Spain and it's apes

[Khayman]

Originally Posted by August

A mouse certainly has a highter state of self-awareness and intelligence than say an earthworm.

Based on what?! On your understanding of what constitutes awareness and intelligence? The earthworm is superbly adapted to be an earthworm, and a mouse a mouse.

[August]

Originally Posted by Khayman

Based on what?! On your understanding of what constitutes awareness and intelligence?

Yes. If Spain can get away with it then so can I.

[Khayman]

Originally Posted by August

Yes. If Spain can get away with it then so can I.

Damn! I know when I'm beat

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Think you misunderstood what it's about, AL. I think it is a safe assumption that a mouse is no creature with a higher state of self-awareness and intelligence.

Sure?
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/ge...277/277058.jpg

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Mean little devil inside me certainly likes religious conservatives boiling hot about this. May they boil forever

What's there to boil about? People are morons, that's about it. *shrug*

[TteFAboB]

Let's clarify then. I'm having trouble to synthetize this, if uninterested in my reply just skip to the last paragraph.

Arrogance and monopoly - To assume supporting this project and the Spanish law is the only way to protect Great Apes is a totalitarian lie. Because any protest, like mine for example, must mean I torture Chimpanzees in the morning and rape Gorillas in the afternoon. It leaves no room for opposition or dissent.

Look what's written into her international web-site (who pays for this? Her book selling? T-shirt sale? Who pays for the 9 international representations?):

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.
The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:
1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.
3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.
We encourage you to electronically sign the Declaration on Great Apes by filling out the following form and submitting it to our database.

It starts with moral exclusivity. Only members of this community of equals are morally right, everybody else is wrong. What's wrong with this, one asks. Well, open a history book of the last millenia and search for the characters who thought they had the monopoly of virtue. If I believe I'm right and she's wrong, I will die to assure her right to say what she says. On the other hand, she does not assure my right to be wrong, I am out of the community of equals, I'm not protected by the law, I will not be prosecuted on court or have a right of self-defense.

Point 2, Gorillas are not going to the voting booth, they are going to court, I wonder if the lawyer must be from their own species of if it has to be a human. Mockery. "Your honor, I'm representing Mrs. Cuddly Fluffy against Mr. Oonga-Boonga for sexual harassment". Humans have laws against stalking but Gorillas "chase" their females. Also, are we going to sue any Gorilla Female who rejects her baby and leaves it to die?

Point 3, can be used against her and the project. Who said Great Apes should be forced ("influenced", "inspired", "instigated") to play with children puzzles, learn sign language and live in confinement?! If a Great Ape could talk, and think, he'd send these kind of women to hell. They should have their individual liberty protected by law, except for those she studies. She can have them, she can own them, she can hurt them.

I have nothing against protecting Great Apes for their similarity with Humans, just like I have nothing against protecting Dogs for the simbiotical alliance they have with us. But that doesn't mean I will make Apes receive the same treatment granted to retarded children (an insult to Apes) or grant a priviledge to dogs over cats (lesser monkeys).

Where is her argument? Laws aren't protecting Great Apes? Where is the legal vacuum or breach? It's an international project so I am forced to accept no nation in the world has sufficient laws. As the Spanish law is only a "first step" to a "new age", what is necessary then? When will it be enough?

There ARE laws to protect them, there are enough laws all over the world to protect all animals, the ones with similar behavior and DNA to humans, but also snakes, lizards and dolphins.

Can't the granting of legal rights to Great Apes be used to own them? Won't people be able to own Gorillas based on the fact they follow the jurisprudence perfectly fine? When some Animal Protection gang takes this owner to court, can't he present a Video or bring the Gorilla to speak via sign-language that he loves the owner and wants to stay in his home forever? Won't this make the situation of Great Apes worse by shielding ill-intentioned owners? Can't a Gorilla legally work for a clown then, since he has the right to have a job? Perhaps this is what she wants? Perhaps she is far less ambitious and simply wants to own Orang-Utans in her home? Weimar's constitution was well intentioned, but it didn't prevent an ill-intentioned gang from using it's instruments not to prevent dictatorship, but to install it.

When we agree it's up to Humans to protect the Great Apes, we are attesting a superiority (arrogance) and a fundamental difference between us and them. Only we can protect them. They can't protect themselves from themselves or from us.

