Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   New York judge to plaintiffs, "Keep our rights off your damn, dirty apes"   (cnn.com) divider line 37
    More: Interesting, New York, legal tests, captive animals  
•       •       •

4791 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2013 at 1:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-10 01:17:37 PM  
third time today?
 
2013-12-10 01:18:22 PM  

vudukungfu: third time today?


The day isn't over yet.
 
2013-12-10 01:19:01 PM  
You can make a way better case for chimp personhood than fetuses.

"They have brain activity and heartbeats" describes any animal you're likely to see on land
 
2013-12-10 01:20:44 PM  
"That's the problem.  They only want to save the cute ones."  - Denis Leary
 
2013-12-10 01:21:06 PM  
i1080.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-10 01:21:42 PM  
Wow, this is retarded.
 
2013-12-10 01:23:16 PM  
What's next Chimpanzee gay marriage?
3.bp.blogspot.com

Thanks Obama!
 
2013-12-10 01:23:27 PM  
I would reiterate my comments from the last thread, but for some reason this topic keeps getting deleted.
 
2013-12-10 01:24:36 PM  
The Nonhuman Rights Project filed three separate suits on behalf of four chimpanzees in New York state last week in a bid to secure for Tommy, Kiko, Hercules and Leo -- all male chimps held in various parts of the state -- the "right to bodily liberty."

Please die. Soon.
 
2013-12-10 01:25:10 PM  
Wow, when that whole Planet of the Apes scenario comes true, mankind will pay through the ass.
 
2013-12-10 01:27:13 PM  

ikanreed: You can make a way better case for chimp personhood than fetuses.



Hmm. I don't think I agree that either should have personhood but I think you can make a better case for fetuses than chimps. Fetuses have the potential for personhood while chimps will never be more than smart animals. Fetuses can be compared to an unconscious man while chimps are a comatose man. One will wake up to personhood while the other will not.
 
2013-12-10 01:28:27 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
2013-12-10 01:30:16 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: ikanreed: You can make a way better case for chimp personhood than fetuses.


Hmm. I don't think I agree that either should have personhood but I think you can make a better case for fetuses than chimps. Fetuses have the potential for personhood while chimps will never be more than smart animals. Fetuses can be compared to an unconscious man while chimps are a comatose man. One will wake up to personhood while the other will not.


Humans aren't more than smart animals, either, dummy.  An unconscious person has their previous life to fall back on as evidence of person-hood.
 
2013-12-10 01:30:31 PM  
FTFA: "Tommy's owner, Pat Levery, dismissed the notion that he confines the 26-year-old chimp to a prison. Tommy lives in a cage on a trailer lot in Gloversville, New York."

Ok, this is just wrong. Chimpanzees should not be kept as pets, especially by someone living in a friggen trailer park! You shouldn't be allowed to keep one because you want a goofy monkey buddy. Chimpanzees are intelligent, vicious, dangerous, wild animals that should only be handled by trained professionals. Not by some idiot who's going to let it into the wild as soon as it becomes a burden.
"Exotic pet" people piss me off.
 
2013-12-10 01:34:14 PM  
"People should not be treated like cattle! And probably even cattle should not be treated like cattle." - Ashleigh Brilliant


The question isn't whether chimps are people like humans are people. The question is what level of 'like people' is sufficient to merit more protection under the law. Having too strict and narrow a definition of 'person' leads to bad things, after all.

I realize that to many people the idea of chimpanzees (or dolphins, or so on) being people seems intuitively ridiculous. But many of those same people would award their dog or cat more honorary personhood than their neighbors. Yet if, say, poison accidentally gets into your pet food, the law only values your pet at some generic replacement cost, so the pet food company would only have to buy you another dog or cat. Pets have no rights to speak of.

It's a gray area. Using the courts to try to find distinct outlines in that mess is one of the things our courts are specifically intended for.
 
2013-12-10 01:36:13 PM  

ikanreed: You can make a way better case for chimp personhood than fetuses.

"They have brain activity and heartbeats" describes any animal you're likely to see on land


Half serious and half snark, should they get legal status sill this "group" also petition for abortion rights, get free condoms from planned parenthood and monkey dads have to pay baby monkey support in bananas?
 
2013-12-10 01:38:03 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: ikanreed: You can make a way better case for chimp personhood than fetuses.

"They have brain activity and heartbeats" describes any animal you're likely to see on land

Half serious and half snark, should they get legal status sill this "group" also petition for abortion rights, get free condoms from planned parenthood and monkey dads have to pay baby monkey support in bananas?


Not bananas.  They need to get a job like my shiftless brothers.
 
2013-12-10 01:43:29 PM  
I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me!
 
2013-12-10 01:47:27 PM  

Arkanaut: I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me!


Link
 
2013-12-10 01:50:51 PM  
Sanctuaries: Animal hoarders with a paypal donate button on a webpage.
 
2013-12-10 02:00:30 PM  
Why not? Caligula made his horse a senator.
 
