Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

PETA's Greed....


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 fungi2bwith

fungi2bwith

    cat-monkey

  • OG VIP
  • 1,564 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:32 AM

Ran across this article, pretty sad...

 

"When an adorable photograph surfaced online of a monkey taking a selfie, it became an instant viral success. At the time that it appeared, no one could imagine that this cute picture would end up being the center of an expensive, and potentially catastrophic, legal case centering on the legal personhood of animals.
 
06042017-i9.jpg
 
     Wildlife photographer claims savings have been swallowed up in a legal tussle over monkey selfie After the picture of the black Sulawesi crested macaque first appeared on Wikipedia, the photograph David Slater protested claiming that it was his image. However, representatives put forward the case that the image was the property of the animal who had taken the pictures. The animal welfare charity PETA agreed with Wikipedia and put up the funds to legally represent the monkey’s interest. This resulted in the charity filing a suit against Slater when he used the now iconic image in his book about wildlife. According to a representative from the charity, the monkey is the creator of the work and is therefore entitled to all profits of the book.
 
  The case has been ongoing for quite some time now with numerous courts finding in favor of Slater. These judges have found that the law is quite clear – because an animal does not have a defined sense of self then it is incapable of expressing itself in an artistic rendering. However, PETA has refused to accept this decision to date and has continued pressing through the appeal courts.
 
  Representatives from PETA have stated that if the lawsuit is successful that the money will be used to support the preservation of the black Sulawesi crested macaque. They also claim that it will set an important precedent as “it will be the first time that a non-human animal is declared the owner of the property, rather than being declared a piece of property himself or herself.”
 
  Naturally, Slater is feeling very hard done to as a result of this exhaustive legal battle which he has claimed has completely decimated his savings. He has stated that he considers the image to be his property as it was he who traveled to the jungle and established a relationship with the animals which allowed him to get into proximity to them in their natural habitat. He also points out that he processed the image after the monkey took the wonderful shot.
 
  So who is the rightful owner? We’ll soon see." READ MORE: http://www.disclose....s_camera/139709
 
06042017-i4-726x1024.jpg

Edited by fungi2bwith, 17 July 2017 - 01:35 AM.

  • Sidestreet, Coopdog, Skywatcher and 2 others like this

#2 wildedibles

wildedibles

    Naturalist

  • OG VIP
  • 7,473 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:54 AM

What if the monkey dosnt wanna spend his money helping his kind ....maybe he just wanted to buy some good stuff and go to a concert ;)

but seriously seems like a waste of money and time to me why fight over this ....the money spent in court could have saved monkey habitat many times over
  • Sidestreet, Coopdog, fungi2bwith and 3 others like this

#3 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 7,591 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:30 AM

the money spent in court could have saved monkey habitat many times over

 

Good call, although I can see how PETA would be interested in litigating the concept of "personhood" for animals.  That would be consistent with a mission of promoting animals' rights.

 

We discussed this case in school... as I remember the photographer doesn't really hold the copyright to the photo because of the way that copyright law works.  In order to hold a copyright, the work has to be created "by or under the authority of the author."  17 USC 101.  The photographer didn't take the picture, and it's not as though he asked the monkey to take the picture.

 

If the monkey qualifies as an author, it's his/her picture.  Otherwise, there's no valid copyright. 

 

People are fighting over it because it's such a famous and therefore valuable piece of art.  If PETA hadn't gotten involved, I wonder if someone else would have tried to profit from the photo and a lawsuit would have ensued anyway.


Edited by Sidestreet, 17 July 2017 - 04:33 AM.

  • wildedibles likes this

#4 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • OG VIP
  • 9,869 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:18 AM

I give the photographer the authorship here.  Did he not set up the whole thing and process the film as well?   I will wait for the monkey to walk into a bank and open an account of its own accord before considering this case to have any merit whatsoever.   Someone wants to be this monkey's power of attorney?   Who the fuck are they kidding?  


  • Sidestreet, August West, Coopdog and 6 others like this

#5 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,735 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:46 PM

One of the ironies of this story is that the PETArds are ruining the livelihood of someone who had been making a living drawing attention to wildlife by photographing it, which tends to help increase people's sympathy for the animals' plight. I bet this all became possible because the photo was referred to as a "selfie."

