Nicker on 13/12/2013 at 20:21
Quote Posted by NuEffect
You can't do a deal with a goddam chimp. If he wants to rip your face off no amount of discussion will change that.
These animals will never conform to any man made law and nor will they conform to our social conventions.
You won't conform to the framing of this question nor will you provide substance for your objections. And yet you are a person.
Is compliance an essential, defining characteristic of a person under the law? Is the expression of violence a reason for exclusion of personhood? Humans are violent all the time, deliberately and maliciously so, but they still get due process.
Despite what you might prefer, the lines are not self evident. Or if they are you have not made a case for that.
Phatose on 13/12/2013 at 21:32
The philosophical approach to whether a chimp is a person or not is hopeless and ultimately useless. You always end up either A)a set of arbitrary distinctions to separate persons from non-persons that tell you lots about the biases of the people who made up the rules and nothing about actual personhood or B)a set of rules so vague that it's highly questionable whether people are persons.
Legally, this is pretty much a bullshit maneuver to try to get the law to function a certain way after regular old "convincing people not doing experiments on chimps was a good idea" failed. Suppose it saves us all that oh-so-pleasant "Is electroshocking 5 chimps to death worth it if it saves 1 human life?" conversation, but the fact is still that it's an attempt to use the legal system to circumvent the entire point of having a legal system in the first place.
Caradavin on 13/12/2013 at 22:50
Well, I'm not highly intellectual and I tend to go with my feelings, but (to me) my animals are more human than many I've met. I feel they can be reasoned with and I feel they know right from wrong (if trained to - which can apply to humans as well). There are animals who rescue people from dire situations all the time. In reality, though, animals are animals and as previously stated - you can't keep a wild animal from killing you by reasoning with it (although, there are many humans where this is the case as well). Arguably, humans could be deemed to be more animal than "human" according to the understood rules of humanity. I don't know. Interesting conversation, but it's one of those debates that can't be resolved. :bored:
Xorak on 13/12/2013 at 23:18
To me, this is the start of the assertion that every animal must be given undeniable freedoms and rights that are the same as humans. Obviously, to the point where even eating meat becomes a crime. They start with apes, because they are the most human-like. Once an ape is defined as a person, than what about the next animal in line that is uniquely ape-like? It too must be defined the same as the ape. And in this way, they'll go down the entire line of animals and make them all people.
There will probably be some animal constitution drawn up in the future, stating "We the animals..."
june gloom on 13/12/2013 at 23:45
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Mhmmmm.
requesting subjeff be autobanned every time he does this, it's quite possibly the most infuriating thing he does
Pyrian on 14/12/2013 at 00:09
Quote Posted by Nicker
If a century or so ago, women and blacks were not persons but today they are, then clearly our understanding of what legally defines a person not constrained to member of the species
homo sapiens sapiens.
I... Don't think you meant to imply what you very clearly just implied.
Nicker on 14/12/2013 at 00:28
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I... Don't think you meant to imply what you very clearly just implied.
Implies what? That women and blacks are chimps? No. Of course not.
There is no such intention and I believe there is no such implication, unless one reads it out of context. I hope I was not that careless.
The
observation is that our legal definition of the "person" is not fixed nor simple. It has changed and can change again. I am not saying that it must change in this case nor that the historically unfair treatment of certain categories of humans justifies extending personhood to animals. I am merely pointing out that, IMHO, it is technically possible.
Pyrian on 14/12/2013 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Nicker
...I believe there is no such implication, unless one reads it out of context.
Seriously? Read it again. You wrote that (paraphrased) women and blacks shifting from non-person to person shows that personhood is not
constrained to human beings. There's no way to read that except that "women and blacks aren't human" (aside from "Nicker isn't making sense").
For instance, if I wrote that Honda Civics being considered vehicles proves that not all vehicles are cars, have I not just implied that Honda Civics are not cars?
Caradavin on 14/12/2013 at 01:45
Quote Posted by Pyrian
For instance, if I wrote that Honda Civics being considered vehicles proves that not all vehicles are cars, have I not just implied that Honda Civics are not cars?
But....they aren't cars...:sly:
Nicker on 14/12/2013 at 01:52
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Seriously? Read it again. You wrote that (paraphrased) women and blacks shifting from non-person to person shows that personhood is not
constrained to human beings. There's no way to read that except that "women and blacks aren't human" (aside from "Nicker isn't making sense").
For instance, if I wrote that Honda Civics being considered vehicles proves that not all vehicles are cars, have I not just implied that Honda Civics are not cars?
I don't know what that analogy implies other than you didn't read what I originally wrote very carefully because it bears no resemblance to what I actually said.
Context means a lot. Please read it again.
Quote:
It [ legalese ] is justifiable because that is the initial tack of this thread, how do we define persons in a
legal sense?
If a century or so ago, women and blacks were not persons
but today they are, then clearly our understanding of what
legally defines a person is not constrained to member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. And if corporations can be persons then the definition is clearly not restricted to living things.
That is NOT asserting that women and blacks are not humans, it is OBSERVING that "a century or so ago, women and blacks were not persons" under the law but that the law has since changed to include them.
"Persons", in the context of this thread (as I had hoped should be understood by now after multiple repetitions), is a legal definition which includes corporations, cities, organistions and in some countries, holy writings and idols.
Persons =/= humans "under the law".
Today, all humans are persons but not all persons (under the law) are "persons".
