Re: Do Apes Deserve ‘Personhood’ Rights?

[mg]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:41:57 -0400, Gary <w...@uvfn.com> wrote:

>
>Do Apes Deserve ‘Personhood’ Rights? Lawyer Heads to N.Y. Supreme
>Court to Make Case
>
>
Not according to the Bible:

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>
>
>Excerpt ---
>
>"Personhood' is not synonymous with 'humans.' It is not now and never
>has been," Wise told NBC News. "A 'person' is the law's way of saying
>that entity has the capacity for rights. A 'thing,' which chimpanzees
>are now, don't have capacity for any kind of rights."
>
>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do-apes-deserve-personhood-rights-lawyer-heads-n-y-supreme-n731431

[wolfbat359]

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 8:58:50 AM UTC-6, mg wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:41:57 -0400, Gary <w...@uvfn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do Apes Deserve ‘Personhood’ Rights? Lawyer Heads to N.Y. Supreme
> >Court to Make Case
> >
> >
> Not according to the Bible:
>
> Genesis 1:26
>
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
> let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
> of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
> every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> >

And it appears that animals may not go to heaven. If true, what a barren place Heaven seems to be! All you do everyday is to sit around God and be in awe of him!

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/do-animals-go-heaven

excerpt:

The plan of salvation is designed for human beings, not for animals. Since animals cannot reason and make moral decisions, they are not included in the salvation God has offered to humans. Jesus died to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV). We are saved through our faith in Him. John 3:16 (KJV) says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should nor perish, but have everlasting life." In order for one to be saved, one has to believe in Jesus. But animals cannot exercise saving faith in Jesus.

[GLOBALIST]

Abuse of animals is illegal in most states I think
Abuse of wild animals I think would be included in that.
I think most rational humans would say that animals
have a right to be treated humanely as in the Humane Society.
But since parents abuse their own children again and
again, starving them, locking them up, I almost think
that making the law punishing you for being inhumane
there is not alot more they can do.
I heard of some judges sentencing folks to cleaning up
a horse barn and feeding and watering other animals.
Community service working at the Humane society.

[rumpelstiltskin]

The nature of "faith" in the hands of persons who are
vicious by nature is to give such persons justification for
their ugliest instincts. Unsurprisingly such persons are
thereby drawn to religion. It's the most glaring aspect
of the history of religion. Recent examples on a
conspicuous scale are ISIS and the "troubles" in Northern
Ireland, but on less conspicuous scales the phenomenon
is so common as to be "routine", IMO, and as noted I
don't find that surprising.

[GLOBALIST]

Off topic but a good opportunity to fit
in another one of your I HATE GOD rants

[Z]

GLOBALIST wrote:
> Off topic

LOL! This from MISTER OFF TOPIC!

[mg]

In Abrahamic religions, at least, one gets a lot of credit for
simply believing and having faith and the more difficult the story
is to believe, it seems that the bigger the reward is for believing
and the bigger the punishment is, if you don't. I've always thought
that was odd.

If you or I were God, I don't think we would place such a high
premium on simply believing. If I were God, why would I care all
that much if people believed in me; that sounds like an ego thing;
it sounds like we have a God with an ego psychosis. It sounds like
we have a jealous, spiteful god.

If you or I were God, and I think most people would say the same
thing, I think we would place more of the emphasis on behavior
instead of spending eternity on a never-ending power trip.

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message
news:fc4bf975-95b6-43dd...@googlegroups.com...

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Here once again the Village Idiot shows that he the Village Idiot can spout
English gibberish as well as...if not better than...any other person in the
whole wide world! For one example, I just love the way that the Village
Idiot cannot at all consistently write in whole sentences but is instead
confined by goodness knows what to writing only in sentence fragments!

Yet once more, Village Idiot - exactly why are you with your clearly abysmal
English still in this country?

And of course - yet once more does the Village Idiot entertain us with
another Intellectual Coward ploy to run away from the issue of his lousy
English, of course with his tail ever so high between those legs of his,
back into that deep dark damp as can be hole of his under his rock!

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message
news:5447c4ff-0608-4de1...@googlegroups.com...

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

OHHH...just look at that lousy lousy English of the Village Idiot, who still
is in this country with that lousy lousy English of his.

OHHH...just look at that splendid performance of his Intellectual Coward
ploy by the Village Idiot to run away again from the issue of his lousy
English, of course with his tail magnificently held between his legs, back
into that deep dark dung filled hole of his under his rock!

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message
news:5447c4ff-0608-4de1...@googlegroups.com...

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

I just love the fun and laughs brought to us by the Village Idiot himself
when he the Village Idiot says of another:

"Off topic but a good opportunity to fit in another one of your I HATE GOD
rants"

After all, the Village Idiot has here time and time again proven himself the
Village Idiot to be master of the "Look here, not there" ploy.

