Sandra the Orangutan Granted Freedom with Limited Human Rights Ruling

a reply to: SallieSunshine

Still not a human.

Next step is that we must ask permission to slaughter cows to eat.


Nope.

Animals are animals.

nm

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: SlapMonkey

all animals and again i say all animals are sentient,some more than others, science be damned, and courts of law.
so what if they can't recognize themselves in a reflection, or communicate as humans do. doesn't mean they don't and they do in ways we still don't fully understand.
(...)

You make a good point the mirror test does not conclusively rule out self-awareness or other cognitive capabilities. Any creature which is not self-aware will fail the mirror test, but not every creature which is self-aware will pass.

However, it's not debatable Orangutans, some Apes and most or all Chimpanzees pass the mirror test, in addition to Dolphins, Orcas, Magpies and Elephants. Keep in mind human children under the age of 18 months routinely if not always fail the mirror test - I'm assuming it's an average threshold for human children and not a precipitous dropoff.

There're many creatures which haven't been tested. There's also an example of one whom previously failed the test but upon retesting in recent times has shown to pass: the Rhesus macaques monkey. This is important because it was previously thoght lower primates such as these monkeys did not possess self-awareness.

It's also worth stating almost all creatures at first assume the reflection is something else. The mirror is magical. After some thought and experimenting they find ti's their own reflection. It's apparent some creature might require more time to come to this conclusion. In tests with Crows, they're shown to fail, yet because of the limited length of the tests and the nature, some question the results. For example, in one study it was found Crows were able to find hidden items which were shown in the mirror but were not visible otherwise. This possibly shows they know the reflection is a real object. And in the case of the Rhesus macaques monkey, it was implants, not harmless marks, which apparently triggered the monkeys to realize it was themselves in the mirror.

Is Koko just an animal?



Great apes are not just animals they are family and should be treated as such.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Is Koko just an animal?

Great apes are not just animals they are family and should be treated as such.

If I didnt know better Id say she was flirting with him, the idea is kinda strengthened by the fact that when he was totally enthralled by her the first thing she did was go for his wallet and cash.
Women will be women even when their Apes it seems

originally posted by: jonnywhite



However, it's not debatable Orangutans, some Apes and most or all Chimpanzees pass the mirror test, in addition to Dolphins, Orcas, Magpies and Elephants.

There're many creatures which haven't been tested. There's also an example of one whom previously failed the test but upon retesting in recent times has shown to pass: the Rhesus macaques monkey. This is important because it was previously thoght lower primates such as these monkeys did not possess self-awareness.

It's also worth stating almost all creatures at first assume the reflection is something else. The mirror is magical. After some thought and experimenting they find ti's their own reflection. It's apparent some creature might require more time to come to this conclusion. In tests with Crows, they're shown to fail, yet because of the limited length of the tests and the nature, some question the results. For example, in one study it was found Crows were able to find hidden items which were shown in the mirror but were not visible otherwise. This possibly shows they know the reflection is a real object. And in the case of the Rhesus macaques monkey, it was implants, not harmless marks, which apparently triggered the monkeys to realize it was themselves in the mirror.

yeah yeah. they recognize themselves in a mirror. bfd
that makes them non human people?
i dont agree

humans are superior to animals. i dont see how that can be debated.
i dont see how human ethics and all the destruction we do to the planet has anything to do with it.


get back to me when these animals start composing music.
when they can change their entire way of life.
when they can cure diseases that kill them
when they can engineer things to make life easier for their species.

to think they are on the level of humans is a joke.
aware? sure
should they be treated with respect? of course

it should be recognized they are below us cause they are.

humans at the top. somewhere below is monkeys. below monkeys are hamsters for example.

every species has their place.
humans are the best. we win the prize.
the prize is we get to alter the planet to suit our species. we get to build infrastructure to help our species.

we have the ability to save animals if we decide to. animals do not have that ability.

they lose

a reply to: boymonkey74

yup. just an animal.
an animal that knows some signs and can show some emotions.
bfd

this same animal could flip on a dime and rip his ass up without a second though. without processing what is happening and will happen.

i think these arguments are ridiculous.

there are birds that know a few words.

my dog knows how to catch a frisbee. i wouldnt call that on a human level.
he also likes to lick his asshole for 30 minutes at a time.

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.

Hmm, all those behaviours you list are what we see amongst our human leaders!

a reply to: Grovit

humans are superior to animals. i dont see how that can be debated.

