Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does Bonzo Have Human Rights?
From
The Guardian via Slashdot comes a story about whether to grant
chimps human rights. Snippets:
He recognises himself in the mirror, plays hide-and-seek and breaks into fits of giggles when tickled. He is also our closest evolutionary cousin.
A group of world leading primatologists argue that this is proof enough that Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, deserves to be treated like a human. In a test case in Austria, campaigners are seeking to ditch the 'species barrier' and have taken Hiasl's case to court. If Hiasl is granted human status - and the rights that go with it - it will signal a victory for other primate species and unleash a wave of similar cases....
Primatologists and experts - from the world's most famous primate campaigner, Jane Goodall, to Professor Volker Sommer, a renowned wild chimp expert at University College London - will give evidence in the case, which is due to come to court in Vienna within the next few months.
One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee's DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans - closer than the relationship between donkeys and horses. They will cite recent findings that wild apes hunt with home-made spears and can fight battles and make peace. In New Zealand, apes - gorillas, orang utans, chimpanzees and bonobos - were granted special rights as 'non-human hominids' in 1999 to grant protection from maltreatment, slavery, torture, death and extinction.
Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, said: 'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'
Reason defended experimenting on animals here.
|4.4.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Insert Planet of the Apes joke here, double bonus points if said joke includes the line "get your filthy paws off of me you God damned dirty ape!!"
tros|4.4.07 @ 9:48AM|#
The main problem with granting apes the same rights as humans is
that they will not be able to comprehend the concept of "rights".
For example there are a large number of apes granted human rights
currently attending Northeastern University. Maybe the wild chimps
can grok Rights.
I am an advocate of human rights for all stoned apes.
|4.4.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Well, I think Canada should recognize them as humans, as throwing feces at people up there is acceptable.
|4.4.07 @ 9:49AM|#
But they're so damned ugly!
With the chimps, bonobos, and orangutans, there's some argument
that they are close enough to sapient to deserve better treatment
than, say, chickens. We're likely going to run into this issue with
AI (not Amnesty International--the other one) at some point, and we
may encounter it if we start tinkering with the intelligence of
other animals (or begin creating our own [insert maniacal
laughter]).
Oh, here's one: I didn't expect some sort of planet of the
apes!
Untermensch|4.4.07 @ 9:51AM|#
The best bit in the article is this:
We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.
So now they're arguing he has more capability than what
the government wants to give to 95% of those who are unequivocably
human. But maybe they'll grant him the right to manage his own
money only after he passes a high-school class on balancing his
checkbook. And what happens when he wants to buy illegal drugs with
his pension?
M. Python|4.4.07 @ 9:51AM|#
I didn't expect some sort of planet of the apes!
Nobody expects the planet of the apes!
|4.4.07 @ 9:53AM|#
I guess the answer is that the Ape has rights if we decide he does, which is the same criteria under which we decide anybody posseses the totally mystical quality of "rights".
|4.4.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Our chief weapon is surprise. . .surprise and fur. . .fur and surprise. . . . Our two weapons are fur and surprise. . .and ruthless feces throwing. . . . Our *three* weapons are fur, surprise, and ruthless feces throwing. . .and an almost fanatical devotion to bananas. . . . Our *four*. . .no. . . . *Amongst* our weapons. . . . Amongst our weaponry. . .are such elements as fur, surprise. . . . I'll come in again.
|4.4.07 @ 9:56AM|#
tros wrote:
> The main problem with granting apes
> the same rights as humans is that
> they will not be able to comprehend
> the concept of "rights".
Many mentally disabled humans do not understand the concept of
rights, yet we grant rights to them anyway.
|4.4.07 @ 9:58AM|#
SmartGuy Peter McHollis,
Wouldn't that throw a monkey wrench into the works if a
sign-language-speaking chimp asked for his freedom? Whoa.
Clearly, granting full human rights to our fellow great apes is
pushing things a bit. If we give them those, then we should also be
prepared to prosecute them when they throw feces.
|4.4.07 @ 9:59AM|#
Who wants to go to Vienna when they decide this, wear
loinclothers stand outside the courthouse and say:
Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally
really did it. You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn
you all to hell!
I figure it'll be pretty good if get like 500 people doing it.
|4.4.07 @ 10:00AM|#
Clearly, granting full human rights to our fellow great apes
is pushing things a bit. If we give them those, then we should also
be prepared to prosecute them when they throw feces.