Well, then it is in the best interest of the Great Apes that human society doesn't degenerate into juridical chaos. Therefore, I am defending Great Apes more than her when I express ballistical concern with the possible problems that would arise from granting legal rights to Great Apes.

I say, Great Apes must be protected by the respect of the state for the animal protection laws. If an "owner" is doing any harm to a Great Ape, it's not the fact he must be legally treated like a retarded child that's going to change it, since there's alot of normal children being mistreated. It's the denounce or investigation, the police and the judge. If animal protection laws currently allow Great Apes to be tortured, the law must be amended.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Let's clarify then. I'm having trouble to synthetize this, if uninterested in my reply just skip to the last paragraph.

Arrogance and monopoly - To assume supporting this project and the Spanish law is the only way to protect Great Apes is a totalitarian lie.

The stocks of several great apes are declining or are already dangerously low. What has been done so far, and laws that already exist, obviously do not work.

Look what's written into her international web-site (who pays for this? Her book selling? T-shirt sale? Who pays for the 9 international representations?):

What is wrong in that organization maintaining a website to inform about it's intention, and raising funds to help it'S efforts by selling self-written books? Christian groups for example do the same.

I highlight some passages following:

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.
The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:
1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.
3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.
We encourage you to electronically sign the Declaration on Great Apes by filling out the following form and submitting it to our database.

What is wrong with that? You will not see gorillas at court for having robbed a house-owner in the night. Becasue they do not do such things. It is about, as said earlier, giving them the right to be treated good and not being subject of arbitary mistreating them, keeping them in small prison chambers.

It starts with moral exclusivity. Only members of this community of equals are morally right, everybody else is wrong.

Who is "else"? Earthworms? Canary birds? Doves? In general, it is not about human ethics versus that of an animal. It is exclusively avbout human ethics - an ethic that so far declares the right to treat animals as man wants, becasue he is so much superior.

What's wrong with this, one asks. Well, open a history book of the last millenia and search for the characters who thought they had the monopoly of virtue. If I believe I'm right and she's wrong, I will die to assure her right to say what she says. On the other hand, she does not assure my right to be wrong, I am out of the community of equals, I'm not protected by the law, I will not be prosecuted on court or have a right of self-defense.

Like in Guantanamo?
serious, you mess up categories here, and very much so. It is not animals ethics compared to man'S ethic. It is about man's ethic exclusively. And looking at history, one can argue that it is so much valuable and superior. I think you live too much by your imagination that equal rights for great apes means they will start to live like humans do, copy their habits, go to university, protest on the street and file a case at court when they are not happy with something. But that is not what it's about.

Point 2, Gorillas are not going to the voting booth, they are going to court, I wonder if the lawyer must be from their own species of if it has to be a human. Mockery. "Your honor, I'm representing Mrs. Cuddly Fluffy against Mr. Oonga-Boonga for sexual harassment". Humans have laws against stalking but Gorillas "chase" their females. Also, are we going to sue any Gorilla Female who rejects her baby and leaves it to die?

By trying to exaggerate you try to make it all look queer. But these apes live in their own environment, natural ressorts, forest, whatever. And there they live and behave like it is exactly adeqaute for these species to do. And this is what these new rights try to protct: their right to live like nature has designed them to live, in a natural environemnt, unharmed by humans, and without being mistreated in prisons. In your example you just gave you illustrate perfectly why it is necessary to protect them from human infringement: you "anthropologize" them, turn them into human man and make them subject to man-made rules, customs, laws and habits. But the whole project is not about seeing humans in them wearing a constant fur. It is about to protect their right to live in that way that is fair natural for them.

Point 3, can be used against her and the project. Who said Great Apes should be forced ("influenced", "inspired", "instigated") to play with children puzzles, learn sign language and live in confinement?! If a Great Ape could talk, and think, he'd send these kind of women to hell. They should have their individual liberty protected by law, except for those she studies. She can have them, she can own them, she can hurt them.

