It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandra the Orangutan Granted Freedom with Limited Human Rights Ruling

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: gortex

It is an animal. There are no rights to be had.



Spoken like a true Human.
The ones who have basically destroyed the planet via pollution, Wars and general ignorance/arrogance.
If you had ever gotten up close to a great ape and looked in its eyes you would be blown away by how "Human like" they are, other than the hair, the incredible strength and agility and their ability to live in harmony with their surroundings we are remarkably similar.

Your lack of empathy comes across as slightly sociopathic, sorry


What a happy story, but sad when you think how many of her kind are still kept in horrendous conditions. Another generation or 2 and hopefully these sorts of cruel animal confinement type situations will be a thing of the past.

Its a genuine shame you always get someone in these types of threads who feels the need to bring them down with deliberately negative nonsense
edit on 22/12/2014 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
... and their ability to live in harmony with their surroundings we are remarkably similar.


Chimpanzees can be incredibly violent. The dominant males use violence on other males and females to assert their leadership positions and breading status. Additionally, competing groups will often kill and cannibalize each other.



edit on 22-12-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
Cool story.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex
First chimps, next the world!

No sleep until our bovine friends roam free! Release our avian allies from their coops! Our porcine peers will be meat no more! FREEEEEEEDOM!

edit on 22-12-2014 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
... and their ability to live in harmony with their surroundings we are remarkably similar.


Chimpanzees can be incredibly violent. The dominant males use violence on other males and females to assert their leadership positions and breading status. Additionally, competing groups will often kill and cannibalize each other.




I was actually referring to their natural environments or habitats not social structure

That said, many groups of Primates seem to have 1 member who isnt included in any grooming or mating and is generally ostracised by the group, almost seeming like they get picked on to make the others feel better.
If that isnt an example of human behavior I dont know what is.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
i dont get the non human person deal either.
i also dont see how habeas corpus applies to an animal.

she was born in captivity 29 years ago.

at a sanctuary isnt it more like 'the wild' versus a zoo?

will she have to find he own food and interact with other animals?

she might have a problem with that since she dont know how.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

I was actually referring to their natural environments or habitats not social structure.


And the violent raids on other tribes is based on food resources. A group of chimpanzees would only be 'harmonious' with their habitat if there were no other chimpanzees near by. They consume the food stocks in their area and then attack and attempt to kill/eat rivals to control the food resources there.

The romanticized notion of animal behavior in the wild does not correlate with their actual behavior.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit




i dont get the non human person deal either.

She has feelings like joy , boredom , anger , she feels pain and fear and can think for herself .... much like a human , she is a person just not a human person.



will she have to find he own food and interact with other animals?

She will go to an animal park where she will be looked after but also have the freedom of movement that any sentient animal needs .... including the human ape.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
People realize that humans are animals.. Right?

There may be arguments against such a decision, but claiming that animals can't be given human rights is contradicted by such rights being given to humans.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
This makes you think humans have a chance.
NO!
they dont treat human with decency.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

you seem to fail to understand that to use your words "scientifically " humans or to use the scientific term homo sapiens sapiens, are classified as a animal under the genus homo which is a animal, or refusing to acknowledge that fact. in other words, human beings are a sub species of Homo sapiens

from the wiki, cause like i say it's fast.



In scientific terms, the definition of "human" has changed with the discovery and study of the fossil ancestors of modern humans. The previously clear boundary between human and ape blurred, resulting in "Homo" referring to "human" now encompassing multiple species. There is also a distinction between anatomically modern humans and Archaic Homo sapiens, the earliest fossil members of the species, which are classified as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, e.g. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Human


definition for human as a noun.



2human noun
: a person
Full Definition of HUMAN :
a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid — hu·man·like adjective
See human defined for English-language learners »
Human


also the definition for homo.


1ho·mo noun, often capitalized ˈhō-(ˌ)mō :
any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)
Homo


and hominids.



hom·i·nid noun ˈhä-mə-nəd, -ˌnid Definition of HOMINID : any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan — hominid adjective
Hominids


like you, i often get annoyed at the terms and phrases that scientists use. but the phrase/term non human person or non human being, is a common one use by them, so i wouldn't call it wordsmithing. just a term used by some.
i didn't include a source for this because i couldn't find a clear one that wasn't convoluted.

edit on 22-12-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

thanks for explaining but im not buying it.
sounds like clever word manipulation for appeal to me

dictionary.reference.com...


a human being, whether an adult or child



a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing


^^^how can an animal be a person when being a person distinguishes you from being an animal?

yeah. take her from the zoo. dont take her from the zoo.
either way, not into the word games calling an animal a person



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit




thanks for explaining but im not buying it.
sounds like clever word manipulation for appeal to me

You're welcome
It isn't merely word manipulation , being classed a Non human person bestows her and her kind with basic rights and that in my opinion is an important step in our growth as a species.


how can an animal be a person when being a person distinguishes you from being an animal?

Being a human distinguishes us from the other animals.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I've no problem with recognizing our cousin primates as one of the most cognitive, sentient beings next to us - and a call for their freedom.