Hmm...is this a suggestion that one cannot have rights without also
having duties (in this case, the duty to refrain from turd
tossing)?
I'm not sure that notion is going to play well here.
Fluffy|4.4.07 @ 10:03AM|#
So wouldn't this mean that we would have to let apes vote?
And that we wouldn't be able to restrict their movements or right
to travel? An ape could walk down the street just like anyone else
- right?
And wouldn't we have to prosecute apes that have sex with other
apes that are below the age of 18? And that we'd have to imprison
biologists who filmed any apes under the age of 18 having
sex.
And if an ape was terminally ill, wouldn't we have to consult with
his next of kin before euthanizing him? Actually, in most
jurisdictions, a vet would not be able to euthanize an injured or
sick ape even if he could somehow obtain informed consent.
Heck, you have to obtain informed consent before performing ANY
medical procedure, so does this mean that we can't perform
veterinary medicine on apes?
SugarFree|4.4.07 @ 10:05AM|#
I hate every ape I see,
from Chimpan-A to Chimpan-zee...
You'll never make a monkey outta me...
Oh My God, I was wrong,
it was Earth all along,
I guess you finally made a monkey out of me!
I love you, Dr. Zaius!
|4.4.07 @ 10:06AM|#
What: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119471.html
Read the article link there. I'm just amazed by the fact that the
woman will likely not have a criminal record for what she did. It's
kind of batshit insane.
I. Self. Divine.|4.4.07 @ 10:08AM|#
FFF: Actually it was human-shit insane...
Yeah...I know. *dodges tomatoe*
|4.4.07 @ 10:08AM|#
FinFang,
That would be a good Planet of the Apes reference. In fact better
than "get your filthy paws off of me..." My compliments.
|4.4.07 @ 10:09AM|#
It'suntenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes
because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor
mental, nor social.
If there's no biological difference between humans and apes, how
come we can't procreate with apes?
And before you weisenheimers ask, no, I haven't actually tried to
procreate with apes.
MikeT|4.4.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Thomas,
They are also human beings. If we grant animals a set of real
rights, analogous to human rights, it'll start us down the slippery
slope. How do you measure sentience? There is no method that I know
of for doing that. You'll end up with every whacko out there
claiming that some animal shows sentience because it does something
in front of a mirror that looks sentient. Then you'll have people
like
this getting you charged with assault and battery for slapping
your dog or cat on the behind for doing something bad.
|4.4.07 @ 10:11AM|#
This has been addressed in a wonderful Connie Willis short
story, whose title escapes me at the moment. It's in "Fire
Watch."
Thomas: I think there are different criteria for having rights,
connected by an or-clause. I.E, you have rights if you are human or
otherwise sentient. Severely mentally disabled humans get by
through the first clause, and the question is whether a chimp gets
by through the second.
Ashish George|4.4.07 @ 10:13AM|#
That Reason article Gillespie links to is riddled with factual
errors.
Tom Regan never taught at UNC; he has taught at NC State since
1967. Peter Singer does not claim "that sentient creatures-all
those capable of feeling pain-must essentially be considered moral
equivalents to human beings." Instead he argues that animals we
casually treat as means to the ends of our own satisfaction possess
enough of a physiological similarity to us that we owe it to them
not inflict any pain on them whenever possible. (This is a fairly
old argument, by the way. As Jeremy Bentham put it: "The question
is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they
suffer?")
I've said this on other threads, but when people attack everyone
who speaks up for animals used in experiments or raised in factory
farms on the grounds that PETA is bonkers or "rights" talk is only
applicable to persons, they are missing the point. Their own
(admittedly often overheated) rhetoric to the contrary, animal
"rights" activists are primarily interested in defending the most
important right of every sentient creature: The right to be left
alone.
Timothy|4.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Anybody who listens to Bright Eyes is just terribly sad.