And I just love to see the Village Idiot yet again perform for our
entertainment his Intellectual Coward ploy to run away from the issue of him
himself using over and over again his very own "Look here, not there" ploy,
of course with his tail well displayed between his legs, back into that deep
dark dungeon like hole under that rock of his!

[El Castor]

Whatever, lets give the apes a break.

[rumpelstiltskin]

It's odd from a human rational basis, but from the basis
of a religion struggling to survive in competition with other
religions, it's perfectly reasonable, just as it's perfectly
reasonable that a fluke that needs to spend its early life in
the brain of an ant, but then lay its eggs in the gut of a
bird, should direct the brain of the ant at the appropriate
time to make the ant to the top of a blade of grass, and
wave its forelegs in order to attract the attention of a
bird. That process isn't rational from the viewpoint of
the ant, but the ant is not in control of its own brain at
that point: the fluke is.

It's easy, of course, to extend that to "Why do Humans
have children, instead of continuing to lie in the park
chatting easily and smoking dope and playing music, as
they used to do when they were younger? The answer
of course is that we're not as rational - not as much in
control of our own destiny - as we think we are. Other
factors, which don't even have to be alive themselves,
are in control of us. David Eagleman notes that it's been
demonstrated that when we catch an unexpected ball
for example, we think "I meant to do that". Yet the
processes that result in the ball being caught take place
before any signal from out eyes could have reached
the parts of the brain that understand things and make
decisions. Our conscious mind takes the credit after
the fact, even though it had nothing to do with catching
the ball. That, I would say, is because that helps to
reinforce our sense of self, and that sense of self has
survival value. Hence we think that our "intentionality"
is more dominant than it really is. That illusion tends
to get conserved IMV because a strong sense of self
is valuable to the sense of personhood, and the
confidence that comes from a sense of personyood
seems to me clearly an asset to survival.

>
>If you or I were God, I don't think we would place such a high
>premium on simply believing. If I were God, why would I care all
>that much if people believed in me; that sounds like an ego thing;
>it sounds like we have a God with an ego psychosis. It sounds like
>we have a jealous, spiteful god.

Bertrand Russell once responded to someone who asked if he
didn't fear what "God" would do to him after he died because he
didn't "believe", roughly that "if it turns out that there really is a
being capable of creating this universe and all that is in it, I find
it impossible to believe that such a being would be offended
because Bertrand Russell does not believe in him."

>
>If you or I were God, and I think most people would say the same
>thing, I think we would place more of the emphasis on behavior
>instead of spending eternity on a never-ending power trip.

As the ghost of Enkidu said to Gigamesh, Do not trouble
yourself about the gods. Their concerns are not ours. Love
your children and tend to your fields, for these are the
affairs of men.

As a human I will condemn people such as Hitler for
their behaviour, but I understand that people are not
fully responsible for their own nature, and as a
creator-god I would realize that any deficiency in a
person, even in Hitler, was MY fault. As a practical
matter for living in society on earth, we do assign
blame for things to humans, but that's an error, though
an inescapable one if we hope to have a livable society
at all.

Of course if one believes in the popular (erroneous)
concept of "free will" then even as a god one could
condemn people. As Voltaire pointed out, though, "free
will" in the sense of a decision that is neither caused nor
uncaused is an incoherent concept. The only coherent
sense of the tem can be "freedom to act". As to "will",
Voltaire notes in that same essay that we "receive" our
thoughts and therefore our thoughts cannot in any way
be said to belong to our "will". Voltaire goes on
approximately "You ask me how thought is made in us
and I reply that I have not the slightest idea. I do not
know how thought is made in us any more than I know
how the world was made."

[mg]

Here's something from an Islamic point of view:

"The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Whoever keeps a dog,
his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat (a unit of
measurement), unless it is a dog for farming or herding."

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Angels do not enter a
house wherein there is a dog or an animate picture."

https://www.thoughtco.com/dogs-in-islam-2004392

[mg]

We humans are very easily manipulated and extremely susceptible to
propaganda, especially when there's a carrot and stick approach
involved and I would surmise that religion was the first institution
to discover this and develop effective methods to control the minds
of the masses. That was obviously followed by governments which
refined the techniques with the help of mass communications.

Speaking of government, I wouldn't be surprised if the time period
beginning with the turn of the century doesn't become known as
America (and Europe's) dark ages.

>
> It's easy, of course, to extend that to "Why do Humans
>have children, instead of continuing to lie in the park
>chatting easily and smoking dope and playing music, as
>they used to do when they were younger? The answer
>of course is that we're not as rational - not as much in
>control of our own destiny - as we think we are. Other
>factors, which don't even have to be alive themselves,
>are in control of us. David Eagleman notes that it's been
>demonstrated that when we catch an unexpected ball
>for example, we think "I meant to do that". Yet the
>processes that result in the ball being caught take place
>before any signal from out eyes could have reached
>the parts of the brain that understand things and make
>decisions. Our conscious mind takes the credit after
>the fact, even though it had nothing to do with catching
>the ball. That, I would say, is because that helps to
>reinforce our sense of self, and that sense of self has
>survival value. Hence we think that our "intentionality"
>is more dominant than it really is. That illusion tends
>to get conserved IMV because a strong sense of self
>is valuable to the sense of personhood, and the
>confidence that comes from a sense of personyood
>seems to me clearly an asset to survival.
>
>

It's easy for we Homo sapiens to glorify and exaggerate our virtues
and abilities because we have no competition. I suppose that we
probably killed all of our competition off during the evolutionary
process, or perhaps we eliminated them by genetic assimilation.

