Bad News for Animal Activists - Chimps Aren't Humans

[Toro]

Who would have thought?

It's official: In Austria, a chimp is not a person
Animal rights group had sought personhood for soon-to-be-homeless chimp

VIENNA, Austria - A chimpanzee cannot be declared a person, Austria's Supreme Court has ruled, activists said Tuesday.

An animal rights group had sought to have the chimp, Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person in hopes of gaining guardianship of the animal.

The shelter where Matthew has lived for 25 years is going bankrupt, threatening to leave him homeless. Donors have offered to help support him, but under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

The Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories sought to have him declared a person and petitioned to be appointed Matthew's trustee.

But the high court upheld a September ruling by a judge in the town of Wiener Neustadt rejecting the petition, the group said Tuesday.

The rights group said it would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Matthew and another chimp at the shelter, Rosi, were captured as babies in Sierra Leone in 1982 and smuggled to Austria for use in pharmaceutical experiments. Customs officers intercepted the shipment and turned the chimps over to the shelter.

Organizers said they may set up a foundation to collect donations for Matthew, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years.

But they argue that only personhood will ensure that he isn't sold outside Austria.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22670956/

 

[AllieBaba]

A few years ago there was a huge movement to remove animals from chattel status, and making them companions instead. Which would ultimately open the door for obtaining "rights" (think voting and financial, etc.) for animals. San Francisco went gaga over it.

The furor seems to have died, thank goodness.

 

[CrpRavens30]

Any bad news for Animal Activists and Tree huggers are good news for me..

 

[watermark]

A few years ago there was a huge movement to remove animals from chattel status, and making them companions instead. Which would ultimately open the door for obtaining "rights" (think voting and financial, etc.) for animals. San Francisco went gaga over it.

The furor seems to have died, thank goodness.

It used to be the line of thought that we could teach Chimps to become intelligent and use language. But they simply don't have the facilities that encourage that, something called the "language acquisition device". They only learn to communicate whenever presented with rewards for doing it, and once the rewards stop they soon forget.

 

[Psychoblues]

I see that in the American workforce that is at least mostly inhabited by humans. Cut off the rewards and I really don't believe the work will continue at least in a productive way. So far the American people have been genuine TROOPERS in the face of declining rewards. I wonder how long that will last?

It used to be the line of thought that we could teach Chimps to become intelligent and use language. But they simply don't have the facilities that encourage that, something called the "language acquisition device". They only learn to communicate whenever presented with rewards for doing it, and once the rewards stop they soon forget.

Are you confusing forgetfullness with lack of compensation, wm? Even the monkeys figured that old con game out.

 

[William Joyce]

But chimps do the work humans won't do!

 

[Bern80]

I see that in the American workforce that is at least mostly inhabited by humans. Cut off the rewards and I really don't believe the work will continue at least in a productive way. So far the American people have been genuine TROOPERS in the face of declining rewards. I wonder how long that will last?

Declining rewards? What make believe world are you living in? Have you seen the things companies are offering employees these days? Matching 401ks, on-site day care, membership to health clubs, tuition reimbursement, health insureance, paid time off, just to name a few.

 

[CharlestonChad]

It's hard to understand why conservatives are so angered at animal activists. Surely you guys aren't stupid enough to think that one day an animal will be voting, or earning a paycheck, or getting married. So on the assumption that you guys can't be THAT stupid, I think the only reason you guys hate animal activists so much is that they scare you. It's conservative nature to be scared by anything new or different. History is riddled with examples that prove this.

Would anyone debate that conservatives hate animal activists because they fear change or progression?

 

[jillian]

It's hard to understand why conservatives are so angered at animal activists. Surely you guys aren't stupid enough to think that one day an animal will be voting, or earning a paycheck, or getting married. So on the assumption that you guys can't be THAT stupid, I think the only reason you guys hate animal activists so much is that they scare you. It's conservative nature to be scared by anything new or different. History is riddled with examples that prove this.

Would anyone debate that conservatives hate animal activists because they fear change or progression?

I don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue. Anyone who has ever dealt with them knows they don't care what lies they tell if it suits their agenda. And before you say that isn't true, I'd suggest you go read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. It's part of the playbook.

A fish is not a pig is not a dog is not a BOY. Sorry. That's insane. And any group that would deny testing to possibly cure diseases like diabetes isn't rational. I remember the late Cleveland Amory standing on a podium saying how if his child could only live if it got a baboon heart, he'd allow the child to die. Total and complete lunacy.