 

But it was the folks at Wikipedia who were initially acting like a bunch of chiselers and disingenuous dipshits and who made the PETArd lawsuit possible.

 

He should counter-sue them to recover his legal costs at the very least. Both PETA and Wikipedia, that is.

 

 

And IIRC, Slater had NOT given or lent his camera to the macaque, so it seems to me that an argument could be made that if you (i.e. a human) wouldn't own the copyright of an image you took with a stolen camera then neither would a macaque (no matter how 'personable' he or she appeared in the photo).


  • Sidestreet, August West, Coopdog and 5 others like this

#6 CatsAndBats

CatsAndBats

    [^._.^]ノ彡 & /|\( ;,;)/|\

  • OG VIP
  • 8,468 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 02:29 PM

I never let "ma-caque" take pictures, "he" has a one track mind.   lol.png

 

 

 

 

Even though this whole thing is ridiculous and a waste of time (the lawsuit), it does remind me of animal intelligence and various tests to see if animals are self aware and/or how much different animals can reason.

 

List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test

screenshot.124-1024x567.jpg

The mirror test was developed by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr.1 in 1970 as a method for determining whether a non-human animal has the ability of self-recognition. It’s also known as the “mark test” or “mirror self-recognition test” (MSR).

When conducting the mirror test, scientists place a visual marking on an animal’s body, usually with scentless paints, dyes, or stickers. They then observe what happens when the marked animal is placed in front of a mirror. The researchers compare the animal’s reaction to other times when the animal saw itself in the mirror without any markings on its body.

Animals that pass the mirror test will typically adjust their positions so that they can get a better look at the new mark on their body, and may even touch it or try to remove it. They usually pay much more attention to the part of their body that bears a new marking.

screenshot.122-300x233.jpg

 

Even if an animal doesn’t pass the test, they may still have interesting reactions to their reflections.

Many species respond aggressively, or even show affectionate behavior. In such cases, it might be that the animal mistakes its reflection for another of its kind. This can lead to some amusing sights for human observers.

Humans are able to pass the mirror test when they are around 18 months old. But how do other animals fare?

Currently, 9 non-human animal species pass the mirror test. Not all individuals of each species pass, but many do. This list of animals that have passed the mirror test examines how each species responded during testing.

Asian Elephants

Asian elephants display a wide range of reactionary behaviors when they see their reflections in mirrors, and will respond to colored markings placed in-view on their bodies. However, not all of the elephants in a study2 by Joshua M. Plotnik passed. This might be because the normal behavior of elephants conflicts with what passing the mirror test requires.  “

The mark test can be difficult to apply across species because it assumes that a particular animal will be interested in something weird on their body. Primates are interested in such things—we’re groomers. But elephants are different. They’re huge and they’re used to putting things on, not taking things off of their bodies, like mud and dirt.” said Plotnik.3

The Great Apes

 chimp_mirror-300x218.jpg

 

Bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas have all passed the mirror test.4,1,5 However, it isn’t uncommon for many individuals to fail, especially if they are particularly young or old. In chimpanzees, there is evidence for self-recognition in about 75% of young adults.This percentage lowers with individuals closer to either end of the age spectrum.

Many gorillas have failed the mirror test. When shown a mirror, a number of silverbacks have exhibited aggressive behavior. It has been speculated that most of the gorillas and other primates who do not pass the test may have inhibited behavior due to the presence of observing humans.

“Ironically, it may have been the gorillas’ very capacity for self-consciousness that prevented them from exhibiting behaviours indicative of self-recognition in the test situation.”7

Additionally, gorillas will often avoid eye contact with their reflection. By avoiding eye contact, gorillas are likely not able to look at their reflection long enough to realize that it is themselves who they are seeing. Koko the gorilla, well known for having learned sign language and performing well in other cognitive experiments, was the first of her species to pass the test.