she does not hurt them, I'm sure. You have a valid argument with regard to Zoos, and I agree, most soos and sea worlds should be closed. Animals shows means tremendous stress for the animals, and it is impossible to make these ressorts huge enough that these anaimaly can live there under natural conditions. However, it is scientific research with great apes bein observed in learning behavior that has led us to the insights and understandings we have now. Withiout that, we would still see them as stupid animals that we can deal with and extinct to our liking. I saw films about gorillas and Orang Utans that are subject to behavioral studies at universities. While they were held in huge cages like in a zoo, nevertheless they were not mistreated, we are not talking about animalexperimants like the cosmetic and pharmazeutic industry are conducting. I also red about gorillas, two books. In America there is one gorillas which was tested with an altered, symbol depending IQ test for children. It showed that he compared to a 5 or 6 year old child, maYBE maybe even an older child. He had learned - with great pleasure, and obvious enjoyment to interact with his teachers - to use several HUNDRED symbols to communicate his wishes, demands, emotions, thoughts and intentions. By using symbols, he even was able to make jokes and oull his teacher's legs. He showed great interest in things he did not understand, and demanded them to be explained. Several hundred symbols is an already quite complex language code. And he was able to use these smybols to create new contexts all by himself. It is not like with this Scottish shepard dog that has leanred to associate the sound of a name with a certain toy, of which this dog is able to differenciate almost one hundred. He cannot use these association to talk independently. The gorilla can, and he can enter new thuinking ground by using this language and creating new questions all by himself.
Now, I tell this only toi illustrate what kind of research is done here. The setting is mostly that of playing games, and living in a shared "hoursehold". If an animal fits into such a setting like a small child does , and matches it's intelligence and awareness, and communicates in a language oy symbols ofg which it understand several hundred, than this is remarkable at least. SETI looks out there for foreign intelligent life. but it already is here. that raises the interesting question: how intelligent are we ourselves? Are we switching on a light to see if it is dark?

I have nothing against protecting Great Apes for their similarity with Humans, just like I have nothing against protecting Dogs for the simbiotical alliance they have with us.

so a life form that is of no use for you deserves no protection from human infringement?

But that doesn't mean I will make Apes receive the same treatment granted to retarded children (an insult to Apes) or grant a priviledge to dogs over cats (lesser monkeys).

Where is her argument? Laws aren't protecting Great Apes? Where is the legal vacuum or breach? It's an international project so I am forced to accept no nation in the world has sufficient laws. As the Spanish law is only a "first step" to a "new age", what is necessary then? When will it be enough?

There ARE laws to protect them, there are enough laws all over the world to protect all animals, the ones with similar behavior and DNA to humans, but also snakes, lizards and dolphins.

Can't the granting of legal rights to Great Apes be used to own them? Won't people be able to own Gorillas based on the fact they follow the jurisprudence perfectly fine?

When some Animal Protection gang takes this owner to court, can't he present a Video or bring the Gorilla to speak via sign-language that he loves the owner and wants to stay in his home forever? Won't this make the situation of Great Apes worse by shielding ill-intentioned owners?

This is exactly what gets tackled here.

Can't a Gorilla legally work for a clown then, since he has the right to have a job?

No, exactly the opposite. The law is protecting his right NOT having to work in a human job, in a circus, in an ape show, but live according to his own natural habits that nature has given him. Working as a clown, or living in an appartement (or a cage, for that matter), is not part of that natural design. Same is true for dolphins and Orcas, for example. any many other animals could be mentioned that just get subjugated to human interests. The law is the first attempt to question the superiority of these human interests. I think it will (and shall) not stop with just the four species mentioned so far.

Perhaps this is what she wants? Perhaps she is far less ambitious and simply wants to own Orang-Utans in her home? Weimar's constitution was well intentioned, but it didn't prevent an ill-intentioned gang from using it's instruments not to prevent dictatorship, but to install it.

From apes to Weimar. Now you get off the rails, don't you.

Then we agree it's up to Humans to protect the Great Apes, we are attesting a superiority (arrogance) and a fundamental difference between us and them. Only we can protect them. They can't protect themselves from themselves or from us.

the indians also were unable to protect themsleves from the white man. Does this make the white man'S doing morally superior? Was he acting in the name of a superior ethics? the law means that a status of superiority in using tools with two five-fingered hands does not strip other species of their nature-given right to exist and live in their natural settings and accopridng to their species-specific behavioral patterns without needing to be of use for us.

Well, then it is in the best interest of the Great Apes that human society doesn't degenerate into juridical chaos. Therefore, I am defending Great Apes more than her when I express ballistical concern with the possible problems that would arise from granting legal rights to Great Apes.

