Yeah? Find me one that can play an instrument and make up its own musical peices. I need to find a way to make some extra money on the side right now.jonsimon wrote:
Animals can reason. A lot of them are very smart. Esspecially apes.TrollmeaT wrote:
Until they have a mind that can reason they are nothing more than an animal.
The chimp should be given the legal status. Or some legal status that allows it to accept personal donations.
Animals can reason but they can't reason abstractly. No matter how many years you train a chimp, they'll never be able to grasp the concept of calculus.
Protecting them is one thing, but calling them a "person" is too much i.m.o.
Protecting them is one thing, but calling them a "person" is too much i.m.o.
Hmm.... I get your point, but I want to make a slight alteration. They may be able to DO the problems, but they'll never UNDERSTAND them.ATLSkyline07 wrote:
Animals can reason but they can't reason abstractly. No matter how many years you train a chimp, they'll never be able to grasp the concept of calculus.
Protecting them is one thing, but calling them a "person" is too much i.m.o.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If they have opposable thumbs and binocular vision I don't have a problem giving chimps rights. I'd even go so far as to offer them (rights) to Rosie O'Donnell.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Just because they can't reason as well as us doesn't mean they can't reason. Would you consider someone with an IQ of 70 sub-human or unable to reason? I guarantee you he'd never learn calculus. He may not even be able to learn an instrument or to draw. He would still have the powers of learning, thinking, creativity and reason, only just in limited amounts.ATLSkyline07 wrote:
Animals can reason but they can't reason abstractly. No matter how many years you train a chimp, they'll never be able to grasp the concept of calculus.
Protecting them is one thing, but calling them a "person" is too much i.m.o.
Bottom line: person = human being.
Last edited by chittydog (2007-05-04 23:54:18)
I'm much rather offer Rosie O'Donnell to the chimps...Kmarion wrote:
If they have opposable thumbs and binocular vision I don't have a problem giving chimps rights. I'd even go so far as to offer them to Rosie O'Donnell.
Reason : the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. {one definition} [Random House Unabridged Dictionary]RedTwizzler wrote:
What do you define as "reason"? Every animal alive has developed basic survival instincts to allow them to continue passing on their genetic code. Those instincts are pretty much reason, at least in my book.TrollmeaT wrote:
No I'm saying that they cannot reason.Ryan wrote:
You are saying that hunk of wriggled meat in every animals head is not a mind?
As far as the OP goes, I think this is pretty stupid. I'm a liberal, and I'm all for animal rights (though I eat meat - call me two-faced.) but this is just ridiculous.
Instinct : an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species. [Random House Unabridged Dictionary]
So you see they are not the same even though some would like you to think so.
They cannot reason? That must be why they haven't invented daytime TV and sea monkeys!! But really, some of the things we humans do are less reasonable than the activities of the rest of the animal kingdom. I say they can reason, though it lies elsewhere. Remember that even in humans, there are multiple types of intellect.TrollmeaT wrote:
No I'm saying that they cannot reason.Ryan wrote:
You are saying that hunk of wriggled meat in every animals head is not a mind?TrollmeaT wrote:
Until they have a mind that can reason they are nothing more than an animal.
Go check out some nature programs.
Awhile back a video was released demonstrating a crow's ability to create a hook out of offered wire in order to lift a small bucket of food out of a glass tube. A chimp would've just grabbed the wire and poked at it. A week ago, I saw a crow tossing bits of stuff into a Styrofoam bowl before taking off with the bowl in its beak.Kmarion wrote:
If they have opposable thumbs and binocular vision I don't have a problem giving chimps rights. I'd even go so far as to offer them to Rosie O'Donnell.
"Animals cannot reason" my ass.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-05 00:16:38)
well this is a little backwards, it's really not like calling an animal a person is a great thing. For all I know is that persons are animals regardless of what we have accomplished we are still just animals, we just have a different peramator or guidelines..
If animals can't reason (which means form opinions and judgements) then how come one of my cats dislikes a certain brand of cat food and won't eat it whilst the other one will? Instinct should tell it its food and thus he should just eat it but he has formed an opinion of it. Just as a human would have a preference over which restaurant to go to.
We had a similar debate like this at work. A very intelligent guy, studying biological science at Oxford, said animals can't reason and they live off instinct. The next day he admitted he was wrong after we supplied him with a plethora of evidence. He also realised that everytime he accused an animal's behaviour soley being down to instinct, he realised that humans do exactly the same thing under the name of "reason".