Bottlenose Dolphins

Bottlenose dolphins usually show extreme interest when they catch sight of their reflections. They will open their mouths, stick out their tongues, and make a series of novel movements while observing themselves in the mirror. When marked, dolphins regularly inspect the marking.8

Orca Whales

In a study9, orca whales were allowed to view themselves in a mirror. Afterward, they were marked, then allowed to view themselves in the mirror once more. Their behavior showed that they expected the image would be altered as a result of their being marked – a strong indication that they understand the image in the mirror is indeed of themselves.

magpiemirror2-288x300.jpg Eurasian Magpies

The Eurasian magpie is the first non-mammalian species to pass the mirror test.10 When contrasting colored stickers were placed on their feathers, the magpies reacted to their reflections by trying to remove the mark. Birds who were marked with invisible stickers showed no altered behavior.

Prior to this experiment, scientists believed that self-recognition abilities came from the neocortex, a part of the brain found only in mammals. Since magpies are birds, they do not have this part of the brain. Magpies passing the mirror test shows that the ability of self-recognition can arise from different brain parts in other types of brains. It’s a case of “convergent evolution”. This happens when similar abilities, behaviors, and traits independently evolve in species that are not closely related.

Ants

In 2015, scientists published research11 that suggests some ants can recognize themselves when looking in a mirror. When viewing other ants through glass, ants didn’t divert from their normal behaviors.

However, their behavior did change when they were put in front of a mirror. The ants would move slowly, turn their heads back and forth, shake their antennae, and touch the mirror. They’d retreat and re-approach the mirror. Sometimes they would groom themselves.

antmirrortest-297x300.jpg

 

The ants were next given a classic mirror test. The team of researchers would use blue dots to mark the clypeus of some of the ants, which is a part of their face near their mouths.

When in an environment without mirrors, these ants would behave normally, and wouldn’t touch the markings. But this changed when they could see their reflections in a mirror. The ants with blue dots on their face would groom and appear to try to remove the markings.

Very young ants, and other ants with brown dots that blended in with the color of their face didn’t clean themselves. Interestingly, neither did ants with blue dots put on the back of their heads.

When put in the company of those with blue-dotted faces, other ants would respond aggressively, presumably because the difference caused them to think the blue-dotted ant was an outsider (not a member of their colony).  All of this lead the researchers to conclude that the clypeus is a species-specific physical characteristic that is important for group acceptance.

Given that these ants tried to clean the mark rather than respond aggressively, the ants likely didn’t think their reflection was just another ant. The team thinks their study shows that self-recognition is not an “unrealistic” ability in ants.

Promising Candidates: Manta Rays

When it comes to fish, manta rays have the largest brains. This fact lead Dr. Csilla Ari to suspect that they might be the fish species most likely to pass the mirror test.12, 13 When she exposed captive manta rays to a large mirror, they showed great interest in their reflections.

The rays would repeatedly swim in front of the mirror, turning over to show their undersides and moving their fins. When in front of the mirror, they even blew bubbles, an unusual behavior. What the rays didn’t do is try to socially interact with the mirror image.

All of this suggests that the rays might recognize it’s themselves they’re seeing in the mirror, not another ray. However, a classic mirror test using marks on the rays’ bodies has yet to be done. If rays can pass a mark test, it’s a more solid indication of self-recognition abilities. The presence of exploratory behavior and a lack of social behavior doesn’t automatically indicate self-recognition.

Conclusion

If an animal can pass the mirror test, it’s certainly strong evidence of self-recognition, and indicates the possibility of self-awareness (i.e. a “sense of self”). However, it’s not definitive proof. And if an animal isn’t able to pass, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they do not possess these abilities.

For example, animals that rely on other senses more heavily than their vision may not take much interest in the sight of their reflections. Dogs, who recognize others mainly by their sense of smell, might quickly conclude that their mirror image is not of themselves or any other animal, because it lacks a corresponding scent. Furthermore, some animals may be able to recognize themselves in the mirror and see that they have been marked, but do not find the mark important enough to warrant touching or inspection.

 

Found here:

http://www.animalcog...he-mirror-test/

 

 

Or the Raven's ability to plan ahead:

 

Are people and apes the only ones that can plan ahead? Quoth the raven ‘nevermore.’
 
 

 

For centuries, we told ourselves that we are special — that what separates humans from animals is our ability to reason.

But that belief has been increasingly undermined given evidence showing apes also have the intelligence to use tools, solve complex problems and even plan for the future.

Now the latest indignity: Ravens can do it, too.