Frankly, they can grant all the rights to chimps they want (which
are apes, F^3) if they'll then consent to have their own children
used for medical experiments instead. I think that's a fair
trade.
|4.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
If we start giving chimps the same rights as humans, I guess we'd better be prepared for the Democrats to start targeting them in voter registration drives.
|4.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
I think the question is whether or not monkeys know to avoid cigarrettes, HFCS, and transfats. If they don't, its obvious that the state needs to step in to protect them.
ed|4.4.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Huh. Turns out DEVO was right all along. The fact that we're even discussing human rights for apes indicates that we are well along the path to devolution.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.07 @ 10:31AM|#
One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee's
DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans - closer than the
relationship between donkeys and horses.
Yes, but it's the other 2.something percent that makes the
difference.
And I'm all for prosecuting the little bass turds for flinging,
well, turds.
|4.4.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I'm a fleabit peanut monkey
All my friends are junkies
That's not really true
I'm a cold Italian pizza
I could use a lemon squeezer
Would you do?
But I've been bit and I've been tossed around
By every she-rat in this town
Have you, babe?
Well, I am just a monkey man
I'm glad you are a monkey woman too
I was bitten by a boar
I was gouged and I was gored
But I pulled it on through
Yes, I'm a sack of broken eggs
I always have an unmade bed
Don't you?
Well, I hope we're not too messianic
Or a trifle too satanic
We love to play the blues
Well I am just a monkey man
I'm glad you are a monkey, monkey woman too, babe
I'm a monkey
I'm a monkey
I'm a monkey man
I'm a monkey man
I'm a monkey. . . .
The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.07 @ 10:36AM|#
In New Zealand, apes - gorillas, orang utans, chimpanzees
and bonobos - were granted special rights as 'non-human hominids'
in 1999 to grant protection from maltreatment, slavery, torture,
death and extinction.
That isn't an argument for giving chimps human rights. 8 year old
humans can't vote, own property, or buy beer but they are protected
by law from slavery, torture, murder, and extinction. Okay maybe
not extinction.
|4.4.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Turns out that Michael Jackson and Bubbles were well ahead of the times. Who knew?
Mike Laursen|4.4.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Alright, alright, they can have rights. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry each other.
Anonymous|4.4.07 @ 11:29AM|#
George,
Given H&R's track record, this thread is surprisingly
un-hostile towards this issue, all things being relative, of
course.
Personally, I'm applauding their nascent ability to like reason and
learn and stuff, as opposed to the normal poo-flinging.
I wonder if someone dropped a monolith on them, or something.
|4.4.07 @ 11:29AM|#
They can have their rights as soon as one ape says "No!"
And they can have my loyalty as simian overlords when one proclaims
the law "Ape shall not kill ape!"
|4.4.07 @ 11:32AM|#
"Monkeys make everything funny. That is all."
I hate to say it, but I'm the guy in the room that Dane Cook talks
about.
I don't like monkeys. They misbehave and throw their poo around in
a festive manner.
I. Self. Divine.|4.4.07 @ 11:35AM|#
They misbehave and throw their poo around in a festive
manner.
Yeah, but so do Canadians.
|4.4.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Ashish George is wrong. Animals in nature have no "right to be
left alone." They are chow for anything stronger, faster or
cleverer than they are. So, in fact, are we. Rights are claims
humans make against each other, not against the forces of
nature.
That being said, I favor treating animals we own humanely, because
it makes us better humans. To make a pet or a musuem exhibit out of
an animal, then turn around and treat it as a mere thing when it
becomes inconvenient isn't noble behavior, and I don't have any
problem with people feeling an obligation to their animal
charges.
Kevin
tattle tale|4.4.07 @ 11:43AM|#
"I. Self. Divine. | April 4, 2007, 11:35am | #
They misbehave and throw their poo around in a festive
manner.
Yeah, but so do Canadians."
Aresen.... oh, Aresen.
|4.4.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"Rights are claims humans make against each other, not against
the forces of nature."
Yes, exactly. The claim is that apes have rights which humans must
respect, not that hyenas and ticks must respect.
ed|4.4.07 @ 11:49AM|#
They can have their "rights" when they can recite the Preamble to the Constitution.
Bobo|4.4.07 @ 11:56AM|#
We the Apes, in order to form a more perfect feces-throwing community, establish a brutal pecking order, insure domestically raised lesser monkeys for snacks, provide for the common carnage, promote the general tick-picking, and secure the Blessings of Limitless Bananas to Ourselves and our Posteriors, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Apes of The World.
|4.4.07 @ 12:08PM|#
I'll agree with Ronald Bailey that an ape can get my respect for its rights when it agrees, without being coerced, to respect my rights.
|4.4.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Is this bizarro news day on H 'n R or something?