For example, a dog that sits and gets a biscuit for it. He first argued that this was instinct coupled with learned behaviour and that the dog was simply doing the calculation "I sit= Dog biscuit". Although this is somewhat true, how is that different to a human pressing the brake pedal on a car or a guitarist playing a chord, the human isn't working out why pressing the brake will make the car stop or why hitting certain strings makes a certain sound, it's simple learned behaviour and using memory, just like the dog.
Would a human be able to play an instrument if he had never played it before? No, he learns how to play it throgh trial an error and memory. There's no reason being used until we start talking about someone writing a new song, then yes he will advanced human thinking.
We had a similar debate like this at work. A very intelligent guy, studying biological science at Oxford, said animals can't reason and they live off instinct. The next day he admitted he was wrong after we supplied him with a plethora of evidence. He also realised that everytime he accused an animal's behaviour soley being down to instinct, he realised that humans do exactly the same thing under the name of "reason".
For example, a dog that sits and gets a biscuit for it. He first argued that this was instinct coupled with learned behaviour and that the dog was simply doing the calculation "I sit= Dog biscuit". Although this is somewhat true, how is that different to a human pressing the brake pedal on a car or a guitarist playing a chord, the human isn't working out why pressing the brake will make the car stop or why hitting certain strings makes a certain sound, it's simple learned behaviour and using memory, just like the dog.
Would a human be able to play an instrument if he had never played it before? No, he learns how to play it throgh trial an error and memory. There's no reason being used until we start talking about someone writing a new song, then yes he will advanced human thinking.
lol nice oneacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
So if they declare him a "person," does that mean he has to work and make a living like the rest of us?
LOL!! exactly! +1Stingray24 wrote:
The fact that this animal must be "declared a person" would be the first clue it is in fact, not a person.
These animal rights people are a bit of a joke, half the time i hear about BAD things they do. If they spent less time doing BAD things and more time doing GOOD things I might support them a bit more.
When I was in Barcelona Zoo last year the Chimps were actually able to ask the crowd for food, it was quite weird to watch. They came up with a system of signs in the space of a few minutes that the whole crowd were able to interpret.
If a chav is considered a "person", I don't see why a chimpanzee can't. In fact, my dog is more of a person that any chav will ever be.
ƒ³
I like how everyone is disregarding the main motivation for attaining the legal status for the chimp. In austria, you cannot accept personal donations unless you are a person, so, to support the shelter they wish to be able to accept personal donations, and to protect the animals financially if the shelter fails. This isnt about rights so much as it is about protecting the animals and their survival.
The shelter cannot accept donations?jonsimon wrote:
I like how everyone is disregarding the main motivation for attaining the legal status for the chimp. In austria, you cannot accept personal donations unless you are a person, so, to support the shelter they wish to be able to accept personal donations, and to protect the animals financially if the shelter fails. This isnt about rights so much as it is about protecting the animals and their survival.
Animals should never be considered humans. Animals have yet to surpass us on the food chain, technology, culture, etc. We are obviously the most intelligent creature on the planet(which isnt to say other animals arent intelligent). Animals are not our equal, if you amke them our equal they better be able to speak a known language, get a job, support their family, pay taxes, go to jury duty, and be part of human society. Otherwise its still an animal sitting in a zoo or in the wild who can inflict legal retribution upon its harm, which is bs(as in human on human, not humane violations, I dont support animal violence or abuse ).
Last edited by r2zoo (2007-05-05 09:11:46)
This animals likes to paint and watch television. They want to give him the rights so he can receive donations.
I say let him have it.
I say let him have it.
Eh - I disagree with declaring monkeys humans, but I agree that their rights should not be violated - ie not killing, no torture (that kind of stuff )
-konfusion
-konfusion
Slaughterhouses are going to have a hard time finding employees in the futuresergeriver wrote:
They are not people, but they should have the same rights. F.i. someone killing a gorilla should get 25 to life.usmarine2005 wrote:
"In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a "person."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_ … _challenge
I love animals, and support them in every way I can. However, calling them a person is a little out there.
I think what you really mean is "Until they have a mind that can reason and communicate to humans, tey are nothing more than an animal."Ryan wrote:
You are saying that hunk of wriggled meat in every animals head is not a mind?TrollmeaT wrote:
Until they have a mind that can reason they are nothing more than an animal.
It is a relaly really tough subject whether or not an animal is conscious. However, some people hold the view that there is no such thing as consciousness at all, which is absurd.
I'd lmao if you got eaten by a croc or a sharkMiller wrote:
I eat animals, they don't eat me.
Chimp=Chimp. Until they lose that one chromosome that’s the way it going to be.
Last edited by N.A.T.O (2007-05-06 01:40:25)