Is there such a thing as "free will"? Are you and I perennial
skeptics who will always fight brain-washing techniques because we
have, through reason and logic, determined they are based on lies?
Or, are we card-carrying skeptics because that's what we were
programmed to be by genetic factors and the environment we were
raised in and, are we therefore exercising our individuality and
free will only to the extent that Pavlov's dog exercised his?

[mg]

People love to be told that they're superior; superior to women,
superior to people of other religions (or people who have no
religion), or superior to animals, or superior to people of the
opposite political party and people always gobble that kind of stuff
up and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[mg]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:38:56 -0400, Gary <w...@uvfn.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:58:51 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
>

>>On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:41:57 -0400, Gary <w...@uvfn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Do Apes Deserve ‘Personhood’ Rights? Lawyer Heads to N.Y. Supreme
>>>Court to Make Case
>>>
>>>
>>Not according to the Bible:
>>
>>Genesis 1:26
>>
>>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
>>let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
>>of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
>>every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>

>I think that's the verse the early Virginians used to justify
>slavery :-)
>
>
Yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised. After all, a large part of the
fun in being human is knowing that one is superior to anything, or
anyone, that is different than we are.

[mg]

Setting cruelty to animals aside and changing the subject to cruelty
to people, I am disappointed, incidentally, by the lack of a strong
response of condemnation, by the Pope, to the wholesale killing of
Muslims. I read somewhere that about 4 million Muslims have been
killed since the "war on terrorism" began, yet the Pope has said
very little about it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

After we get the hang of creating robots, it should be easy to
construct a robot that believes in the divinity of "Jesus", and can
say so and defend the proposition.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:42:22 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

>We humans are very easily manipulated and extremely susceptible to
>propaganda, especially when there's a carrot and stick approach
>involved and I would surmise that religion was the first institution
>to discover this and develop effective methods to control the minds
>of the masses. That was obviously followed by governments which
>refined the techniques with the help of mass communications.
>
>Speaking of government, I wouldn't be surprised if the time period
>beginning with the turn of the century doesn't become known as
>America (and Europe's) dark ages.

I hope not, but it's a possibility.


<snip>

>It's easy for we Homo sapiens to glorify and exaggerate our virtues
>and abilities because we have no competition. I suppose that we
>probably killed all of our competition off during the evolutionary
>process, or perhaps we eliminated them by genetic assimilation.

I read lately that there's a lot of female Neanderthal
genetics in the Homo Sapiens genome, but no male
Neanderthal. There's a story behind that, it would
seem, if we knew it, though it's easy to guess at.

<snip>

>Is there such a thing as "free will"?

No, the concept just doesn't compute. It's a bit like
saying there's water that's not composed of
hydrogen and oxygen.

>Are you and I perennial
>skeptics who will always fight brain-washing techniques because we
>have, through reason and logic, determined they are based on lies?
>Or, are we card-carrying skeptics because that's what we were
>programmed to be by genetic factors and the environment we were
>raised in and, are we therefore exercising our individuality and
>free will only to the extent that Pavlov's dog exercised his?

Some of this and some of that, I'd say.

[mg]

To a large extent, I think it can probably be said that people
behave like robots. So, I don't suppose that it would be difficult
to program robots to act like people. If we program robots to think
for themselves, though, can we then program them to "believe" in
things? I dunno.

[El Castor]

Religion aside, apes are obviously our distant relatives. We should
lend them a helping hand. No more dirty cages in a zoo or experiments
with some half baked vaccine.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:05:30 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:20:36 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:48:23 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:

<snip>

>>>People love to be told that they're superior; superior to women,
>>>superior to people of other religions (or people who have no
>>>religion), or superior to animals, or superior to people of the
>>>opposite political party and people always gobble that kind of stuff
>>>up and swallow it hook, line and sinker.
>>
>>
>> After we get the hang of creating robots, it should be easy to
>>construct a robot that believes in the divinity of "Jesus", and can
>>say so and defend the proposition.
>>
>>
>To a large extent, I think it can probably be said that people
>behave like robots. So, I don't suppose that it would be difficult
>to program robots to act like people. If we program robots to think
>for themselves, though, can we then program them to "believe" in
>things? I dunno.

If we can get the robots to design new robots
per specifications they have determined from their
research are "optimal", then all bets are off.

[mg]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:18:33 -0700, El Castor

I totally, 100%, agree, but it's not easy to put religion aside.

[El Castor]

It is in California. (-8