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.

(The New York Times)   NYT: "Should A Chimp Be Able To Sue Its Owner?" Probably, but he would lose on a peel   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1378 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2014 at 9:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-04-24 08:36:06 PM  
They wouldn't be the lowest life form in the room. Lawyers are scum-sucking parasites.
 
2014-04-24 09:20:53 PM  
I believe it's spelled ape eel.
 
2014-04-24 09:25:36 PM  
Take your stinking torts off of me, you damn dirty lawyer!
 
2014-04-24 09:26:16 PM  
I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.
 
2014-04-24 09:26:21 PM  
oh fark you subby for making me laugh
 
2014-04-24 09:27:28 PM  

Wangiss: I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.


As soon as the state stops monkeying around, amirite?

/yes, i know
 
2014-04-24 09:28:20 PM  

Wangiss: I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.


The federal government is waiting too long to act. I say it's time to file a writ of apedamus.
 
2014-04-24 09:28:51 PM  
I think 'chimp" is considered racist in most circles
 
2014-04-24 09:29:28 PM  

you are a puppet: Wangiss: I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.

The federal government is waiting too long to act. I say it's time to file a writ of apedamus.


I think that I'm going to have to give you an internet for that one.

I guess I was the straight man in this routine. Keep 'em comin' folks.
 
2014-04-24 09:30:03 PM  
i974.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-24 09:30:08 PM  

zarker: I think 'chimp" is considered racist in most circles


So... "Simian-American"?
 
2014-04-24 09:30:15 PM  
Hmm. I haven't seem a Paris Hilton article in some time
 
2014-04-24 09:35:39 PM  
I'll need wait for Karl Pilkington to explain all the details before I can make a decision one way or the other.
 
2014-04-24 09:38:32 PM  

fusillade762: zarker: I think 'chimp" is considered racist in most circles

So... "Simian-American"?


Just a plain-Jane good All-American primate.
 
2014-04-24 09:38:34 PM  
A chimp should maybe be able to sue a dry cleaning shop for a million bucks or so if the chimp's chimpy-chimp chimp suit shows a crimp or a skrimp on the chimpy-chimp chimp's chimp suit.
 
2014-04-24 09:43:16 PM  

you are a puppet: The federal government is waiting too long to act. I say it's time to file a writ of apedamus.


It's too late. The Reagan administration was the time to act.

filmfanatic.org
 
2014-04-24 09:43:39 PM  
Didn't this already happen? A chimp sued Disney for backpay and mental anguish after he picked a bunch of sure-hit TV shows for them and they kidnapped him and attempted to parachute him into the Amazon in order to hide his existence.
 
2014-04-24 09:46:03 PM  
Far too late for poor Bubbles
 
2014-04-24 09:48:08 PM  

Wangiss: I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.


Well if the state can say if a monkey has the same rights as a person then the state should also get to say if a corporation has the same rights as a person.
 
2014-04-24 09:48:23 PM  
taking the "peel" route could lead to a slippery slope...
 
2014-04-24 09:50:37 PM  

Mega Steve: Far too late for poor Bubbles


You made me curious and now my Google search record is stained with the query, "MJ farked bubbles."
 
2014-04-24 09:50:59 PM  
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2014-04-24 09:53:03 PM  
No way the monkey could afford to sue. A good lawyer isn't chimp change
 
2014-04-24 09:57:26 PM  
If it can testify in court, fine. Otherwise, too bad.
 
2014-04-24 10:01:29 PM  
Ook!
 
2014-04-24 10:15:20 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If it can testify in court, fine. Otherwise, too bad.


i.imgur.com
I'd trust Koko on a witness stand a lot more than Kato Kaelin.
 
2014-04-24 10:19:22 PM  

TheOther: fusillade762: zarker: I think 'chimp" is considered racist in most circles

So... "Simian-American"?

Just a plain-Jane good All-American primate.



