Quote from Jeremy

If you believe love is just a chemical reaction then what is the significance of it? How does it matter at all? Its no different then regular caring+happiness.

Ooh, bitchy. In my personal view it doesn't matter at all, but it could be argued that when a creature which feels love is killed, not only will it suffer, but all those that loved it will suffer too so it is more evil to kill a lovable creature than an unloved one.

Anyway:

Most apes are already protected species so they have their right to life.

Quite a lot of humans in the world don't have a right to not be caged and they're the same species as us so we should be more concerned about that.

In most countries, certainly, I suspect, the ones where this animal rights group is active, it is already illegal to cause needless suffering to an animal. Medical testing, however, is not needless suffering. It is necessary to make sure people are safe when they take their drugs. Would the animal rights people put themselves forward to have the drugs tested on them instead? Or would they prefer we had repetitions of the thalidomide tragedy?

Basically, legally speaking and all, animals don't have any rights. They're treated as an object as they should be. I mean, if a dog gets maggots, who has a right to live, the dog or the maggots?

Well, on topic, I don't know about this. For one to have rights, one must understand what are these rights for and how to use them.

Quote from Jeremy

If you believe love is just a chemical reaction then what is the significance of it? How does it matter at all? Its no different then regular caring+happiness.

Because the ability to feel love is a measure of comparison to humans. Perhaps if I put "It should be able to complete a single-digit addition worksheet", you wouldn't be so opposed to this?

@Stainer: I already responded to the point that they aren't humans. IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.
Maybe I need to put it in little bite-size chunks for you to understand?

1. The Great Ape Proposes we give human rights to apes.

2. The word "Human rights" refers here to "rights that humans currently enjoy"

3. There are 3 rights in particular the Great Ape Project says we should give apes: Right to life (Indeed, they already have this, that's because the project got this much back in 1993), right to freedom from torture (There is currently no such law), and right to personal liberty (If it appears an ape hurts a person, we shouldn't immediately throw the ape in a cage or kill it, we should give it a small court case to figure out if it actually did this. [I'm not talkign about a normal human court case, obviously, more like just a judge and two lawyers.])

4. Now that we have those bits of info down your throat, we can go to the last one: Reconstructing the proposition into language you can better understand!

5."The Great Apes project aims to give 3 specific rights that are enjoyed by humans to apes, which is very different from giving apes ALL HUMAN RIGHTS as you seem to think. Noone is trying to give apes the right to ****ing vote."

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

And I presume you can say this from experience?

I must feel inclined to repeat my original post: If a species of animal is able to communicate with us humans, and that species asks for personal liberties, then there would be no other just course of action but to give them these rights. However, until that time arrives I feel that they do not deserve said rights. If they ask, they shall receive. They have not asked.

Actually, I fell like I remember a chimpanzee in that Sigourney Weaver documentary saying that it didn't like being in a cage, that it liked being on a reservation better.

Quote from zed

Anyway:

Most apes are already protected species so they have their right to life.

Quite a lot of humans in the world don't have a right to not be caged and they're the same species as us so we should be more concerned about that.

Indeed, and I feel we should focus on those more than animals as well.

In most countries, certainly, I suspect, the ones where this animal rights group is active, it is already illegal to cause needless suffering to an animal. Medical testing, however, is not needless suffering. It is necessary to make sure people are safe when they take their drugs. Would the animal rights people put themselves forward to have the drugs tested on them instead? Or would they prefer we had repetitions of the thalidomide tragedy?

I already said that I was wary of the medical testing part. I think that if it is nesecarry, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Quote from Ash

I already said that I was wary of the medical testing part. I think that if it is nesecarry, then it shouldn't be a problem.

I agree with you totally. The trouble is deciding what's necessary. Is it necessary to test a lipstick on a gorrila for instance? It's almost certainly not going to kill someone. But of course thalidomide didn't actively kill anyone either.

Quote from zed

I agree with you totally. The trouble is deciding what's necessary. Is it necessary to test a lipstick on a gorrila for instance? It's almost certainly not going to kill someone. But of course thalidomide didn't actively kill anyone either.

Indeed. I think that a good way of deciding would be to come up with a scale showing a ratio between how close to human an animal's reaction to most medicine is and how intelligent that animal is.

Quote from Ash

Indeed. I think that a good way of deciding would be to come up with a scale showing a ratio between how close to human an animal's reaction to most medicine is and how intelligent that animal is.

I really hate to put this point forward, but what about a human child born with a mental defect that made him no more intelligent than a chicken? His reaction to medicine will be perfectly analogous to that of a human because he is one, individual differances aside. Nevertheless his intelligence would be low enough that he could qualify for animal testing. Should we test drugs on this hypothetical child?

Hrm. I'm not sure. One side of my brain says that it's a person, so it has feelings and I should value its life, but another side realizes that it isn't intelligent enough to place the same value on its life as everyone else.

To be honest, I could never bring myself to do such a thing.


Perhaps we could grab people on death row for whom we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty and use them? Maybe even just the people like this dude ( http://www.stickpageportal.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99783 ) people who are really ****ed up and admit that they are guilty of their horrific crimes.

Wow he is genuinely something out of a horror film. Possibly "The Hills Have Eyes".

I tend to look at morality from an evolutionary standpoint. Whatever is best for the species is what should be done. I would say, therefore that since the mentally disabled child is human you keep him alive and look after him. I would also say it's ok to use the death row guys because they're more of a danger to the human race than a benefit.

Quote from zed

Wow he is genuinely something out of a horror film. Possibly "The Hills Have Eyes".

I tend to look at morality from an evolutionary standpoint. Whatever is best for the species is what should be done. I would say, therefore that since the mentally disabled child is human you keep him alive and look after him. I would also say it's ok to use the death row guys because they're more of a danger to the human race than a benefit.

Plus, they're going to die anyway. Though I wouldn't want to subject them to any sort of physical pain, beyond the prick of a novacaine needle.

They don´t even understand those rights, so they don´t need them. You can´t apply laws to them either.
I believe as a dominant species, we humans should look out of the other animals, but I don´t see how this will help anything.

I think, you could explain what those rights are to koko the gorilla if you took time. A lot of you guys are close minded, just because they can't talk doesn't mean they can't express themselves. Koko loved her kitty.

I agree with the act wholeheartedly, however I don't believe in it for the reasons you supposedly do. First and foremost - I don't care whether we evolved from apes, we are not apes, and they are not human. Like Dragon says, until they can ask for rights themselves, they can keep flinging poo. If this act comes into place, I think it should be every animal that gets such a treatment. After all, I find it quite offinsive Apes, and Apes only get the same treatment as us, and no other animals do. It gives me the impression they're just as important as us. That may seem arrogant, but they're not. It's human nature - if there was the choice between a child or a kitten dying, nearly everyone would pick the kitten. So yes, I agree with the project, but it would be better if all animals were treated so.

So it's better that a child dies rather than a kitten.

Quote from Wartooth

I think, you could explain what those rights are to koko the gorilla if you took time. A lot of you guys are close minded, just because they can't talk doesn't mean they can't express themselves. Koko loved her kitty.

Let's explain every newborn gorilla from now on to communicate with humans?

So nobody read my post?

Fine.