Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons

a reply to: Specimen

I think your not getting what I'm trying to point here about an Ape not being able to lie?

Ah. If that's your point, then cool. I didn't get that, you are right.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Only if it taught, right? A human telling the Ape, this your right and your left, or left and right in that case.

if humans weren't socialized from birth, it would be true for us too. There are cases of neglected children who never learned to talk. Are those kids less human because they had no teaching in language?

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

I believe the same thing is going on with dolphins as well in other parts of the world.

The probable cause for the legal personhood confusion stems from a misreading of a government statement claiming that,

Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphins should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose.

Of course, being seen as 'non-human persons' is far different than actually having the rights and protections of a 'non-human person.' The Indian government said that dolphins "should" be recognized as legal persons with the capacity for certain legal rights, but never in fact granted them such status or rights.

io9.com...

The following is from your provided link dealing with chimpanzees that appears to show the same reasoning.

Advocates argue great apes are highly intelligent and self-aware beings with complex emotional lives that deserve basic rights, including the right to be free of inhumane treatment.

Next they will get the right to vote and of course the right to college educations.

I know you were being sarcastic (I hope,) but when I first read that, my initial impression lead me to believe you were taking the headline literally.

ETA: It is similar laws such as this that protects dogs from being entered into fighting pits. If one were to read that law protecting canines and the reasoning behind it, they will see that what the judge did has been done before. Just ask Michael Vick....

originally posted by: Specimen

I think your not getting what I'm trying to point here about an Ape not being able to lie?

The can lie once they learn to use language.

Gorilla destroys property, blames the cat. Are all primates liars?

Well, I don't know if all primates lie, but I am sure We are the Champions of it on this planet.

Maybe language actually provides such an easy way to lie it becomes irresistible?? We should create a language that inherently prevents lying. Not sure how we'd do that but it would be cool.

a reply to: Involutionist

ETA: It is similar laws such as this that protects dogs from being entered into fighting pits. If one were to read that law protecting canines and the reasoning behind it, they will see that what the judge did has been done before. Just ask Michael Vick....

THat guy is an asshole if ever one lived. And I can't hardly believe (let alone stomach) that he was allowed to resume playing sports (and earning tons of money) after what he did.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I agree that what Vick did was deplorable and inhumane but he paid his debt to society and spent time in prison for it. Lost it all and came back. I'm grateful for second chances in life and therefore will not deny another the same right within my mind. I state this as dog lover at heart. There are far more worse people out there getting away with impunity when harming fellow humans.

I agree and starred everything you shared in this thread. I have found that those who are very fond of all sentient beings possess deep compassion including their fellow humans. Their love for all living creatures however causes some to lean more towards their furry friends than humans. Some days I can relate; my dog has never let me down.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I agree that what Vick did was deplorable and inhumane but he paid his debt to society and spent time in prison for it. Lost it all and came back. I'm grateful for second chances in life and therefore will not deny another the same right within my mind. I state this as dog lover at heart. There are far more worse people out there getting away with impunity when harming fellow humans.

I agree and starred everything you shared in this thread. I have found that those who are very fond of all sentient beings possess deep compassion including their fellow humans. Their love for all living creatures however causes some to lean more towards their furry friends than humans. Some days I can relate; my dog has never let me down.

Dog fighting and chicken fighting, those are to the death for animals.

That means it is so cruel and inhumane that Vick expected his dogs to KILL for his monetary gain. That is called exploitation.

Now you guys might like boxing and wrestling, and street fighting and karate and blah, blah, blah, but the dogs have no choice in the matter and are exploited for gain.

What is the idea behind wanting chickens and dog to KILL each other? It's not beat them in 10 rounds, it's not jump off the top rope and hammer locks and half nelsons. It is KILL the other dog. To get money.

Vick got money for wanting his dogs to KILL. That should be called murder.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I agree, but that means write rights for every animal in the planet, specially when we humans fall in the category of the animal kingdom and we have given ourselves rights over every other animal because the bible tells us we are special.

a reply to: marg6043


There is growing evidence for octopus intelligence.

It seems that the mothers always die as part of birth and rearing because they stop eating.

