PETA to the rescue!!!!

[blastoff]

According to the loons at PETA, the United States Constitution protects the rights of orca whales, porpoises, Charlie Tuna, and God knows what other creatures of the sea.

If they have constitutional protections, doesn't that make them U.S. citizens? And if so, that might open a whole new immigration can of worms (shouldn't they also have constitutional protection?), illegal alien orcas, porpoises, etc. who wander into U.S. coastal waters?

Save a seal. Beat a PETA person with a club.

Read it for yourself...AP Exclusive: SeaWorld accused of enslaving orcas | General Headlines | Comcast.net

 

[uscitizen]

Why not? it protects the rights of non living entitites such as corporations.
surely living entities deserve more protections than non living ones?

 

[Si modo]

"PETA"

*spits coffee on computer screen*

 

[martybegan]

Why not? it protects the rights of non living entitites such as corporations.
surely living entities deserve more protections than non living ones?

When a school of tuna manages to form a corporation, give me a call.

corporations are still a group of human beings, not mackerel.

 

[syrenn]

Bunch of fucking peta FREAKS!!!

Lets see... how about working dogs? I guess the blind are slave owners.

 

[Sallow]

Why not? it protects the rights of non living entitites such as corporations.
surely living entities deserve more protections than non living ones?

When a school of tuna manages to form a corporation, give me a call.

corporations are still a group of human beings, not mackerel.

So..who gets executed for the 10,000 or so killed in Bhopal?

 

[martybegan]

Why not? it protects the rights of non living entitites such as corporations.
surely living entities deserve more protections than non living ones?

When a school of tuna manages to form a corporation, give me a call.

corporations are still a group of human beings, not mackerel.

So..who gets executed for the 10,000 or so killed in Bhopal?

Executions are usually for crimes of intent. At bhopal multi layered negligence was probably the cause of the accident, but the whole situation is still pretty mucked up. BP still claims sabotage.

Based on it not being sabotage, which would make it UC's responsibility I use the term "accident" The release was not intentional, thus missing mens rea required for most capital murder charges. Also note that UC was held accountable to the sums of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the accident probably resulted in the buyout of UC by Dow, so technically UC "died" but its liability transferred. That is actually one of the disadvantages a corportation has over a real person. When a person dies, liability dies with them. Corporate liability, however passes down to sucessor corporations.