Ken Ham: New York Court May Grand "Personhood" to Chimpanzee

[The Black Forrest]

Again how are they inferior? Chimps are stronger then we are, are capable of easily moving through the forest trees in a way we cannot. They have abilities we do not have, just as we are capable of things they cannot do. So how are they inferior to us?

We are smarter,

Oh I think NSG proves that wrong.

we build machines,

Do they need them?

write plays,

Do they need them?

can launch things into space,

Do they need to do that?

write laws, and destroy entire cities

Do they need to do those?



We are here having this sophisticated conversation, they are not.[/quote]

[The Black Forrest]

This is relevant how?

I think scripture can be used in an argument, so it is relevant. People cite all sorts of writings in arguments, why not holy scripture as well?

Ok. Give me a test to prove or disprove God said that.

[The Black Forrest]

We are smarter, we build machines, write plays, can launch things into space, write laws, and destroy entire cities

We are here having this sophisticated conversation, they are not.

We can experience a greater range of suffering. If anything, that makes us inferior to much of the animal kingdom...

But that's beside the point. The point is that chimps are not people, and while they deserve to be protected from cruelty and abuse they should not be treated the same as thinking humans under the law.

Chimps have ranges of suffering too.

[Conserative Morality]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

[The Black Forrest]

As far as I am concerned humans are not supreme, however due to my own self interest I see no problem in treating humans as more important.

We are the Master race on Earth. The law should be written and understood and shaped in our holy image. Its called Human rights for a reason.

As Rorschach said on the topic:

MEN go to prison. Dogs get put down.

I think my sarcasm meter exploded.

[Big Jim P]

Sources

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... himpanzee/
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29542829
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... ommy-case/
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... and-leo-2/
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... ommy-case/
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-e ... evolution/
https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/

Human rights may no longer be just for humans. A group called the Nonhuman Rights Project is currently involved in a legal battle to get a 26-year-old chimpanzee named Tommy recognized as a legal person deserving of certain legal rights, such as “bodily liberty and bodily integrity.” The group claims that Tommy “is being unlawfully imprisoned and therefore being deprived of his fundamental common law right to bodily liberty.” Of course, this chimp only has a right to bodily liberty if it is recognized as a person, which is currently what the court is trying to decide. Last year, judges denied Tommy and three other chimpanzees legal personhood, so the NhRP appealed all of the cases. On October 8, 2014, the group again presented their case and an answer from the judges is expected in four to six weeks.

If you start with God’s Word as the basis for your thinking, you will see that humans do not have rights simply because we are autonomous, self-aware beings, but because we are made in the image of God! Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence recognized this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”(emphasis mine). Humans—and only humans—were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). It is humans who have rights because our Creator gave us those rights—He did not give those rights to chimpanzees, dolphins, or elephants!

According to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, a New York Court will be considering offering personhood to a chimpanzee!

What say you on this, NSG?

Can't be any worse than a lot of humans that are considered persons.

[Big Jim P]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

See my post above.

[The Black Forrest]

How so, they are capable of using tools and language. Why is intelligence the most important trait, why not strength or speed or numbers or the ability to fly or the ability to live underwater without any devices? Why not size, or camouflage or any number of other things.

If we went to war, there is no question we would prevail in the field of battle.

Oh wait. I forgot you're Kefka. Sorry I forgot about you.

[Sacred United Rome]

We really shouldn't be giving them rights. We should be giving the rights and responsibilities to humans as to how to properly care for the inferior creatures.

Again how are they inferior? Chimps are stronger then we are, are capable of easily moving through the forest trees in a way we cannot. They have abilities we do not have, just as we are capable of things they cannot do. So how are they inferior to us?

Telegraph me when chimps make nukes.

[Geilinor]

How so, they are capable of using tools and language. Why is intelligence the most important trait, why not strength or speed or numbers or the ability to fly or the ability to live underwater without any devices? Why not size, or camouflage or any number of other things.

If we went to war, there is no question we would prevail in the field of battle.

This isn't Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

[Conserative Morality]

See my post above.

Aristocratic ideals don't appeal to me.

[The Royally United Provinces]

Although there are no examples of individual possession of private property, we have both evidence personal property (chimps seem to get pissed if you take their shit away from them) and collectively owned property, (e.g. chimps will defend and patrol areas of land from rival chimps).

Deducing from this, I can assume that the chimpanzee has some knowledge of personhood, but probably not enough that it warrants full rights on par with humans.

Chimpanzees also rip out people's faces, I believe. I seem to recall a story from a few years ago...

Humans do to. I know I'm late but...

[Immoren]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

Because they're brothers.*nods*

[Big Jim P]

See my post above.

Aristocratic ideals don't appeal to me.

That is not an aristocratic ideal, merely an expression of reality.

[Dyakovo]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

"Lesser" animals have been granted legal personhood before.

[Conserative Morality]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

Because they're brothers.*nods*

I can't speak for anyone else's fatherly misadventures, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any chimp brothers.

[Big Jim P]

God, no. Human rights are reserved for humans. We don't extend human rights to bacteria, to insects, to fish or to cows, so why chimps?

Because they're brothers.*nods*

And sisters. lrn2PC.

[Big Jim P]

Because they're brothers.*nods*

I can't speak for anyone else's fatherly misadventures, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any chimp brothers.

Unfortunately I do know my family, and the chimps are often the better part of the tree.

[Dyakovo]

Sources

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... himpanzee/
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29542829
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... ommy-case/
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... and-leo-2/
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/20 ... ommy-case/
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-e ... evolution/
https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/





According to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, a New York Court will be considering offering personhood to a chimpanzee!

What say you on this, NSG?

Can't be any worse than a lot of humans that are considered persons.

Indeed... Ken Ham is considered a person.

[Immoren]

Because they're brothers.*nods*

I can't speak for anyone else's fatherly misadventures, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any chimp brothers.

Phylogenetically speaking.

[Conserative Morality]

That is not an aristocratic ideal, merely an expression of reality.

You can deny it all you want, but petty elitism is an integral part of aristocracy.

[The Black Forrest]

Chimps are incapable of writing novels,

They don't need them.

building cities

They don't need them.

and nations,

Well; they have troops and territories.

having marriages and families,

Try again.

communicating with sophistication,

You speak chimp?

using the Internet,

Actually some do.

inventing new things,

They don't need to.

developing scientific theories...

They don't need them.

[Big Jim P]

That is not an aristocratic ideal, merely an expression of reality.

You can deny it all you want, but petty elitism is an integral part of aristocracy.

I am denying nothing. I am not the one who came up with the erroneous idea that all people are equal.

[Conserative Morality]

"Lesser" animals have been granted legal personhood before.

Under what philosophical grounds? It's a legal fiction to integrate strange cases within the law, like corporations having personhood.

[The Black Forrest]

Yep. I agree, humans are superior to Chimps. Biblical arguments for that are BS though.

You see, I disagree with that. I think the Bible can be used as an argument just as people source other texts in discussion. When did the Bible become off-limits? That's certainly intolerant of you, to be honest.

Bible is not valid for discussion about Chimpanzees.