"Meeting an octopus," writes Godfrey-Smith, "is like meeting an intelligent alien." Their intelligence sometimes even involves changing colors and shapes. One video online shows a mimic octopus alternately morphing into a flatfish, several sea snakes, and a lionfish by changing color, altering the texture of its skin, and shifting the position of its body. Another video shows an octopus materializing from a clump of algae. Its skin exactly matches the algae from which it seems to bloom-until it swims away.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

So chimps are people, but people who haven't been through birth aren't people.

This is why throat-punching idiots should be made legal.

The irony of liberal progressivists knows no bounds. I think it stems from a very poorly formed primary education accompanied by either no secondary education or progressivist liberal indoctrination from unemployable professors at what passes for 'universities' today.

I give you:

originally posted by: marg6043

Now in a more serious note, activist should never be allow to hold positions of power, make laws or became stupid judges

Activist judges are FINE and democratic rule is BAD when the activist judges give us atrocities like legalized abortion on demand, Obamacare, and homosexual 'marriage,'

but

Activist judges are BAD for (insert particular gripe here).

Ugh.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

So chimps are people, but people who haven't been through birth aren't people.

This is why throat-punching idiots should be made legal.

The irony of liberal progressivists knows no bounds. I think it stems from a very poorly formed primary education accompanied by either no secondary education or progressivist liberal indoctrination from unemployable professors at what passes for 'universities' today.

I give you:

originally posted by: marg6043

Now in a more serious note, activist should never be allow to hold positions of power, make laws or became stupid judges

Activist judges are FINE and democratic rule is BAD when the activist judges give us atrocities like legalized abortion on demand, Obamacare, and homosexual 'marriage,'

but

Activist judges are BAD for (insert particular gripe here).

Ugh.

Judges are never to be activists, they are to be impartial when weighing justice.

That is why we are supposed to have the three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. They are supposed to be checks and balances.

That is why there is no such thing as "Judges Unions", because they are supposed to be impartial.

They can give their opinions as to why they make their rulings, but it is very often true that in bigger cases, even if a jury finds someone not guilty, but the judge is of the opinion that person is guilty, the judge will give his opinion on that but still uphold the jury decision.

But an activist as a judge, that is not impartial. They are to uphold the law, not make them, only the Supreme Court can rule on laws that might introduce new laws. However, all their rulings are made by precedence. In other words, a judge will ask the attorneys to show them precedence found in other court rulings...say today, you had someone who was being tried for a particular crime, and the judge asked for what basis that attorney arrived at that conclusion, the attorney might say "In the case of Plessey vs. Ferguson, the court found that..." and then the other attorney would say "But, Your Honor", the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, the court found that..."

And if a new law was derived at a prior trial, then the court abides by that other decision.

An activist judge, not impartial. And they can't quote court decisions from other countries. They can only argue the law for the jurisdiction.

I hope everyone who denies Ape person hood, watched the video on Chantek. It's inherent in my opinion.

Cantek combines words to explain things he's never been taught. Ketchup is "Tomato Toothpaste". When asked what he is, he signs "Orangutan Person" when asked about other Orangutan, he signed, "Red Dogs". A woman who shot a documentary about him was named "Red Lady" because she had red hair.

This a major break through in the establishment of primate consciousness. They can conceptualize. They have the capacity for speech. It might have to be learned, but their potential is inherent. It's madding that the Orangutan are endangered in part due to our bull# way of living.

I'm failing to see the problem with respecting an intelligent life form's right to exist. As far as current science goes, our Ape cousins have some of the most special minds in existence. A site full of Alien theorists should appreciate that more. This is the closest we are going to get to practicing contact with aliens. Here on earth, we have other thinking species right now.

a reply to: crazyewok

Why not? We have a lot of chimps in office right now!

originally posted by: mahatche


I'm failing to see the problem with respecting an intelligent life form's right to exist. .

No one is debating their right to exist, what we are debating is the person hood of chimpanzees.

Black's Law defines person as

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. Law Dictionary: What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black's Law Dictionary)

A person is considered as such as having rights (which chimpanzees do have the right to life), but also charged with duties, while a thing is an object with which rights may be exercised.

According to Dictionary.com

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.Encyclopedia of American Law:
person. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008)

In the definition of person, an organization or corporation can be legally called a person.

