Real Talk: Should dolphins, certain whales, and specific great

>>2491687
>Should dolphins, certain whales, and specific great apes be granted "human rights"?
No. Increased animal rights, though.
>Should cloned separate species of humanity such as neanderthals, Indonesian hobbits, and even Australopithecus be legally considered people when science inevitably goes too far?
Yes.
>What are the bare qualifications for being a "race" that we are willing to have as we actively search the cosmos for said intelligent life?
Metacognition.

&humanities strikes again!

>>2491687
Yes. Also all nations with sea access should sign treaties with dolphins

>>2491750

Would love to see the ramifications of that.

>>2491802

> If black 'people' can have human right

Aw man, you were in quite the rush to post your /pol/ circlejerk

>>2491687
>Should dolphins, certain whales, and specific great apes be granted "human rights"?
No

>Should cloned separate species of humanity such as neanderthals, Indonesian hobbits, and even Australopithecus be legally considered people when science inevitably goes too far?
Depends on how intelligent the cloned specimens are, if they're intelligent enough to be at same level as modern humans then there is no reason to give them human rights but if in the other hand their intelligence is more chimpanzee tier then they'll do just fine without them.

>>2491737
meh, this is a fairly interesting question

No because animals have no soul and are not made in God's image.

They don't have an intrinsic value that we have.

>>2491916

What's "human level intelligence"?

Are people born with Downs Syndrome people?

>>2492032
eh, theyre people, broken people, but still people. So if a monkey can out-think a downy i think it should be protected

>>2492094

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

>>2492149
>crow

Isn't that bit overkilly considering that your average down syndrome victim can be outsmarted by a sea sponge?

Let's be real for a second.

The people who are going to be doing this shit are countries like Russia and China, where human rights don't exist for humans, let alone australopithicines.

It's a moot point

>>2492215

Um, how often do you talk to said people. I'm using them as example BECAUSE they're still, you know, capable of complex thought.

All life deserves basic respect. SAGE

>>2491750

how are they gonna hold the pen though?

>>2491737
Nah, this is a good thread. Save the booing for bait threads and religious bickering with creationist trolling.
>>2491687
>Should dolphins, certain whales, and specific great apes be granted "human rights"?
Not human rights but definitely more than less intelligent animals. They are demonstrably capable of suffering, having complex thought processes, communicating and learning and are self aware to a level. I'd say that's enough to treat them as worthy of respect and to not cause them hardship.
>Should cloned separate species of humanity such as neanderthals, Indonesian hobbits, and even Australopithecus be legally considered people when science inevitably goes too far?
Yes.
>What is the point in which we can no longer justify giving "human rights" to just humans?
The point when we recognize another species as similar to our standards of worthiness of protection of "self". That entails a lot. "Human rights" are not some pinnacle. Imagine coming across an alien species who are cognitively exactly like humans, but cannot suffer pain or injury and are practically indestructible. Would they need the right to life?

>human rights

The whole concept is retarded to begin with. Fuck off.

I think rights should also entice duties. If I don't want to be robbed, I shouldn't be robbing, and similarly, if I want money, I should be working. Receiving something without giving something in return is more a question of generosity, and therefore, the receiving end should be happy with what they get, and the giving shouldn't feel coerced to throw away something they own.

So, applying this "equality" argument, I don't think animals deserve human rights if they aren't able to fulfil human duties or obligations. If a crow can't grasp the concept of property (they keep stealing shiny stuff, disregarding if is a broken glass or a diamond), then they don't deserve to own property.

Ultimately, human rights aren't a full or thing package. A human who steal and murder loses (albeit temporary) his right to freedom, but is still a human who deserves to live a pain-free existence (for better or worse), therefore, even if they aren't human, some animals deserve the same things than some humans, either out of generosity from us, or because they earned it.

>rights
Very spooky post

>>2493397

> practically indestructible

If they CAN be destroyed, they have the right to life

File: 1486264249725.png (393KB, 360x416px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 360x416px

>>2491687
>human rights

>>2494275

ITT

> people who live in their basements and think they understand the whole world

>>2492094
Should the monkey be more protected than the down syndrome person? Should he have priority when it comes to healthcare and such?
Using intelligence as a measurement for the value of life is something I'm not particularly fond of

>>2495756
Also I want to add that there are a bunch of different intelligence types. How exactly do you measure that?

>>2495756
>>2495772

Pretty much my entire point when I said this:

>>2492032

>>2491687
>What are the bare qualifications for being a "race" that we are willing to have as we actively search the cosmos for said intelligent life?
the ability to ask a question independent of training (so apes don't count)

>>2491687
There is no physical separation between species. All life on earth is the same thing and organisms are all interconnected and interdependent.

Its very foolish to take the reductions of our naive minds as representation of reality when pragmatic truth says otherwise. Actually, that's the reason we are driving ourselves to extinction with the most of complex life on earth, lack of self-awareness.

>>2491687
Being able to verbally (or through any sentient-based complex communication system) advocate for your rights.
If we can have a discussion with the subject, about the subject's rights, it is worthy of having rights

>>2495846

What if we are unable to understand them, like dolphins?

>>2496298
But we are able to roughly understand baboons. And if our discourse partner put a sentient effort into trying to be understood, given enough research time, it would be

>>2496591
I meant to say we are roughlu able to understand dolphins, you baboon

>>2491687
>"human rights"
>"human"
>dolphins and apes
Don't do drugs kids

>>2491687
Only blacks and other minorities should behave rights.

Whitey has gotta pay for the crimes of his past.

And Neanderthals already exist, because they white.

>>2496637

K

You just want to fuck a dolphin, don't you OP?