Well, it is also said that only the right for every citizen to own guns could make the country safe and keep crime in check.
And what juridical chaos here? you do not defend Great Apes. You want it to remain a voluntary affair how man deals with these animals, and if he happens to treat thembadly, well, then it is a pity for the apes. You do not want it to become binding and obligatory, and violations threatened by serious legal consequences. but all this interpretation of the law is leading too far already. The major function of it simply is to change man's attitude towards these animals, and not to see them anylonger to be existing only for his own interests and service. Western tradition in special has the unfriendly habit to think that all Earth is just for him and that he has the right to exploiut it and all life forms just as he likes. This sick attitude is what is adressed here.

I say, Great Apes must be protected by the respect of the state for the animal protection laws. If an "owner" is doing any harm to a Great Ape, it's not the fact he must be legally treated like a retarded child that's going to change it, since there's alot of normal children being mistreated. It's the denounce or investigation, the police and the judge. If animal protection laws currently allow Great Apes to be tortured, the law must be amended.

Nevertheless you say that great apes may be owned like things. the law questions that certain species can be compoared to other animals with lower degrees of awareness and abstract thunking abilities. For you a great ape is soemthing like a dog. Or a snake. Or a cat. They say, a gorilla is more than that. May have somethingto do with different stages of evolution.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

I say, Great Apes must be protected by the respect of the state for the animal protection laws. If an "owner" is doing any harm to a Great Ape, it's not the fact he must be legally treated like a retarded child that's going to change it, since there's alot of normal children being mistreated. It's the denounce or investigation, the police and the judge. If animal protection laws currently allow Great Apes to be tortured, the law must be amended.

Well spoken, I'ld agree with that.

[The Avon Lady]

Help reinstate Billy's rank!

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The stocks of several great apes are declining or are already dangerously low. What has been done so far, and laws that already exist, obviously do not work.

Where? In Spain? Germany? France? UK? USA?

If we're talking about Africa here, then unless Spain is planning to invade the continent and colonize a Great Ape region to enforce the law, it's only affecting Spain, and not saving any Ape in Africa at all.

I've had my go at Gorilla hunters once, I can absolutely guarantee you they will not listen to any law preventing them from making smoking "ash trays" out of Gorilla's hands. You go and try talking to them, but if you really want to stop Gorilla hunters, then take a mercenary militia with you and make your point with a Katana blade, no law in Europe or polite discussions will stop them, and even if you passed such a law in Africa, there's no one and no infrastructure to enforce it most of the time. When it's not massive corruption, it's chaos and anarchy. A law is no good if it's just ink on a piece of paper.

What is wrong in that organization maintaining a website to inform about it's intention, and raising funds to help it'S efforts by selling self-written books? Christian groups for example do the same.

Just being carefull here. Discovering the financial network behind a project can be quite revealing. I don't know how much it costs to maintain that web-site or how much money is raised by the project itself, but I would really like to know if it's self-maintained or if there's somebody else behind it, and if so, who it is. There may be nothing, or not.

I highlight some passages following:
(...)

Who is "else"? Earthworms? Canary birds? Doves? In general, it is not about human ethics versus that of an animal. It is exclusively avbout human ethics - an ethic that so far declares the right to treat animals as man wants, becasue he is so much superior.

Agreed. Your point is: That's wrong because it allows, well, wrong doing. My point is: Indeed, but who said we should impose positive rights on Apes? One thing is making sure they aren't being destroyed in Africa, another thing is making potentially problematic legal demands in Europe.

Like in Guantanamo?
serious, you mess up categories here, and very much so. It is not animals ethics compared to man'S ethic. It is about man's ethic exclusively. And looking at history, one can argue that it is so much valuable and superior. I think you live too much by your imagination that equal rights for great apes means they will start to live like humans do, copy their habits, go to university, protest on the street and file a case at court when they are not happy with something. But that is not what it's about.

Good, then let me know what it is about, maybe it's just a way of demonstrating our superiority by recognizing the human-similarity of Great Apes through our legal system then. If only she knew there are far more simple ways to do that, and our legal system shouldn't be some sort of inter-species justice court for us to cry over spilled milk nor a recognition hall for special species.