For the judge to call them persons, and I don't know what country that judge was from, but according to American law, we cannot legally recognize them as person under our law.

I am speaking from the legal side, now whether or not people emotionally place onto them personhood, then that is their belief.

a reply to: mahatche

I just finished watching this, and tears are streaming down my face.....I laughed during the show also.....

HOW can "humans" not care about these wonderful people???????

ANyway - much later in the thread than when you posted it.
I just hope other members will go back and watch it.

Chantek = Person.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: mahatche

I just finished watching this, and tears are streaming down my face.....I laughed during the show also.....

HOW can "humans" not care about these wonderful people???????

ANyway - much later in the thread than when you posted it.
I just hope other members will go back and watch it.

Chantek = Person.

[/quote

This is an interesting thread, as it shows up how egocentric we humans are. Because the implications of believing animals are thinking self aware sentient beings, throws all our bull@#$% into confusion. It gathers a lot of questions, like do animals have souls, if they do, have they a paranormal side where they can astral travel, and become ghosts. They are certainly very aware of the paranormal, and during Tsunamis, they left the coast very quickly and it ended up that it was the humans that copped it. I think in the end it was two water buffaloes that got caught out, probably because they were tethered.

We are human because of education and cultural conditioning, in fact we learn to become human. We cant just be born, and do what comes naturally, if a monkey brought us up, we would be monkeys end off.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
No one is debating their right to exist, what we are debating is the person hood of chimpanzees.

Black's Law defines person as

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. Law Dictionary: What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black's Law Dictionary)

The whole reason behind giving them personhood is to protect them. It asks should we be exposing them to cruel testing, and a life in cages. Should we have negative impacts on their living space? The answer is no. I favor giving them some of the protections that come with rights. If we don't protect them we failed as a species. Watch the video, undeniable intellgence.

This video is like communicating with big foot in my mind. I've never seen anything more human than when he get's tired of them. I would have done the same. If a corporation can be a person, this creature better be one too!

A person is considered as such as having rights (which chimpanzees do have the right to life), but also charged with duties, while a thing is an object with which rights may be exercised.

Ape's aren't things. They are less socially developed relatives. We are smart apes.

According to Dictionary.com

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.Encyclopedia of American Law:

person. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008)

In the definition of person, an organization or corporation can be legally called a person.

For the judge to call them persons, and I don't know what country that judge was from, but according to American law, we cannot legally recognize them as person under our law.

I am speaking from the legal side, now whether or not people emotionally place onto them personhood, then that is their belief.

Oh, thanks for reminding me that definitions sometimes require updating.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: WarminIndy
No one is debating their right to exist, what we are debating is the person hood of chimpanzees.

Black's Law defines person as

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. Law Dictionary: What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black's Law Dictionary)

The whole reason behind giving them personhood is to protect them. It asks should we be exposing them to cruel testing, and a life in cages. Should we have negative impacts on their living space? The answer is no. I favor giving them some of the protections that come with rights. If we don't protect them we failed as a species. Watch the video, undeniable intellgence.

This video is like communicating with big foot in my mind. I've never seen anything more human than when he get's tired of them. I would have done the same. If a corporation can be a person, this creature better be one too!

A person is considered as such as having rights (which chimpanzees do have the right to life), but also charged with duties, while a thing is an object with which rights may be exercised.

Ape's aren't things. They are less socially developed relatives. We are smart apes.

According to Dictionary.com

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.Encyclopedia of American Law:

person. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008)

In the definition of person, an organization or corporation can be legally called a person.

For the judge to call them persons, and I don't know what country that judge was from, but according to American law, we cannot legally recognize them as person under our law.

I am speaking from the legal side, now whether or not people emotionally place onto them personhood, then that is their belief.

Oh, thanks for reminding me that definitions sometimes require updating.

The difference between us and apes is minimal. Its easier to create a human/ chimp hybrid, than it is to mate a horse and donkey to produce a mule, because we are genetically closer. In fact Stalin tried to do it, and their is some evidence that he succeeded. From what i've read its probably been done. The Chinese terminated the experiment, or so they said. So where does that leave us, we may not like it but we are apes. But we might in fact be mentally challenged apes.