...though, he's probably an immigrant -- chimpanzees are native to equatorial Africa, after all.
 
2014-04-24 10:30:28 PM  

Omahawg: [i974.photobucket.com image 702x1023]


Damn it Clyde!
 
2014-04-24 10:35:48 PM  
Why is a human individual with no cognitive abilities whatsoever a legal person with rights, while cognitively complex beings such as Tommy, or a dolphin, or an orca are things with no rights at all?"

Well, because humans defined legal and fundamental rights in the first place.  And because that individual has a parent or two to argue those rights.

'You tell me, why should a human have fundamental rights?' There's not a single person on earth I've ever put that question to who can answer that without referring to certain qualities that a human has."

Like making a legal system.  Which he's part of.  As long as he's working within it, it's difficult to argue any animal could participate in the same without expanding that system, and since the animals he's advocating for can't do it in any meaningful way, he's got a long uphill climb.  What he's really advocating for is human representation of other species, but he wants the other species to have the same rights in our legal system.  That won't work.

Animals have their own "rights" systems, and they are more often than not more horrific than what we'd accept as humans, especially when carnivores are concerned.
 
2014-04-24 11:10:09 PM  
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

This story was so interesting that on paragraph 2 I ....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2014-04-24 11:20:02 PM  
Jerry was a man

// way down on the Swanee river
 
2014-04-24 11:21:23 PM  
It kind of amazes me that anyone could read the Travis the Chimp story and learn anything at all about chimps and think owning one is a good idea.

Leave those suckers alone, they're scary.
 
2014-04-24 11:31:55 PM  
No chimp thread would be complete without this classic.
 
2014-04-24 11:36:02 PM  
And so it begins...
 
2014-04-25 12:39:18 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Wangiss: I guess I'm supposed to crack a joke or something but I think a state should be allowed to legislate this power into existence but federal law should wait for an amendment to venture into this territory.

Well if the state can say if a monkey has the same rights as a person then the state should also get to say if a corporation has the same rights as a person.


I missed the punchline. Are you from Norway? Sometimes when native English speakers read a joke from a speaker of a different native language the funny part doesn't come across. I know when I got back from Japan the puns I was telling really fell flat. (That wasn't a joke right there, that last sentence.)
 
2014-04-25 12:40:32 AM  

Trocadero: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If it can testify in court, fine. Otherwise, too bad.


I'd trust Koko on a witness stand a lot more than Kato Kaelin.


Agreed.
 
2014-04-25 12:41:46 AM  

Lsherm: Why is a human individual with no cognitive abilities whatsoever a legal person with rights, while cognitively complex beings such as Tommy, or a dolphin, or an orca are things with no rights at all?"

Well, because humans defined legal and fundamental rights in the first place.  And because that individual has a parent or two to argue those rights.

'You tell me, why should a human have fundamental rights?' There's not a single person on earth I've ever put that question to who can answer that without referring to certain qualities that a human has."

Like making a legal system.  Which he's part of.  As long as he's working within it, it's difficult to argue any animal could participate in the same without expanding that system, and since the animals he's advocating for can't do it in any meaningful way, he's got a long uphill climb.  What he's really advocating for is human representation of other species, but he wants the other species to have the same rights in our legal system.  That won't work.

Animals have their own "rights" systems, and they are more often than not more horrific than what we'd accept as humans, especially when carnivores are concerned.


Imagine trying an orca for assaulting a seal. Some people make me stabby.
 
2014-04-25 12:43:08 AM  
What the hell is Bush suing Chaney for?
 
2014-04-25 12:49:37 AM  
www.hadroncolliderscope.com
That's how it starts.
 
2014-04-25 01:14:19 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-25 08:59:14 AM  

Lsherm: Why is a human individual with no cognitive abilities whatsoever a legal person with rights, while cognitively complex beings such as Tommy, or a dolphin, or an orca are things with no rights at all?"