By trying to exaggerate you try to make it all look queer. But these apes live in their own environment, natural ressorts, forest, whatever. And there they live and behave like it is exactly adeqaute for these species to do. And this is what these new rights try to protct: their right to live like nature has designed them to live, in a natural environemnt, unharmed by humans, and without being mistreated in prisons. In your example you just gave you illustrate perfectly why it is necessary to protect them from human infringement: you "anthropologize" them, turn them into human man and make them subject to man-made rules, customs, laws and habits. But the whole project is not about seeing humans in them wearing a constant fur. It is about to protect their right to live in that way that is fair natural for them.

Yes, glad you can take a joke. It seems the Humour Guide for dummies, I mean, Germans, has been expanded at last.

Now, where the hell did you take all of that from?! I've searched the Great Ape Project page and that's definitely not the impression I got. I'll suggest they hire you as their Public Relations Manager. You can certainly express not only the message, but the ideal intention far better than they can.

Either that, or, let's say, the Great Ape Project is not exactly what it looks like.

she does not hurt them, I'm sure. You have a valid argument with regard to Zoos, and I agree, most soos and sea worlds should be closed. Animals shows means tremendous stress for the animals, and it is impossible to make these ressorts huge enough that these anaimaly can live there under natural conditions. However, it is scientific research with great apes bein observed in learning behavior that has led us to the insights and understandings we have now. Withiout that, we would still see them as stupid animals that we can deal with and extinct to our liking. I saw films about gorillas and Orang Utans that are subject to behavioral studies at universities. While they were held in huge cages like in a zoo, nevertheless they were not mistreated, we are not talking about animalexperimants like the cosmetic and pharmazeutic industry are conducting. I also red about gorillas, two books. In America there is one gorillas which was tested with an altered, symbol depending IQ test for children. It showed that he compared to a 5 or 6 year old child, maYBE maybe even an older child. He had learned - with great pleasure, and obvious enjoyment to interact with his teachers - to use several HUNDRED symbols to communicate his wishes, demands, emotions, thoughts and intentions. By using symbols, he even was able to make jokes and oull his teacher's legs. He showed great interest in things he did not understand, and demanded them to be explained. Several hundred symbols is an already quite complex language code. And he was able to use these smybols to create new contexts all by himself. It is not like with this Scottish shepard dog that has leanred to associate the sound of a name with a certain toy, of which this dog is able to differenciate almost one hundred. He cannot use these association to talk independently. The gorilla can, and he can enter new thuinking ground by using this language and creating new questions all by himself.
Now, I tell this only toi illustrate what kind of research is done here. The setting is mostly that of playing games, and living in a shared "hoursehold". If an animal fits into such a setting like a small child does , and matches it's intelligence and awareness, and communicates in a language oy symbols ofg which it understand several hundred, than this is remarkable at least. SETI looks out there for foreign intelligent life. but it already is here. that raises the interesting question: how intelligent are we ourselves? Are we switching on a light to see if it is dark?

Thanks, but you don't need to impress me about Great Apes. I've been to some African countries where they were present in their natural habitat. No, I don't go reading every scientifical study or book about them, but interaction can be quite enlightening anyway. I know how impressive and special they are and I don't propose we shut down every single research facility because indeed, it's justifiable to study some specimens if we are to understand, discover and research more about the entire species or what's left of it.

However, I believe what's truly special about a Scottish shepard dog isn't really in his analytical intelligence or lack of thereof, but let's say, it's in the metaphysical realm.

I still believe it's an insult to praise Gorillas because they do like human children or a little better. They're adult individuals by the time they take these tests or play with these activities, congratulations, but if that's fantastic, it is such on its own, and not because a human child can do it too. What we believe them to be does not change their nature, afterall, they continue to be as fantastic living in the nature without taking any tests or playing with any toys.

so a life form that is of no use for you deserves no protection from human infringement?

That's a good question. And it depends heavily on the case at hand, self-defense (and self-preservation) aside obviously, because then it's already decided.

The biggest problem with that question is figuring which life form is of no use to me. Rats? Roaches? General nasty insects? Australian Cane Toads? Birds that don't know they should wait untill 6:00AM to start their ludic mellody instead of prematurely starting the party 4 or 5AM?

I abstain from making that judgement because I simply don't know. I couldn't decide which life form is of no use to me even if I wanted to, because I actually know in the end they're all part of the same ecosystem, and unless I want to eat lab-made fake Dutch meat, I better not mess with the wildlife, from apes, to birds, to insects, to grass. They're all extremely usefull and each is special on their own merits to me.

