Should Dolphins be granted human style rights?
10 Jan '10 10:43http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html
These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
10 Jan '10 20:19 10 Jan '10 22:27Originally posted by CoconutWe're not in the XVIIIth century anymore.
One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.
Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
11 Jan '10 21:111 editOriginally posted by CoconutI agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.
One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.
Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
12 Jan '10 04:171 editOriginally posted by AThousandYoungI said the same thing in a round-about way.
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"[/b]
12 Jan '10 06:47Originally posted by CoconutYou said all that with a straight face ... I admire you.
I said the same thing in a round-about way.
What makes people "better" than animals and deserving of inalienable rights? Our superior reasoning, understanding, and responsibility. Therefore that's why we expect to have our rights respected.
If a dolphin could come out of the ocean, go to McDonalds, pay for a cheeseburger, go sit in the park and eat it ...[text shortened]... , then there could be an argument made that the dolphin has rights that should be respected.
12 Jan '10 06:502 editsOriginally posted by AThousandYoungAnd how would you test for that?
I agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.
The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
12 Jan '10 11:35Originally posted by CoconutHow do you know dolphins do not have a concept of rights? They have rights in their own community, same as most animals have a pecking order - they are developed rights, versatile and self-sustaining rights.
One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.
Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
12 Jan '10 19:19Originally posted by CoconutPeople are not better than animals. All people we know of are animals. But of course you probably mean people are better than non-people animals.
I said the same thing in a round-about way.
What makes people "better" than animals and deserving of inalienable rights? Our superior reasoning, understanding, and responsibility. Therefore that's why we expect to have our rights respected.
If a dolphin could come out of the ocean, go to McDonalds, pay for a cheeseburger, go sit in the park and eat it ...[text shortened]... , then there could be an argument made that the dolphin has rights that should be respected.
12 Jan '10 19:231 editOriginally posted by Bosse de NageThe whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.
And how would you test for that?
I would rather ask 'what would the rights of a non-human person entail'?
The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.
If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or r than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.
12 Jan '10 19:25Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect. In fact, ingesting McDonald's is a virtual guarantee of gale-force "chocolate rain" some 3-4 hours after said ingestion. However, not going to the bathroom after eating McDonald's should be awarded some sort of special prize, like a bronzed inalienable right affixed to a plaque featuring a thumbs-up with a caption that reads "Intestines of Steel".
People do not need to be capable of going to McDonald's without pooping!
12 Jan '10 19:28Originally posted by Bosse de NageARE ALL PERSONS HUMAN?
And how would you test for that?
I would rather ask 'what would the rights of a non-human person entail'?
The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.
If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or ...[text shortened]... r than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.
Back to Top