Yeah but that is what happens if you declare them to be 'persons'. It means you get the same legal rights as human beings.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with that. They have equal rights as any human imo

So...

You arrest a Male Chimpanzee for rape?

A Female Chimpanzee to Sexual Assault.

With Rights, comes Responsibilities.

Oh, I forgot - They are 2 year olds. What if it is found out they are really 4 - 5 - 6 Years Old. They are Suspended from their housing, for pointing a 'Finger Gun', at another Chimp, as has occurred in American Schools. We must 'Protect Chimps' from this terror.

This discussion, and ANY Court taking up this 'issue', is deranged.

I would better have stated they have equal rights within Their possibilities and place in Earthly hierarchy of course. I don't think a chimp would stand up in court and object to the judge LOL

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Yeah but that is what happens if you declare them to be 'persons'. It means you get the same legal rights as human beings.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with that. They have equal rights as any human imo

So...

You arrest a Male Chimpanzee for rape?

A Female Chimpanzee to Sexual Assault.

With Rights, comes Responsibilities.

Oh, I forgot - They are 2 year olds. What if it is found out they are really 4 - 5 - 6 Years Old. They are Suspended from their housing, for pointing a 'Finger Gun', at another Chimp, as has occurred in American Schools. We must 'Protect Chimps' from this terror.

This discussion, and ANY Court taking up this 'issue', is deranged.

---

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton

Yeah but that is what happens if you declare them to be 'persons'. It means you get the same legal rights as human beings.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with that. They have equal rights as any human imo

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Yeah but that is what happens if you declare them to be 'persons'. It means you get the same legal rights as human beings.

Id would say yes. And ES makes a valid point. If they can learn sign language and communicate raises some very good questions. Just because they dont know what questions to ask is another question that needs to be taken into consideration.

Then you would have to wonder whether a species that at is intellectual maximum is as smart as a two year old child, should it be considered to be persons with all the rights and privileges that human beings enjoy under the law?

They aren't human so I don't think they fall under the same law but they should be treated with respect, no doubt about that.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Id would say yes. And ES makes a valid point. If they can learn sign language and communicate raises some very good questions. Just because they dont know what questions to ask is another question that needs to be taken into consideration.

Then you would have to wonder whether a species that at is intellectual maximum is as smart as a two year old child, should it be considered to be persons with all the rights and privileges that human beings enjoy under the law?

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

No, I would reserve person hood to anyone who is capable of asking for it or who is member of a species that as a species is capable of asking for it. So, for now that only includes humans. In the future it could include smart robots or intelligent alien species. A chimpanzee however, is normally incapable of asking for personhood. It needs to be done through his owners.

If you open it up to chimpanzees and basically say they are of equal standing in the eyes of the law as a human being, you are going to give them the same rights as human beings. So, that means that since they don't have a job, they have a right to welfare benefits. They have the right to medicare, they have the right for legal representation, you can't put them in zoos anymore, etc. More importantly if they get defined as person, you open up the gates to expand person hood to pretty much include pretty much all species on this planet. Which is a silly idea. Can you imagine it? A chimp getting welfare benefits?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

I bet his owner did pay taxes.

Owner, is that anything like "Master?"

Id would say yes. And ES makes a valid point. If they can learn sign language and communicate raises some very good questions. Just because they dont know what questions to ask is another question that needs to be taken into consideration.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

No, I would reserve person hood to anyone who is capable of asking for it or who is member of a species that as a species is capable of asking for it. So, for now that only includes humans. In the future it could include smart robots or intelligent alien species. A chimpanzee however, is normally incapable of asking for personhood. It needs to be done through his owners.

If you open it up to chimpanzees and basically say they are of equal standing in the eyes of the law as a human being, you are going to give them the same rights as human beings. So, that means that since they don't have a job, they have a right to welfare benefits. They have the right to medicare, they have the right for legal representation, you can't put them in zoos anymore, etc. More importantly if they get defined as person, you open up the gates to expand person hood to pretty much include pretty much all species on this planet. Which is a silly idea. Can you imagine it? A chimp getting welfare benefits?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

I bet his owner did pay taxes.

Owner, is that anything like "Master?"

---

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

No, I would reserve person hood to anyone who is capable of asking for it or who is member of a species that as a species is capable of asking for it. So, for now that only includes humans. In the future it could include smart robots or intelligent alien species. A chimpanzee however, is normally incapable of asking for personhood. It needs to be done through his owners.

If you open it up to chimpanzees and basically say they are of equal standing in the eyes of the law as a human being, you are going to give them the same rights as human beings. So, that means that since they don't have a job, they have a right to welfare benefits. They have the right to medicare, they have the right for legal representation, you can't put them in zoos anymore, etc. More importantly if they get defined as person, you open up the gates to expand person hood to pretty much include pretty much all species on this planet. Which is a silly idea. Can you imagine it? A chimp getting welfare benefits?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

I bet his owner did pay taxes.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Tommy presently is kept alone in a cage in a warehouse in Gloversville, New York. Eventually, hope his advocates, he will be moved to a sanctuary and into the history books as the first nonhuman animal person, possessing rights previously restricted to Homo sapiens.