On a rural research farm in Sweden, working with birds he raised from hatchlings, cognitive zoologist Mathias Osvath recently taught five ravens how to use a tool to open a puzzle-like box containing a treat. He then put his birds through a battery of tests in which they had to choose the tool, despite the temptation of a more immediate goody with the box nowhere in sight.

The birds didn't bite. Only when the box was brought back did they use the tool they had been saving to secure the better reward — demonstrating self-control, advanced reasoning and planning.

“It’s not just the fact they have these skills independently. But to use them together to make these complex decisions, that’s what makes it so amazing,” said Osvath, in Lund, Sweden.

He compared his subjects' calculations to the sophisticated decisions that humans make daily.

“Say you’re planning a trip to London, and you know how often it rains there. So you bring an umbrella, even though it’s not raining now where you are. That’s what we are talking about here, planning based on past experience,” Osvath said.

His study — published Thursday in the journal Science — is the latest in a growing body of work from cognitive zoologists that is tearing down assumptions about the limits of animals’ ability to reason.

Some of the more recent work has built on a 2006 study by researchers in Leipzig, Germany, who used puzzle tests such as Osvath’s raven experiment to show that apes could use tools and do planning. But scientists working with birds have long suspected some winged creatures could match the intellect of apes, particularly the wickedly smart ravens, crows and jays — members of the corvid family.

Several studies tried to measure and document those birds’ cognitive skills, mainly by focusing on their obsession with hiding food. Some found that ravens hid their food more quickly if they thought they were being watched. In other tests, scrub jays even moved their hidden food to a second spot once they realized they were being watched, in an apparent effort to ward off potential thieves.

Corvid scientists contended such behavior proved some birds have a cognitive awareness of what others might know or intend, as well as the ability to plan for future consequences. Critics shot down such conclusions, saying the birds' reaction could be simple, instinctive responses to visual cues.

“It was a big argument, because it was difficult for some to imagine that birds could do these things, too,” said Thomas Bugnyar, a cognitive professor at the University of Vienna who has studied ravens for 20 years but was not involved in Osvath’s research. “People kept looking for holes or possible alternative explanations.”

Stepping squarely into the fray, the Swede set out to design a study to definitively prove the birds’ advanced abilities to reason.

Back in the mid-2000s, he had conducted some of the very studies hailed as proof of planning in apes. One of his most widely publicized (and amusing) reports, in fact, documented how a male chimpanzee at a Swedish zoo would leisurely collect stones and hide them in strategic places during early-morning hours just so that he could later hurl them at gawking visitors.

Osvath now hoped to do the same for ravens.

To conduct his experiment, he raised a group of ravens for five years. He witnessed their intelligence up close — playing games with them, watching as they developed complicated relationships with his graduate students. (One male raven particularly loved pecking his least favorite students on the head.)


One of five ravens that Osvath raised from hatchlings and taught to use tools. (Courtesy of Mathias Osvath)

Osvath had to modify the tool-based experiments he and others had conducted on apes, given birds' lack of opposable thumbs. Instead of the sticks or drinking straws used with apes, the ravens got small rocks as tools to open the boxy contraption. For their reward, he provided a juicy, meaty dog kibble that they seemed to love.

In the end, the ravens matched the primates in every respect. On tests in which they had to barter for their reward by trading a specific token, the birds outscored the apes and even outperformed 4-year-old humans.

In an accompanying perspective, two University of Cambridge cognitive scientists called Osvath's study “compelling evidence.” They wrote, “These results suggest that planning for the future is not uniquely human and evolved independently in distantly related species to address common problems.”

Based on past experiences, Osvath expects some people may be upset by his new study.

“When it comes to what animals can do compared to humans, there are those who cling to cognition as uniquely human,” he said in a phone interview, as his ravens squawked audibly in the background. “I think it has to do with religion, with this argument over whether animals have a soul or free will, and whether we are unique in the world.”

This obsession with human uniqueness, however, misses the entire goal of research into how animals think.

Speaking of Science newsletter

The latest and greatest in science news.

 
 
 

“Yes, we humans are incredibly unique beings,” Osvath said, “but if that’s all you focus on, you miss the wider question of cognition and its amazing place in nature. The real question of cognition is, how did all of us — humans and animals — go from just an accumulation of matter to beings with thoughts? That is one of the most astounding things in this universe.”