Well, because humans defined legal and fundamental rights in the first place.  And because that individual has a parent or two to argue those rights.

'You tell me, why should a human have fundamental rights?' There's not a single person on earth I've ever put that question to who can answer that without referring to certain qualities that a human has."

Like making a legal system.  Which he's part of.  As long as he's working within it, it's difficult to argue any animal could participate in the same without expanding that system, and since the animals he's advocating for can't do it in any meaningful way, he's got a long uphill climb.  What he's really advocating for is human representation of other species, but he wants the other species to have the same rights in our legal system.  That won't work.

Animals have their own "rights" systems, and they are more often than not more horrific than what we'd accept as humans, especially when carnivores are concerned.


Why does it matter if the plaintiff can meaningfully represent themselves? The entire point of this type of case is that they can't. Children and the severely mentally disabled can't represent themselves in court either, but we don't question their right to representation because we can see that they suffer and have chosen to ascribe meaning to it.

The real question is: Why do we care more about the braindead than we do about chimpanzees?
 
2014-04-25 10:52:36 AM  

ennuie: Lsherm: Why is a human individual with no cognitive abilities whatsoever a legal person with rights, while cognitively complex beings such as Tommy, or a dolphin, or an orca are things with no rights at all?"

Well, because humans defined legal and fundamental rights in the first place.  And because that individual has a parent or two to argue those rights.

'You tell me, why should a human have fundamental rights?' There's not a single person on earth I've ever put that question to who can answer that without referring to certain qualities that a human has."

Like making a legal system.  Which he's part of.  As long as he's working within it, it's difficult to argue any animal could participate in the same without expanding that system, and since the animals he's advocating for can't do it in any meaningful way, he's got a long uphill climb.  What he's really advocating for is human representation of other species, but he wants the other species to have the same rights in our legal system.  That won't work.

Animals have their own "rights" systems, and they are more often than not more horrific than what we'd accept as humans, especially when carnivores are concerned.

Why does it matter if the plaintiff can meaningfully represent themselves? The entire point of this type of case is that they can't. Children and the severely mentally disabled can't represent themselves in court either, but we don't question their right to representation because we can see that they suffer and have chosen to ascribe meaning to it.

The real question is: Why do we care more about the braindead than we do about chimpanzees?


Some of us do; some of us don't. But it's a good policy to treat your own species as special. You wouldn't find chimps prioritizing humans over themselves if they were in charge.
 
2014-04-25 11:49:22 AM  

ennuie: Lsherm: Why is a human individual with no cognitive abilities whatsoever a legal person with rights, while cognitively complex beings such as Tommy, or a dolphin, or an orca are things with no rights at all?"

Well, because humans defined legal and fundamental rights in the first place.  And because that individual has a parent or two to argue those rights.

'You tell me, why should a human have fundamental rights?' There's not a single person on earth I've ever put that question to who can answer that without referring to certain qualities that a human has."

Like making a legal system.  Which he's part of.  As long as he's working within it, it's difficult to argue any animal could participate in the same without expanding that system, and since the animals he's advocating for can't do it in any meaningful way, he's got a long uphill climb.  What he's really advocating for is human representation of other species, but he wants the other species to have the same rights in our legal system.  That won't work.

Animals have their own "rights" systems, and they are more often than not more horrific than what we'd accept as humans, especially when carnivores are concerned.

Why does it matter if the plaintiff can meaningfully represent themselves? The entire point of this type of case is that they can't. Children and the severely mentally disabled can't represent themselves in court either, but we don't question their right to representation because we can see that they suffer and have chosen to ascribe meaning to it.

The real question is: Why do we care more about the braindead than we do about chimpanzees?


Guess I have to be That Guy and throw this out:  Imago Dei.  Humans have it, chimps don't.
 
2014-04-25 03:08:36 PM  
Been done. Just ask Jerry.
 
2014-04-25 04:00:18 PM  
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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