mean COWS are killed routinely for food, but needlessly killing chimps would probably have consequences. AGAIN though, they have tests and claim chimps are so close, etc... and they will rationalize.

            Speak about DNA all you want, but there are a LOT of differences between humans and chimps and things like thalidimide hurt people but apparently DON'T hurt chimps. And a different encephalopathy, and Immune virus, affects chimps. So they are FAR from a good test.

            BTW if not for the expense and difficulty, imagine what this world would be like! Some guy might go into forests and clear them 100% just for the products to sell for money, etc... They wouldn't care about chimps, or squirrels, etc... The world, as we know it, would have been gone LONG ago..

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8770363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW About the 1 robot becoming millions? In theory, the robot would have to have a REAL intelligence. Suppose it needs a gas or other material that is not there! Suppose that some step requires atmospheric pressure, or gravity that is not there! The robot would have to find a REPLACEMENT! Suppose such a replacement can't be found! It would have to REDESIGN itself.

    So what sounds like a complicated thing that COULD be done with EXISTING technology becomes something that, AT BEST, could be a feat beyond that in the foreseeable future. On some planets, it may not even be possible. Is it even possible on our moon? IMAGINE the testing you would have to do. YIKES!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8769146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Well, well, well ... typical of animal rights activists, they really only care about animals when it serves their ideological purpose. Steve Wise, long time animal rights extremist and founder of this Nonhuman Rights Project isn't the only AR extremist group to go to court to attempt to assign personhood rights to animals. PeTA has done that on numerous occasions and lost all cases. In typical animal rights hypocrisy, PeTA, who wants animals to have personhood rights, has killed 90% of the animals (cats and dogs primarily) that have been given to them, by unsuspecting people who thought that they would rehome them.

    If PeTA had been successful in assigning personhood to animals, they would then become the most notorious serial killers ever. If Steve Wise and his gang were successful with their chimp lawsuits, they would be guilty of negligible homicide for the 2 chimps that died and negligence/abuse for the others, considering they saw abuse and did nothing to alleviate their suffering immediately, as they sure could have done.

    I recently posted about the lawsuits that have been filed seeking writs of habeas corpus for chimpanzees. I promised I would write at greater length. It just came out.

    While researching for my piece, I read the on-line boasting by the Nonhuman Rights Project about how the lawsuits came to be filed at this particular time. And I noticed something very interesting. The group apparently allowed chimps to be mistreated (at a roadside zoo) for an extended period because it served their ideological purposes.

    From, "Habeas Chimpanzee:

    According to the group's website, its investigators have known of the alleged cruelty for some time, but apparently never reported it to the authorities. "Three months" after first discovering the chimps' poor care, NRP investigators visited the zoo again and learned that two of the animals were dead.

    Still they did nothing. Later, they found Tommy kept "in a small cage at the back of a dark shed," clearly improper confinement for a social animal. Yet even this abuse they did not report, though doing so would likely have brought Tommy immediate relief. Instead, the NRP reports, "the conclusion of the legal team was to move as quickly as possible to file the suit," pressing toward their ideological goals rather than seeking to secure Tommy's present welfare.

    How was it any different for the Nonhuman Rights Foundation to allow Tommy to wallow in seeming neglect in the service of their ideology than for the zoo to keep him in order to make money? It seemed to me that both the animal rights group and the business were making instrumental use of the chimpanzee.

    Group Wanting Personhood for Chimps Allowed Them to be Mistreated for Lawsuit | LifeNews.com
    Another source: "Chimp Personhood" Zealots Permitted Cruelty | National Review Online
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8770385].message }}

Trending Topics