[snipped long clarification I agree with but don't know where it was taken from, as I reach different conclusions from this project]

From apes to Weimar. Now you get off the rails, don't you.

Don't worry, while you continue on track I'll stay behind and make sure everything's still in order for the next train to pass by safe and sound, send me a post-card, will you? I've never been a Boy Scout, but I suppose I'd have made a fine one: always alert!

the indians also were unable to protect themsleves from the white man. Does this make the white man'S doing morally superior? Was he acting in the name of a superior ethics? the law means that a status of superiority in using tools with two five-fingered hands does not strip other species of their nature-given right to exist and live in their natural settings and accopridng to their species-specific behavioral patterns without needing to be of use for us.

That's correct. This is simply not the impression I have from this project and thus don't believe it's on the right or desirable track.

Well, it is also said that only the right for every citizen to own guns could make the country safe and keep crime in check.
And what juridical chaos here? you do not defend Great Apes. You want it to remain a voluntary affair how man deals with these animals, and if he happens to treat thembadly, well, then it is a pity for the apes. You do not want it to become binding and obligatory, and violations threatened by serious legal consequences. but all this interpretation of the law is leading too far already. The major function of it simply is to change man's attitude towards these animals, and not to see them anylonger to be existing only for his own interests and service. Western tradition in special has the unfriendly habit to think that all Earth is just for him and that he has the right to exploiut it and all life forms just as he likes. This sick attitude is what is adressed here.

That's because I don't believe in laws that can't be followed or enforced. And useless laws discredit the entire judiciary system, it will not be easy to enforce a prohibition on Gorilla scavenging in Africa because for too many decades some regions have been completely outlaw and crimes totally unpunished, the laws do exist on some countries anyway. And here we are again. Africa. I still don't understand how legal rights in Spain will do anything for Africa, maybe they took Morocco back recently and there's a population of Great Apes there that will benefit from it.

I insist that laws already exist and could be amended to specify crimes against Great Apes, making them special there if such a recognition makes everybody feel warm and cuddly inside, and just in case any vacuum exists, set serious legal consequences for the crimes. If anyone is voluntary, it's her with the idea we must seek our moral enlightenment and enter a new age.

Nevertheless you say that great apes may be owned like things. the law questions that certain species can be compoared to other animals with lower degrees of awareness and abstract thunking abilities. For you a great ape is soemthing like a dog. Or a snake. Or a cat. They say, a gorilla is more than that. May have somethingto do with different stages of evolution.

And how can I contest that? If the point is making a natural reserve in Africa where they can survive unharmed, then they are free to roam and exercise their different stage of evolution, but since they can't call the park Ranger and ask for a plane ticket to Spain to visit a friend they met on the internet, I suppose they simply changed hands from one owner to another. They are now under the guard of the reservation, they're not property, but they don't have any citizenship or any passport.

This is what it comes down to. Great Apes live in Africa, then Africa is where it's at. I don't see how recognizing the Great Apes difference from dogs, snakes and cats by granting them legal rights elsewhere will allow them to live peacefully in their natural habitat. How many Great Apes live in Spain anyway? Perhaps Euskadi could be turned into a natural reservation.

I'm interested in the well-being of the Great Apes as much as you are, that should be clear. I am cautious as I suspect the same trend seen with other militant groups could be repeated with something like this. Today we recognize Great Apes are different from snakes, however nothing changes, Great Apes continue to die into extinction, so tomorrow we demand they become subject to Human Rights, and there's the juridical chaos.

Considering the symbology of chess, you are the Impetuous Gallant Teutonic Knight, I am the Sagacious Tower. I merely stand here with my awareness and guard raised up, afraid this woman happens to be an evil Witch disguised as our Queen, using our own Peasants against us.

[August]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Considering the symbology of chess, you are the Impetuous Gallant Teutonic Knight, I am the Sagacious Tower. I merely stand here with my awareness and guard raised up, afraid this woman happens to be an evil Witch disguised as our Queen, using our own Peasants against us.

That is DEEP man!

[Rockstar]

Has anyone bothered asking the gorilla?

Finally a species who will listen without questioning or complaint what someone else thinks is good for him.

Send'em back to the jungle and let swing from his favorite tree and eat his bananas.

[STEED]

Not long to wait before these stupid Humans blow them selfs up, and we take over the planet.