I think they're trying to distract us from Monday's Supreme Court
decision on Massachusetts, the EPA, and global warming.
|4.4.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Look, let's get down to the brass tacks here. Once an ape can point a gun at me and demand liberty, why, he will get it! Heck, this week and this week only, I'll concede to his liberty demands with a pointy stick.
|4.4.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Personally, I'm applauding their nascent ability to like
reason and learn and stuff, as opposed to the normal
poo-flinging.
I wonder if someone dropped a monolith on them, or
something.
Are we talking about the monkeys or the H&R commenters
now?
Anybody who listens to Bright Eyes is just terribly
sad.
The primates in question listen to Bright Eyes? They are
indisputably sub-human, non-sentient beings in that case.
|4.4.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Well, I guess this means we must now bring the blessings of
democracy and liberty to the apes.
Make sure the bombers are gassed up and ready to go, Dick!
Guy Montag|4.4.07 @ 12:35PM|#
One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee's
DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans - closer than the
relationship between donkeys and horses.
And much closer than the relationship of the french and irish to
humans.
|4.4.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Assuming one takes on the whole philosophy of "rights" in the
first place, it seems that one must concede that apes (and any
living thing, really) have moral rights--whether you call them
"human rights" or whatever--to the extent that they have the
qualities upon which we base our rights. Our rights are not based
on our species, but upon our abilities--to suffer, to think, to
fear, to have a sense of ourselves and our future, to be sentient,
to be reflective, etc.
But someone might say "[this will] start us down the slippery
slope. How do you measure sentience? There is no method that I know
of for doing that. You'll end up with every whacko out there
claiming that some animal shows sentience because it does something
in front of a mirror that looks sentient."
Eventually we will know with scientific certainty what conditions
produce consciousness (and to what degree consciousness occurs in
different brain structures). For now we rely on tests that, while
certainly not perfect, provide us with a fairly good basis for
attributing sentience. I think we tend to overattribute it, but it
is clear in the case of the great apes that they share with us some
of the "higher" mental attributes, including sentience. I see no
justification for denying them certain basic moral rights.
|4.4.07 @ 12:43PM|#
smacky,
"Are we talking about the monkeys or the H&R commenters
now?"
I wondered the same thing!
"I'll agree with Ronald Bailey that an ape can get my respect for
its rights when it agrees, without being coerced, to respect my
rights."
Again, so a child has no rights? A severely retarded person has no
rights? A severe schizophrenic has no rights? Talk about a slippery
slope...
|4.4.07 @ 12:46PM|#
"Our rights are not based on our species, but upon our
abilities"
Of course, most of the anti-nonhuman-rights advocates here base
their position on just that: "We have rights just because we're
human."
The funny thing is that so many of them are "free-thinkers" (AKA
smug atheists) who claim to have rejected all the magical nonsense
of religion, but then buy hook-line-and-sinker into the irrational,
baseless and speciesist anthropocentrism that defines the Western
religions.
|4.4.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I don't understand why nobody has addressed the obvious question. If a chimp can be elected POTUS, doesn't that automatically give them human rights?
|4.4.07 @ 12:47PM|#
To paraphrase the New Testament, rights without responsibilities
are dead.
...rights are the flip side of responsibilities; we should be free
to do things we can be held responsible for and we should be held
responsible for everything we're free to do.
I'd argue that the very creation of rights has something to do with
accepting responsibility for...blah, blah, blah.
So anyway, when we start holding chimpanzees responsible for what
they do, then we can start talking about recognizing their rights
in law.
|4.4.07 @ 1:10PM|#
MikeT wrote:
> If we grant animals a set of
> real rights, analogous to human
> rights, it'll start us down the
> slippery slope. How do you measure
> sentience? There is no method
> that I know of for doing that.
Apes are clearly sentient (look up the definition in a dictionary).
I'd like to hear your argument for why you are sentient but an ape
is not, without resorting to human-centric arguments like
recogniziging oneself in a mirror. (Apes can do this,
anyway.)
And not all slopes are bad--many have been quite necessary.