Very easily and all comes down to the subjective term "superior"

i dont see how human ethics and all the destruction we do to the planet has anything to do with it.

Right here you give a great example of a debatable aspect of this issue

get back to me when these animals start composing music.
when they can change their entire way of life.
when they can cure diseases that kill them
when they can engineer things to make life easier for their species.

Get back to me when human babies can take care of themselves straight from the womb
When they have a racial memory/instinct far beyond anything we could comprehend
When they instinctively know they are about to die and wander off to do so
When they are born into an environment that precludes any need for engineering or invention because everything is provided for them

aware? sure
should they be treated with respect? of course

This at least we can agree on

It seems like all your examples are technology based, were us humans still so superior when we 1st got out of the trees and started using pointy sticks or is our superiority a recent occurrence?
Many animals have been shown to use tools to help them, who knows how this will develop over the next few million years, this could be the begging of a human like leap for them

my dog knows how to catch a frisbee. i wouldnt call that on a human level.
he also likes to lick his asshole for 30 minutes at a time.

To your dogs way of thinking the fact the you cant probably makes him think hes the superior 1

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

We are talking about 2 separate things

Even if they kill off the other Chimps they still arent causing any long term damage or destruction to their ecosystems, even if an animal exhausts any natural resources in an area they will move on and very quickly the balance will be restored so that eventually the animals come back and repeat the process. Humans on the other hand quite frequently and for as long as weve had recorded history do completely desolate environments to the point they become uninhabitable, and not just for us but all the species that lived there. My point had nothing to do with internal conflicts within a species but with the way they interact with the environment.

The only animals that decimate environments to the point were they are no longer habitable on a long term scale are human introduced species that dont belong there in the 1st place

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: gortex

What education?!?!?!?!

It is scientifically an animal. There isn't any education, unless you are now redefining words, that states/shows otherwise.

It is not human. It has no human rights. It has no rights.

So we are all animals, according to science they are your ancestors! If aliens who are smarter or stronger come here I guess you feel we should all be caged by them and have no rights.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Strawman. Destruction of a habitat is destruction of a habitat, whether it is short or long term, the behavior is still there.

Additionally, nature, as a mechanism, favors species that can quickly fill an ecosystem as evidenced by natural disasters such as forest fires:

Invasive species often exploit disturbances to an ecosystem (wildfires, roads, foot trails) to colonize an area. Large wildfires can sterilize soils, while adding a variety of nutrients. In the resulting free-for-all, formerly entrenched species lose their advantage, leaving more room for invasives. In such circumstances plants that can regenerate from their roots have an advantage. Non-natives with this ability can benefit from a low intensity fire burns that removes surface vegetation, leaving natives that rely on seeds for propagation to find their niches occupied when their seeds finally sprout. Source.

a reply to: gortex

Just because the world is changing doesn't always mean it's for the better.

Why would a court have to declare an animal a "non-human person" (which is a bastardization of the word "person," regardless of your opinion)? Can't they just pass laws protecting the animal, like is always done, and still call it an animal?

(pssst...the answer is 'yes.')

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: macman
Once again , no one has said she is a human but this particular animal does have rights , she has the rights of a non-human person.

Speaking of human arrogance--who are we to define what rights an animal has? We're not giving them a voice. Whose to say this particular animal doesn't prefere a steady diet of tasty foods, medical care, and a well-kept living area.

The human species runs the entire gamut--some prefer to be an Alaskan bush person, while others prefer to live at the top of a high-rise in the middle of a concrete jungle. Some people are hoarders, whilst others shun possessions completely.

You can't tell me with certainty that the "rights" these courts are bestowing on these animals are the ones that they'd prefer to have, or that releasing an animal into the wild that has been in captivity nearly its entire life is what that animal truly wants.

You claim that all of us who find this ruling as ridiculous as a Christmas sweater are arrogant, or not educated, or ignorant, or whatever, but I propose to you that you have no more right to dictate to me what a certain animal wants or desires any more than I can dictate it to you.

All I claim is that an animal is not a person, regardless if there is a modifier such as "non-human." That's what most of us are claiming. It's a valid claim, whether or not you agree.

Best Regards.

a reply to: macman

This is stupidity amplified.

Some things are self evident - person-hood is what this is all about

You don't have to like it - but this is just the beginning

a reply to: gortex

I'm reading this on Christmas Eve - it's like a gift

Thank you OP