However, that freedom shouldn't entail living with us - free. They should all be returned to the original habitats. Not given an apartment or anything and hanging from the street lamp posts. They are violent animals. Very, very violent.

So yeah - recognize them as a non-human person - and put them back in their original natural habitat - because with very human children roaming around, we don't need to be put them at risk. Right?

Now if they have been in captivity their whole life, and CAN'T be returned to the wild.... Then I'd have to vote NO as to their freedom from captivity into a human society. They will still have to be caged. I'm a mother, I can't fathom taking the risk. A kid, taunting a freed non-human person, suddenly pisses off the wrong non-human person - and that non-human person commences in ripping the kids arms off and beating the kid with them.... Ah.... no. Sandra can stay in her pen. Make her a bigger pen with amenities - if she needs more recognition as a non-human person. But she's not welcome to roam the streets, next to my yard, where my kids play. I hope that doesn't seem to harsh or cold, but it's what came to mind in reading this story. Human safety - should be paramount in any decisions these courts make, regarding non-human persons that are apes.

CdT



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
We humans are also animals.

What if you taught Sandra the orangutan human sign language and she then signed her desire to be free from the zoo ? Would she then be qualified to go to the sanctuary in your mind?

What if the evolution of man means the evolution of our conscience regarding how we treat the other creatures on this planet? I believe it is inevitable for humans, as we evolve, to see ourselves as the caretakers of other creatures rather than the users of them.

Sal

a reply to: macman



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Human DNA is 97% identical to Orangutans. If it were 98%, would they be considered a human? How about 99.9%? What if it were identical but just not as smart as homo sapiens? What if it were 100% genetically identical and as smart as humans, but didn't have the language capabilities? Would Neanderthals be considered a person?

What if a superior humanoid creature came to Earth, was smarter and (most importantly) wiser in every way. Would they be more human than us? Would we lose our right to be a 'person'?

The most amusing thing about these sort of articles and discussions is the ludicrous idea that we are somehow superior to everything else. Keep in mind, in our short time as a civilized species, we have done nothing significantly beneficial for the planet whatsoever. In fact, our MO it to destroy every where we go. We pollute the very air and water we need to survive, we throw our trash in the ocean, we poop in and poison our waters, we tear down thousands of acres of forests just to have something to wipe our superior butts with. We treat other life as if it has no other meaning besides food and entertainment for us. Not one person on this planet can deny that we aren't the most detrimental, destructive,cruelest creature currently existing in the biosphere.

One of our worst failings: believing we're superior or 'higher' to anything else. We had the same attitude when we invaded the New lands. This is the ego of the apex predator. I may think it's BS, but I have to begrudgingly admit it's natural behavior.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Calalini because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SallieSunshine

Preach it, Sallie! We can never ever call ourselves truly moral or ethical creatures considering how we treat other life on this planet. In fact, to claim we are some morally higher creatures is absolutely ludicrous and stunningly ignorant. I dare anyone to take off the rose-tinted glasses, and examine homo sapiens in the same light as you would any other creature and see how we measure up!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Calalini
Human DNA is 97% identical to Orangutans. If it were 98%, would they be considered a human? How about 99.9%? What if it were identical but just not as smart as homo sapiens? What if it were 100% genetically identical and as smart as humans, but didn't have the language capabilities?
what if this. what if that. fact is they are not 100% identical to us

What if a superior humanoid creature came to Earth, was smarter and (most importantly) wiser in every way. Would they be more human than us? Would we lose our right to be a 'person'?
i wouldnt look at is as more or less human. we are human. there are no other humans on this planet. if it was proven humans exist on other planets and somehow came to earth, i would say they are 'also' human. i also dont see how another humans right to be a person would make us lose ours


The most amusing thing about these sort of articles and discussions is the ludicrous idea that we are somehow superior to everything else.
i guess you would have to define superior. i think we are. one reason is humans COULD save/take care of an entire species for example. another species can not save/take care of us

Keep in mind, in our short time as a civilized species, we have done nothing significantly beneficial for the planet whatsoever.
so what. what does that have to do with animals being classified as a person

In fact, our MO it to destroy every where we go. We pollute the very air and water we need to survive, we throw our trash in the ocean, we poop in and poison our waters, we tear down thousands of acres of forests just to have something to wipe our superior butts with. We treat other life as if it has no other meaning besides food and entertainment for us. Not one person on this planet can deny that we aren't the most detrimental, destructive,cruelest creature currently existing in the biosphere.
agree with all that. humans have the capacity to be different though. to change their behavior. that is another difference. monkeys for example cant. yeah, they can learn sign language but thats not the same thing

One of our worst failings: believing we're superior or 'higher' to anything else.
we are. animals can not accomplish the things humans can

.


im all for ethical treatment of animals and saving the dolphins and all that.
to think humans are not superior to animals is a joke.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I think that she should be tried by a jury of her peers to see if she should go free. It's only fair!







posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: gortex

It is an orangutan. Not a human. There are no "Human" rights to give to a Non-Human.

This is stupidity amplified.



I agree.

"Human" rights is such a species-centric term and needs to be changed.

I like Sentient Rights myself.




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join