Bee|4.4.07 @ 1:12PM|#
So, what about atheist chimps? Poor ignorant godless creatures! Oh, the humanit - ...never mind.
|4.4.07 @ 1:14PM|#
When an ape can snatch this pebble from my hand, he will be ready to leave this place.
|4.4.07 @ 1:18PM|#
There should be a continuum of recognized rights, from animals
like dogs (which, despite being generally considered property, it
is illegal to torture or otherwise grossly mistreated), to animals
like human children (which are protected and controlled by others,
but are not considered property and for which there are even more
protections from mistreatment), to adult humans.
Sentience is hard to measure, but a reasonable estimation can be
made. As far as rights, we can get a good handle on the appropriate
degree by comparison of the animal in question's mental faculty to
that of humans at various stages of development. I know that at
least some primates and parrots (and probably dolphins) can be
compared to children of at least a few years of age.
Simian Contributor|4.4.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Recognizing monkeys' rights would be like a guy menacing pedestrians with a loaded rifle, wouldn't it?
VM|4.4.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"Bee | April 4, 2007, 1:12pm | #
So, what about atheist chimps? Poor ignorant godless creatures! Oh,
the humanit - ...never mind.
Pro Libertate | April 4, 2007, 1:14pm | #
When an ape can snatch this pebble from my hand, he will be ready
to leave this place."
Chinese Downhill to determine the winner of this thread!!!!!
grylliade|4.4.07 @ 1:44PM|#
BTW, there is no doubt that apes are sentient:
sentience: That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or
function of sensation or of perception by the senses.
That cannot be the only criterion by which we decide whether a
species is worthy of being granted rights. Neither can
self-awareness; that seems to be a fairly common attribute among
animals.
I'd say that the best criterion for having rights would be
awareness of others. As far as I know, humans are the only species
that displays this attribute. Being aware of other humans as beings
equivalent to yourself is, to me, the prerequisite for
rights. Think about humans who lack that awareness of others:
sociopaths. They act as animals, essentially; very intelligent
animals, but animals nonetheless.
It is something along the lines of having responsibilities. Would
we prosecute an ape for any crimes it might commit? If not, then I
do not believe that we can grant apes rights.
|4.4.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Oh, Poseidon, more comments from the dolphin lovers. Suggesting
that they do things on porpoise, no doubt.
Haven't seen Day of the Dolphins on TV in a while, so I
figure the government is suppressing it. Because we're training
thousands of crack, jumping squads for the Navy.
|4.4.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Am I the only one who instantly remembered this classic from just one month ago? Talk about short attention spans!
|4.4.07 @ 2:13PM|#
I'd say that the best criterion for having rights would be
awareness of others. As far as I know, humans are the only species
that displays this attribute.
I don't think that this is true. I am no expert, but many apes and
dolphins and elephants seem to display such an attribute, and other
animals do so to a lesser degree.
Being aware of other humans as beings equivalent to yourself
is, to me, the prerequisite for rights.
Perhaps. But some animals seem to have this ability, at least to a
degree.
It is something along the lines of having responsibilities.
Would we prosecute an ape for any crimes it might commit? If not,
then I do not believe that we can grant apes rights.
So because a chimp can't be guilty of arson, the chimp hasn't the
right not to be beaten to death? I don't see it.
|4.4.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Again, so a child has no rights? A severely retarded person
has no rights? A severe schizophrenic has no rights? Talk about a
slippery slope...
Some rights, but not the same rights. Children and people with
severe mental handicaps have their decisions made for them by
guardians; they have the right to not be abused by that person but
they don't really have individual rights.
|4.4.07 @ 2:18PM|#
JimmyDaGeek,
I missed that one, but it was predicted on Penn's late radio
show.
Incidentally, feel the Florida flowing through you :) You wouldn't
know that there was an NCAA championship from all of the silence
around here. Congratulations to the Lady Vols, by the way. I was
hoping that USF would cause a ruckus and hire her for its men's
team, but they went and got that guy from Arkansas.
|4.4.07 @ 2:25PM|#
PL,
I figured a Gator comment from you was coming sooner or later. Oh,
well, at least I'm not a Buckeye fan :)
At most, I figured Florida would win, but I was holding out a bit
of hope for the Buckeyes.
|4.4.07 @ 2:33PM|#
As were the officials. I read a presumably neutral
Slate article saying the same thing, so it's not just my
Gatorness showing. This isn't a unique phenomenon--the league seems
to like to do this if a favorite shows up with too much oomph in
its game. Oden can decapitate Florida players, and a Gator team
that virtually never has foul trouble is almost overwhelmed with
it.