On that central question, he and others working with corvids believe their work poses major new questions given how birds and mammals went their separate ways on the evolutionary road some 300 million years ago. So did corvids and apes arrive at their sophisticated intelligence in totally different ways or based on similar factors and principles?

For evolutionary biologists, that and related questions loom large, with ramifications for everything from how intelligent life formed on Earth to whether extraterrestrial life might look or think like us.

“These are the real questions we should be asking about nature,” Osvath said. “Instead of just focusing on ourselves as humans, we should see ourselves as part of this world. If this study changes even one or two people’s minds about that, I will be happy.”

 

 

Found here:

 

https://www.washingt...m=.90bf5f9f26eb

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by CatsAndBats, 17 July 2017 - 02:32 PM.

  • Sidestreet, August West, Coopdog and 4 others like this

#7 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • OG VIP
  • 9,869 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:50 PM

If I were much younger, I would want to raise a young raven.   The ravens look for my peace offerings, but they are not quite ready to just hang out so much.   But, they are getting noticeably closer to it.   They sure are good at keeping their nesting locations secret.   I've never found a nest yet.  

 

Magpies are corvids too.


  • wildedibles, Skywatcher, Juthro and 2 others like this

#8 wildedibles

wildedibles

    Naturalist

  • OG VIP
  • 7,473 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:44 PM

I love playing with mirrors and animals or children for the first time it is sooo funny :) Hehehe yep look behind the mirror :) I find kittens love playing with mirrors but an adult cat really dosnt care ....dogs can be funny barking etc wondering why the other dog will not play with them ....then they usually start getting it sooner or later ;)

I believe animals should have rights I do believe they are closer to us then what we think they are ....we are not better then animals.....but I still say they guy that owned the camra and went into the jungle to get these animals to get used to him gain thier trust and prob try and help the animals with his book should have the copyrights to this image

I see it this way .....if a photo shoot was all set up for some models .....photographer has all thier camras and equipment etc ..... the modles are to be photographed for some comercial ....but instead the model grabs the photographers camra and takes a selfie ....if they use this image in the comercial it should not be the models "photo" it would belong to the company or the photographer that set it all up

next time the monkey needs to make a BNL 2017 sign and it should be ok :)
  • Sidestreet, Coopdog, Skywatcher and 2 others like this

#9 Redneckdork

Redneckdork

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:51 PM

Hey. Everyone be nice I am a proud supporter of PETA. There is nothing wrong with
People Eatting Tasty Animals!
  • Coopdog and Spooner like this

#10 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,231 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 07:36 PM

If a corporation can be a person why not another primate?  

We have chosen to redefine words in unproductive ways.


  • wildedibles and CatsAndBats like this

#11 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 2,715 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:17 PM

The shear mental retardation of our legal system and the scum known as lawyers knows no bounds. The idiocy of PETA, the seeming shrinking of conciousness awareness...

It seems that the world is quickly dividing into two spheres: one of expanding awareness, and another of shrinking. Almost as if the human species is about to bifurcate
  • fungi2bwith, wildedibles and Skywatcher like this

#12 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 3,243 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:27 PM

 

I never let "ma-caque" take pictures, "he" has a one track mind.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, if this is a picture of a macaque, there is a bigger issue at play. Forget copyright, this guy is trafficking in pornography.


  • Sidestreet and wildedibles like this

#13 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,735 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:45 AM

If a corporation can be a person why not another primate?  

We have chosen to redefine words in unproductive ways.

 

IMO any primate would be better-qualified for 'personhood' than a corporation, but this particular case is too messy to use as a precedent for such matters because it ultimately hinges on an intent that was projected into the actions of the macaque by the humans who filed the lawsuit(s). As such, this isn't a good test case for exploring how the Theory of Mind might apply to species that show varying degrees of self-awareness (it's ultimately a scientific question, not a legal one and even then it may be a question we are ultimately incapable of answering definitively one way or the other).

 

If a given species is shown to possess a level of sentience and/or self-awareness that would justify granting it more legal 'rights' in the sense that we apply to ourselves (e.g. the right to privacy, freedom of expression, etc.) then it raises the question of how we treat those species that don't make the cut. The implicit (and likely wrong) assumption in this approach is that we are actually capable of understanding the consciousness of other species well enough to make these distinctions in all cases.

