Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: bally001
What does "reductio ad absurdum" mean? I got that too.

It means using an absurd example to make a point.

No one here said chimps are skilled in engineering, yet butcherguy used this absurd example to somehow say they can't be recognized as persons. It's of course a fallacy. A person isn't defined by it's engineering skills or even by the affiliation to a civilization.

All butcherguy has to do is check the definition of person in a dictionary.
Others can do that too.... but it would ruin their argument.

What definition is that?

a reply to: Pimpish

As far as the judge saying these monkeys are persons, not technically. She granted them habeas corpus, she didn't say they're persons.

Exactly. Some 20 or so posts after the OP everyone seems to think that somehow this is about granting chimps "person-hood".
People, do your research...

Habeas Corpus...
en.wikipedia.org...

Habeas corpus ("you have the body" in Latin)[1] is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.[1]

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: bally001
What does "reductio ad absurdum" mean? I got that too.

It means using an absurd example to make a point.

No one here said chimps are skilled in engineering, yet butcherguy used this absurd example to somehow say they can't be recognized as persons. It's of course a fallacy. A person isn't defined by it's engineering skills or even by the affiliation to a civilization.

All butcherguy has to do is check the definition of person in a dictionary.
Others can do that too.... but it would ruin their argument.

What definition is that?

Go to a dictionary.
Find the word 'person'.
Read the definition.

a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
i read the wikipedia page that you provided the link for...
I didn't see any non-humans mentioned.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

Do you have one that defines a person a non-human?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

Do you have one that defines a person a non-human?

Natural Person: A living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent. You
Legal Person: Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech. Corporations
Artificial Person: An entity established by law and given at least some legal rights and duties of a human being. Corporations are the most common types of artificial persons. Corporations, and in theory, the Chimpanzees and other such intelligent animals
Or ... as has been done for legal and artificial, the creation of an entirely new class of person strictly reserved for animals demonstrating awareness and intellect.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

"a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary"

Do you have one that defines a person a non-human?

Which dictionary is the wrong dictionary? Didn't know there was a right one and a wrongen.

Bally

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

Do you have one that defines a person a non-human?

Which dictionary is the wrong dictionary? Didn't know there was a right one and a wrongen.

Bally

A legal dictionary (Blacks Law), which varies greatly from Webster's or Oxford

a reply to: butcherguy

All butcherguy has to do is check the definition of person in a dictionary.
Others can do that too.... but it would ruin their argument.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

There you go. Blame me, I'm the party pooper, no more animal jokes. hehe

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: butcherguy
I think you are looking at the wrong dictionary

Do you have one that defines a person a non-human?

Natural Person: A living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent. You
Legal Person: Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech. Corporations
Artificial Person: An entity established by law and given at least some legal rights and duties of a human being. Corporations are the most common types of artificial persons. Corporations, and in theory, the Chimpanzees and other such intelligent animals
Or ... as has been done for legal and artificial, the creation of an entirely new class of person strictly reserved for animals demonstrating awareness and intellect.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel
I will admit that I am not a lawyer, and I only connected the legal definition of artificial person with corporate entities.

I think it is an error by the judge to look at animal as an artificial person. I fail to see what duties the animal has as an artificial person.

An entity established by law and given at least some legal rights and duties of a human being

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
I will admit that I am not a lawyer, and I only connected the legal definition of artificial person with corporate entities.

I think it is an error by the judge to look at animal as an artificial person. I fail to see what duties the animal has as an artificial person.

An entity established by law and given at least some legal rights and duties of a human being

Please read the posts in the threads more carefully.

The judge gave the chimps habeas corpus.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

OK, does that have jurisdictional prudence across all nations or just one.

Just asking kindly,

Bally

a reply to: bally001
Those definitions are U.S. law, but I imagine most western Democracies and the UN have similar language if not the same.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
I will admit that I am not a lawyer, and I only connected the legal definition of artificial person with corporate entities.

I think it is an error by the judge to look at animal as an artificial person. I fail to see what duties the animal has as an artificial person.

An entity established by law and given at least some legal rights and duties of a human being

Please read the posts in the threads more carefully.

The judge gave the chimps habeas corpus.

I already read the link provided by a member for habeas corpus.
I commented that I see nothing about habeas corpus for animals in that link.
I guess you missed that post of mine, or you would not have mentioned habeas corpus as if I was unaware of it in this thread, but at any rate, I would be interested in seeing any past law regarding habeas corpus for animals if you know of any.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Dang!!! This will effect my experiments.

Thanks for the update.

Kind regards,

Bally.

a reply to: butcherguy
I am no lawyer either, so I cannot advance the discussion much past that point. The topic is not new in the legal sphere though, they have been discussing these very things for the very reasons this case is in play ... it is believed that advancing personhood to animals will provide them better protection than does animal rights. I don't think this should be the case of all animals, but for sure such aware and intelligent ones as mentioned throughout this thread, especially with the information in my first post.

These animals have a duty to nature, so in turn, do they not have a duty to us ... and vice versa?

My point is, the case certainly could be made, and made with ample strength behind it.

a reply to: boymonkey74

At least gay persons are people by the very definition and DNA.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Pimpish

As far as the judge saying these monkeys are persons, not technically. She granted them habeas corpus, she didn't say they're persons.

Exactly. Some 20 or so posts after the OP everyone seems to think that somehow this is about granting chimps "person-hood".
People, do your research...

Habeas Corpus...
en.wikipedia.org...

Habeas corpus ("you have the body" in Latin)[1] is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.[1]

When the judge granted rights that are guaranteed by the constitution, she granted them the rights of we the "people". If they are not being considered people by this judge then they can't be granted the rights of the people.