2013-12-10 02:10:49 PM  

i1.ytimg.com

 
2013-12-10 02:18:16 PM  

i586.photobucket.com

 
2013-12-10 02:21:24 PM  
Smart court decision that doesn't fall prey to relativism? Who'd a thunk it. Win for humanity today.
 
2013-12-10 02:23:05 PM  

RandomAxe: "People should not be treated like cattle! And probably even cattle should not be treated like cattle." - Ashleigh Brilliant

Yet if, say, poison accidentally gets into your pet food, the law only values your pet at some generic replacement cost, so the pet food company would only have to buy you another dog or cat. Pets have no rights to speak of.


As it should be. This is a good thing.
 
2013-12-10 03:08:26 PM  
Okay, the the ruling is in. Now restrain Bonzo securely there, fellahs. I'm going to kick him in the junk.
 
2013-12-10 03:11:29 PM  

dusty15893: What's next Chimpanzee gay marriage?
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x407]



If it did, where's the slippery slope going to lead? Chimp-frog marriage?
 
2013-12-10 03:14:08 PM  

James!: [i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


You think I told her about the Army of the 12 Monkeys? Impossible! Know why, you pathetically ineffectual and pusillanimous "pretend-friend-to-animals"?! I'll tell you why: because when I had anything to do with her six years ago, there was no such thing -- I hadn't even thought of it yet!
 
2013-12-10 03:18:21 PM  
If a creature has the ability to tell you no, and can understand the difference between yes and no... maybe, just maybe, they should be treated better.
 
2013-12-10 03:21:15 PM  

RandomAxe: Pets have no rights to speak of.


They are also absolved of most laws. If one shiats in public, it doesn't get slapped with a disorderly conduct charge or the like. Humps someones leg in the park? That would probably be sexual harassment for another human. Etc.

Also, FTA: "The lawsuits asked that the four chimpanzees be moved to a sanctuary" sounds more like forced segregation to me, creating a chimpanzee internment camp; if chimps -- I'm sorry, chimpanzees ("chimps" would probably be considered just as racists as referring to the Japanese as "Japs") -- are considered legal persons, they should have the right to live where they choose and not be shuttled off to whatever ghetto we assign them to.
 
2013-12-10 03:52:43 PM  

I_C_Weener: [0.tqn.com image 265x400]


That was not about monkeys, despite the graphic on the cover.  (I have a different version)
 
2013-12-10 05:58:26 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-10 06:47:11 PM  
George Babbitt: As it should be. This is a good thing.

Note that I didn't say pets should have the same rights as humans. The issue is whether they should have any rights. It's arguable that they have some minor automatic protection under the law in terms of bans on animal cruelty, which most people would say is a good thing. But those laws are narrowly constructed and construed, and the current situation isn't necessarily for the best. There's a lot of room between 'basically no rights' and 'the same rights as a citizen'.


ArcadianRefugee: if chimps -- I'm sorry, chimpanzees ("chimps" would probably be considered just as racists as referring to the Japanese as "Japs") -- are considered legal persons, they should have the right to live where they choose and not be shuttled off to whatever ghetto we assign them to.

Legal persons, as it were, don't have the right to live where they choose. You're actually very sharply restricted. The average chimpanzee, if released from captivity, can't just go out and rent an apartment. Some sort of halfway house or shelter would, in fact, be a direct analogue to what we do for humans. And those places often aren't as nice as the better animal shelters, god knows.

I'm not arguing in favor of giving any non-human animals the same rights as US citizens. I'm just saying that there's plenty of room for sensible debate.
 
2013-12-10 07:08:27 PM  

RandomAxe: George Babbitt: As it should be. This is a good thing.

Note that I didn't say pets should have the same rights as humans. The issue is whether they should have any rights. It's arguable that they have some minor automatic protection under the law in terms of bans on animal cruelty, which most people would say is a good thing. But those laws are narrowly constructed and construed, and the current situation isn't necessarily for the best. There's a lot of room between 'basically no rights' and 'the same rights as a citizen'.


ArcadianRefugee: if chimps -- I'm sorry, chimpanzees ("chimps" would probably be considered just as racists as referring to the Japanese as "Japs") -- are considered legal persons, they should have the right to live where they choose and not be shuttled off to whatever ghetto we assign them to.

Legal persons, as it were, don't have the right to live where they choose. You're actually very sharply restricted. The average chimpanzee, if released from captivity, can't just go out and rent an apartment. Some sort of halfway house or shelter would, in fact, be a direct analogue to what we do for humans. And those places often aren't as nice as the better animal shelters, god knows.

I'm not arguing in favor of giving any non-human animals the same rights as US citizens. I'm just saying that there's plenty of room for sensible debate.


elitedaily.com
 
2013-12-10 09:21:06 PM  
Don't you know you got to shock the monkey?


/yeah, but "ape" doesn't work
 
2013-12-10 10:30:41 PM  
People who waist court time and money on crap like this should be biatch slapped till there head comes off.
 
2013-12-11 11:36:41 PM  
A couple of years ago I would have thought the court made the right call. Now that the courts have said that corporations are legally persons, I am not so sure.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report