Here's Barry stalking Judy just as he has for almost 20 years.

 Barry baby, you have lost it. You didn't bother to read Salyavin's comment. He 
had obviously not read the article, because his comment made no sense in terms 
of what was in the article. Anybody who read the article and read his comment 
(i.e., not you) would know that.

 That's OK; if he isn't interested, fine. But I do get to be disappointed, 
because I thought he (and others here who care about animal welfare) might have 
some thoughts on the issue. It has a lot of pros and cons, and I'd like to hear 
what folks think. I'm not entirely sure what I think.

 You need to come out of this make-believe world where you imagine every post 
of mine is looking for an argument. That isn't the case and never was. That's 
just Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy, an attempt at mind-reading on a grand 
scale, one of your many stalking tactics.

 And remember, according to you, you don't read my posts. I'm totally unworthy 
of your notice, and you have determined long since to ignore me and never 
interact with me.

 You make such an utter fool of yourself.

Barry fantasized:

 > More stalking, this one a perfect example of Judy declaring that she "knows" 
 > things that other people don't, and that her "knowing" cannot be refuted. 
 > Note that she's still claiming to "know" that Salyavin didn't read the 
 > article that she posted a link to (the Mortal Sin Of Not Reading Everything 
 > Judy Stein Writes Or Points Out). Note that she cannot even conceive of the 
 > possibility that he read the article and came to a different conclusion 
 > about it than she did. Note her attempt to jumpstart an argument she wanted 
 > to have that no one was interested in. 

 --- In, wrote:
> I was sorry Salyavin didn't read the article I linked to but simply dismissed 
> the idea of according "personhood" to chimps without knowing what was 
> actually involved. I thought there might be an interesting discussion about 
> the potential legal rights of chimps. 
> Trying are a couple of quotes that frame the issue in more 
> detail: 
> "With testimonials from experts like Jane Goodall, Wise makes the case that 
> chimpanzees have qualities that allow them to have the very basic legal right 
> not to be imprisoned. It’s not that chimpanzees are the legal equivalent of 
> human beings. Rather, the court filing...argues that chimpanzees are 
> enslaved, and that the courts already recognize that slavery is wrong: 
> "'This petition asks this court to issue a writ recognizing that Tommy is not 
> a legal thing to be possessed by respondents, but rather is a cognitively 
> complex autonomous legal person with the fundamental legal right not to be 
> imprisoned.'" 
> > 
> "Wise isn’t arguing that chimpanzees should be given the full rights of 
> humans, and that’s where this lawsuit begins to make sense. Whatever you 
> think of the cognitive abilities and emotions of chimps, I think we can all 
> agree that they are different from, say, chairs. They’re different from 
> cars. Treating these animals as mere property is simply wrong. 
> "We do, of course, have a class of persons in this country who don’t have 
> maximum rights but are more than mere property. They’re called 'children,' 
> and most of them have considerably less intelligence than a chimpanzee. So 
> there is precedent for extending legal protection to 'human-like' creatures 
> who throw poop and change the channel during the last two minutes of a 
> football game." 
> I wrote: 
> Tell ya what, Salyavin, read the article and get back to us, OK? 
> Salyavin wrote: 
> > Before you give rights to chimps you should work out if they are capable of 
> > understanding what is being offered. Anthropomorphism isn't any way to go 
> > about helping wildlife. 
> Chimps aren't people, they are chimps and they can't fit into our world in 
> the same way we couldn't fit into theirs. They aren't as "like us" as a lot 
> of people think. We should only extend personhood to people as they are 
> capable of learning a language and communicating their needs themselves, with 
> obvious exceptions. 
> ---In, authfriend@ wrote: 
> We're getting there. 

Reply via email to