Not that I care that much--there's always something to
overcome, and it's better to be gracious. I'll take the win.
Guy Montag|4.4.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Congratulations to the Lady Vols, by the way. I was hoping
that USF would cause a ruckus and hire her for its men's team, but
they went and got that guy from Arkansas.
If UTK had a men's team Pat would be coaching them. For now, Pat
coaches the women and some guy coaches the girls.
|4.4.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Chimps can't be all that smart, or they wouldn't have agreed to appear in Battle for the Planet of the Apes.
|4.4.07 @ 3:51PM|#
ChrisO,
That would be a good point, but then humanity is in trouble, too. I
know I saw people in that film. Or were they apes in human
suits?
Egon|4.4.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Once upon a time, I worked in the copy center of an
office-supply store. An aspiring screenwriter would bring in his
screenplays to be copied. One of them involved the very weighty
issues surrounding a domesticated gorilla that had learned to
communicate and play the piano in church: If she was sentient, then
did she have a soul, and if she were baptized, would she go to
heaven?
It was hilarious.
VM|4.4.07 @ 4:23PM|#
in german,
but gives a POV on this story (hold yer nose before clicky
clicky, however!
High#: because we're taking a break from teasing cripples.
highnumber|4.4.07 @ 4:28PM|#
You can tease the homeless on the thread on Bagge's new comic. Isn't that a little classier?
VM|4.4.07 @ 4:39PM|#
High#:
nah - I've been sticking to retahds hier
oh - didja see Thome has homered (yeaa! he's a favorite!!)
highnumber|4.4.07 @ 4:48PM|#
A chink in the Wall,
Despite your horrible name (maybe a little too far), funny!
VM,
Wow, talk about nutzoid-a-rama!
Crazy ballgame. Wish I was watching it. Hate work. Love
baseball.
VM|4.4.07 @ 4:51PM|#
3:49pm CST:
top 8. Tribe has runners on 2nd and 3rd, no out. Leading 8-7.
They're walking the tribe dood (sic) right now.
|4.4.07 @ 4:54PM|#
I think I may have inadvertently started the China thing with my
Kung Fu reference. I don't bash the Chinese, myself, only
their oppressive, corrupt, mean, communistesque government.
Free Taiwan!
Paul|4.4.07 @ 7:38PM|#
One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee's
DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans - closer than the
relationship between donkeys and horses.
What in hades? Are these people nuts? And these are scientists?
What kind of crack are they smoking? Allow me to retort. Mice
anyone? Mice share about 97% of their DNA with humans, are they
gonna get human rights? Don't take my word for
it.
|4.4.07 @ 10:13PM|#
So what makes a severely mentally disabled human being who is less aware of himself and his surroundings than a chimpanzee more deserving of protection than a chimpanzee?
Single Issue Voter|4.4.07 @ 11:46PM|#
"So what makes a severely mentally disabled human being who is
less aware of himself and his surroundings than a chimpanzee more
deserving of protection than a chimpanzee?"
Maybe because he is a HUMAN BEING!
Us.......them.........it......
priorities........
The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.07 @ 11:48PM|#
So what makes a severely mentally disabled human being who
is less aware of himself and his surroundings than a chimpanzee
more deserving of protection than a chimpanzee?
The other 2 point something percent of the genetic makeup that
renders him human rather than a chimp.
|4.5.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Ethan,
I have no sympathy for the other hominids. They had the chance to
challenge us for world domination. They elected instead to sit
around, eat berries, swing from trees, and fornicate. Losers. At
least Homo sapiens neanderthalensis went down
fighting.
|4.5.07 @ 8:12PM|#
I think that everything on this planet has "rights", and should be allowed to survive as species, if not individually. Of course this is totally not Okay with George Bush and company, who basically believe that if you are not rich, white, male, Christian, and Republican, the fact that you are a human being (and can recognize yourself in the mirror) is of no consequence.
|4.5.07 @ 8:17PM|#
Also, on a lighter note, I certainly do believe that if chimps, Canadians, or others wish to fling feces, it MUST be done festively!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245