Re: Court won\'t declare chimp a person
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't get it Taso.

It all started with Reagan playing second fiddle to a chimp. Nowadays film executives, and the population at large, I hope, think it is really much easier to replace Bush with a chimp. I mean Reagan was bad, but Bush is unbeatable when it comes to monkeying.

[/ QUOTE ]

News flash: not every thread is about Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pointed out in another thread, Midge could turn a thread about salmon mating with trout in norway and producing outstanding lox into a Bush thread.

Re: Court won\'t declare chimp a person
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't get it Taso.

It all started with Reagan playing second fiddle to a chimp. Nowadays film executives, and the population at large, I hope, think it is really much easier to replace Bush with a chimp. I mean Reagan was bad, but Bush is unbeatable when it comes to monkeying.

[/ QUOTE ]

???!!!











???Q?!!?!?!?1?!/121213211?!?

Re: Chimps are people too, insists scientist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How crazy is this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all crazy. In fact, failure to protect animals properly like this is one of the main things that make me question the viability of anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting animals and is in no way a problem for AC. Protecting animals might be, stuff like this OP, absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with protecting animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Declaring a chimp a person has to do with protecting animals? I thought it had to do with protecting people.

Thats the whole point, animals don't get protections (well, ok, very limited ones) and people do. THAT is what this case is about.

EDIT: Unless you were going super second level clever and you meant that humans are animals and protecting humans is a big problem for AC.

Re: Chimps are people too, insists scientist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How crazy is this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all crazy. In fact, failure to protect animals properly like this is one of the main things that make me question the viability of anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting animals and is in no way a problem for AC. Protecting animals might be, stuff like this OP, absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with protecting animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Declaring a chimp a person has to do with protecting animals? I thought it had to do with protecting people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chimps are both.

Re: Chimps are people too, insists scientist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How crazy is this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all crazy. In fact, failure to protect animals properly like this is one of the main things that make me question the viability of anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting animals and is in no way a problem for AC. Protecting animals might be, stuff like this OP, absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with protecting animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Declaring a chimp a person has to do with protecting animals? I thought it had to do with protecting people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chimps are both.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are people, but I don't think thats the point. Going to court to declare chimps people is practically the exact opposite of animal rights. Its admitting that the animal rights movement is useless or flawed. If it were about securing animal rights, it would be irrelevant whether chimps were people or not. This is an admission that the only things that have rights are people, and so we need to get chimps into the people category.

Re: Chimps are people too, insists scientist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How crazy is this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all crazy. In fact, failure to protect animals properly like this is one of the main things that make me question the viability of anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting animals and is in no way a problem for AC. Protecting animals might be, stuff like this OP, absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with protecting animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Declaring a chimp a person has to do with protecting animals? I thought it had to do with protecting people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chimps are both.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are people, but I don't think thats the point. Going to court to declare chimps people is practically the exact opposite of animal rights. Its admitting that the animal rights movement is useless or flawed. If it were about securing animal rights, it would be irrelevant whether chimps were people or not. This is an admission that the only things that have rights are people, and so we need to get chimps into the people category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize you were in the camp of rights being things granted by governments.

Re: Chimps are people too, insists scientist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How crazy is this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all crazy. In fact, failure to protect animals properly like this is one of the main things that make me question the viability of anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting animals and is in no way a problem for AC. Protecting animals might be, stuff like this OP, absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with protecting animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Declaring a chimp a person has to do with protecting animals? I thought it had to do with protecting people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chimps are both.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are people, but I don't think thats the point. Going to court to declare chimps people is practically the exact opposite of animal rights. Its admitting that the animal rights movement is useless or flawed. If it were about securing animal rights, it would be irrelevant whether chimps were people or not. This is an admission that the only things that have rights are people, and so we need to get chimps into the people category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize you were in the camp of rights being things granted by governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. And thats ALSO completely irrelevant. I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where suing to have chimps recognized as people is somehow an animal rights problem. Its a definitional problem, its a philosophical problem, it might even be a scientific problem, but it has absolutely nothing to do with animal rights. Like I said, the exact opposite.

Actually, I'm a little bewildered how you managed to get that out of my post. People have self-evident rights. These are not given by the government and nowhere did I imply such. What is NOT self-evident is whether chimps are people or not. If they are, they have rights. If they aren't, they don't.

I suppose there is some nebulous "truth" out there somewhere that chimps either DO or DO NOT have rights, but I don't think thats a useful sidetrack.