I will repeat.

Chimps are not people, but in this case simple animal welfare should be taken into consideration.

I will repeat too!

Any living creature with self awareness and the ability to communicate is as much a person as you or I am.

Animal welfare should always be taken into consideration as we should consider ourselves the stewards of this planet, not the masters.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Tommy presently is kept alone in a cage in a warehouse in Gloversville, New York. Eventually, hope his advocates, he will be moved to a sanctuary and into the history books as the first nonhuman animal person, possessing rights previously restricted to Homo sapiens.

I will repeat.

Chimps are not people, but in this case simple animal welfare should be taken into consideration.

It seems to me (unless I'm looking too far ahead for my own good), that mankind continues to push the boundaries to the limits. Just where will it all end? What will be the final line in the sand that will not be permitted to cross?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

..or Cheetah making love to Jane (well that's what personhood can eventually lead to isn't it?)

Oh hey great, legalized bestiality as long as its with great apes.

Can they give consent?

There is reason there is an age limit on human to human sexual intercourse. It is because a child cannot give consent, yet they are still considered a person. I don't think the ability to give consent or not defines whether you are a person or not.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

..or Cheetah making love to Jane (well that's what personhood can eventually lead to isn't it?)

Oh hey great, legalized bestiality as long as its with great apes.

Who's to say it can't happen?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

..or Cheetah making love to Jane (well that's what personhood can eventually lead to isn't it?)

Oh hey great, legalized bestiality as long as its with great apes.

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

..or Cheetah making love to Jane (well that's what personhood can eventually lead to isn't it?)

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

No, I would reserve person hood to anyone who is capable of asking for it or who is member of a species that as a species is capable of asking for it. So, for now that only includes humans. In the future it could include smart robots or intelligent alien species. A chimpanzee however, is normally incapable of asking for personhood. It needs to be done through his owners.

If you open it up to chimpanzees and basically say they are of equal standing in the eyes of the law as a human being, you are going to give them the same rights as human beings. So, that means that since they don't have a job, they have a right to welfare benefits. They have the right to medicare, they have the right for legal representation, you can't put them in zoos anymore, etc. More importantly if they get defined as person, you open up the gates to expand person hood to pretty much include pretty much all species on this planet. Which is a silly idea. Can you imagine it? A chimp getting welfare benefits?

Tarzan's Cheetah paying taxes on his movie residuals .....

---

ALBANY, New York—Can an animal who possesses the essential qualities of personhood ever be considered, in the eyes of the law, a person?

As of now, the answer is no. But a panel of New York state judges yesterday considered that question, which was posed by a group called the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of a 26-year-old chimpanzee named Tommy. Tommy presently is kept alone in a cage in a warehouse in Gloversville, New York. Eventually, hope his advocates, he will be moved to a sanctuary and into the history books as the first nonhuman animal person, possessing rights previously restricted to Homo sapiens.

Chimps are not people, but in this case simple animal welfare should be taken in to consideration.

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

No, I would reserve person hood to anyone who is capable of asking for it or who is member of a species that as a species is capable of asking for it. So, for now that only includes humans. In the future it could include smart robots or intelligent alien species. A chimpanzee however, is normally incapable of asking for personhood. It needs to be done through his owners.

If you open it up to chimpanzees and basically say they are of equal standing in the eyes of the law as a human being, you are going to give them the same rights as human beings. So, that means that since they don't have a job, they have a right to welfare benefits. They have the right to medicare, they have the right for legal representation, you can't put them in zoos anymore, etc. More importantly if they get defined as person, you open up the gates to expand person hood to pretty much include pretty much all species on this planet. Which is a silly idea. Can you imagine it? A chimp getting welfare benefits?

Now for a slight change of pace...

A State Appeals Court in New York heard arguments on Oct. 9th, 2014 in a lawsuit over legal personhood for a chimp named 'Tommy'.

Thoughts?

Ridiculous. I mean, why?

Why ridiculous?

Is the concept of 'people' going to be always and forever a 'Homo sapiens' only club? Or is it possible that at least certain members of other species might attain that status at some point?


If we are not going to be guilty of 'species-ism', what qualities would a non-human have to possess to be a 'person' under the law?

Well so far they have to be a corporation. I see no reason not to now open it up to actual feeling sentient beings.

A chimp has the understanding of a 2 year old child. They can learn to speak sign language. They can lie just like a real person. There is definitely a case to be made that they should have their personhood recognised by the law.

---

Reality Internet Personality