 

I suspect that consciousness and self-awareness among species varies along a spectrum, so there won't be clear lines between "self-aware" vs. "not self-aware" (only degrees of relative consciousness and self-awareness). But the law doesn't like such ambiguity, so other species would start to be arbitrarily categorized as being worthy of increased legal protections or not. Imagine the absurdity of a cross-examination of a dolphin at a hearing to determine its (or his or her, rather) legal status: "Are you sentient and self-aware or not? It's a simple 'yes or no' question!"

 

Then there's the likely problem of the worsening treatment of species determined by a Court of Law to be insufficiently self-aware to grant legal protections to. The approach used in this case seems like a slippery slope to placing some species on a pedestal and treating them with greater empathy and compassion thanks to their greater degree of consciousness (as we define 'greater' and 'consciousness,' that is) while the rest are treated as mere objects to own or use or dispose of as we see fit. Which we mostly already do, though even now one can be charged with "cruelty to animals" for mistreating chickens. But in the future, if chickens don't make the 'self-aware' list then how could the concept of 'cruelty' apply to them anymore?

 

 

This kind of issue is probably ultimately insoluble, at least until our own species manages to achieve a greater degree of consciousness in general. After all, who the hell do we think WE are to be making such distinctions? We sure like to assume that we're the ultimate example of self-awareness and consciousness on this planet (if not the Universe, lol) but our hubris in that regard may be merely a function of our possessing opposable thumbs and a degree of abstract ruthlessness not present in other primates. Give dolphins hands with opposable thumbs or chimpanzees Type-A personalities and we'd likely be living a very different world.


  • Sidestreet, wildedibles, Alder Logs and 1 other like this

#14 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • OG VIP
  • 9,869 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 10:20 AM

41JF3NNB2SL.jpg


  • Sidestreet, TVCasualty, fungi2bwith and 2 others like this

#15 wildedibles

wildedibles

    Naturalist

  • OG VIP
  • 7,473 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 12:17 PM

I can see this issue as unsovable too but all this awarness of this issue Im hoping some money gets to the animals that need to be protected ...... but I feel more is going into the court system then the actual animals
  • Spooner and SteampunkScientist like this

#16 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 2,715 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:04 PM

Of course... In any modern conflict there are winners and losers... And lawyers are always the winners...
  • Sidestreet and wildedibles like this

#17 jkdeth

jkdeth

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 792 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:51 PM

Then also you must define self awareness. What behavior defines that? What behavior would indicate a lack of self awareness? We as humans have a bad habit of belittling things we don't understand.

I honestly believe that the group of us here could probably have a very interesting conversation of any of the topic points, but the legal debate is entirely about money and agenda.
  • wildedibles likes this

#18 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,231 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:06 PM

Of course if the primate was drunk and did not know what it was doing at the time, that changes everything (and nothing).


  • Sidestreet, wildedibles and Alder Logs like this

#19 wildedibles

wildedibles

    Naturalist

  • OG VIP
  • 7,473 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 July 2017 - 10:06 PM

Hey wait a min where was PETA when that little kid was dangeling thier feet in the water teasing the sea lion was it?? Maybe when they are done this case they can take the little kid to court over teasing the wild life .....

My Hubby says the picture is a fake he knows many people that cannot take a good selfie like that ...the picture looks too perfect ....

Edited by wildedibles, 18 July 2017 - 10:26 PM.

  • Sidestreet, Juthro and SteampunkScientist like this

#20 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 7,591 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:59 AM

 

if chickens don't make the 'self-aware' list then how could the concept of 'cruelty' apply to them anymore?

 

Even being ignorant of the self, I gotta assume that all living things still experience suffering to one extent or another.  The laws against animal cruelty are a sort of affirmation of that baseline. 

 

I don't think legal personhood is the answer, partly for the reason you mentioned.  Alternatively, we could expand the definition of "cruelty" to include many of the ways we allow livestock to be treated.

 

This whole legal battle is pretty ridiculous.  At times like these I try to remember that the court system, for all its flaws, arose as a healthier alternative to the previous method of resolving disputes over things of value: killing the shit out of each other.


  • wildedibles, Spooner and SteampunkScientist like this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!