And, mostly, you know what? I think we should absolutely be kind to animals. But there are so many real problems in the world... children starving, people homeless. Don't you think being an activist on behalf of a mink is a bit silly given those realities?

 

[AllieBaba]

Conservatives don't like animal activists because #1, they break the law; #2, animal rights by definition water down human rights, and #3, it's a matter of a small minority attempting to force their way upon the majority.

That's why they have a problem. Anybody who doesn't equate children with animals should have a problem with animal rights.

 

[Bern80]

It's hard to understand why conservatives are so angered at animal activists. Surely you guys aren't stupid enough to think that one day an animal will be voting, or earning a paycheck, or getting married. So on the assumption that you guys can't be THAT stupid, I think the only reason you guys hate animal activists so much is that they scare you. It's conservative nature to be scared by anything new or different. History is riddled with examples that prove this.

Would anyone debate that conservatives hate animal activists because they fear change or progression?

We don't hate animal activists. In fact I am one. I hunt and fish. And organizations I have participated in such as Duck Unlimted, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Ruffed Grouse Society (whose membership is predominantly other hunters) do a far better job at protecting wildlife and habitat then Green Peace or the Sierra Club does.

Some activists like those listed in the article and PETA for example do scare me (and annoy me). It scares me that people actually beleive they're helping animals. It is annoying that their position is so amazingly out of touch from reality and hypocritical.

 

[Shogun]

Peta really is nuts.

I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals like anyone else.. But, I'm also for the delectable eatment of animals too so...


I'd probably have more faith in the motivation of Deer hunters in their appreciation for the environment than most people at a peta convention.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sorry, Bern. I should have said "Animal Rights Activists".

 

[mattskramer]

All beings work for a reward (internal or external). If the consequences of what they do is not rewarding enough, the work changes or ceases. One can argue that chimps learn sign language only for the reward that they are given. One may argue that chimps learn to communicate because they learn that it is more rewarding. Likewise, don’t humans learn to communicate because they discover that communication is rewarding? Human babies cry until they are fed. Sometimes when they cry they are not fed (because the parent might not know what the baby is crying for). They later learn the word for food and find that it is more rewarding to ask for food than to cry. Sometimes they don’t (based on parenting skills).

Anyway, as Mark Twian once said, “Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to”.

 

[AllieBaba]

Chimps need to blush, too.

They're disgusting.

 

[watermark]

I see that in the American workforce that is at least mostly inhabited by humans. Cut off the rewards and I really don't believe the work will continue at least in a productive way. So far the American people have been genuine TROOPERS in the face of declining rewards. I wonder how long that will last?




Are you confusing forgetfullness with lack of compensation, wm? Even the monkeys figured that old con game out.

LOL.

Chimps have the mental capacity to understand language and communication. But they don't have the desire to do it. That's the main thing that makes us intelligent - our desire to communicate and share ideas with one another. Without that, we'd just be some random animal walking around with a big brain that died with us and never continued on.

 

[mattskramer]

Chimps need to blush, too.

They're disgusting.

The chimps don’t see it that way, therefore they have no need to blush. I could do embarassing things in the eyes of others. If I don’t see what I do as embarassing, I have no reason to feel embarassed. Peoples opinions of me are their own problems – not mine.

 

[mattskramer]

LOL.

Chimps have the mental capacity to understand language and communication. But they don't have the desire to do it. That's the main thing that makes us intelligent - our desire to communicate and share ideas with one another. Without that, we'd just be some random animal walking around with a big brain that died with us and never continued on.

I don’t understand the disfference that you seem to be trying to make. Chimps communicate in their own way with other chimps and animals. They find it requarding. They learn to communicate with us as we like because they find it very rewarding. Why do we communicate as we do? Why do we share Ideas with other people? It is because we find it rewarding (physically – as wee get food or egotistically – as we get recognition).

 

[AllieBaba]

Blech.

 

[watermark]

I don’t understand the disfference that you seem to be trying to make. Chimps communicate in their own way with other chimps and animals. They find it requarding. They learn to communicate with us as we like because they find it very rewarding. Why do we communicate as we do? Why do we share Ideas with other people? It is because we find it rewarding (physically – as wee get food or egotistically – as we get recognition).

That's it. Humans find it rewarding to communicate in a complicated sense. Chimps don't. Chimps can be taught complex language by humans IF THEY ARE REWARDED. Once they are put back into the wild they stop using it. 100% of the time.

If chimps did want to communicate effectively, we could talk to them, and wouldn't that make them, in a way, persons?