Granting Legal Rights for non-humans. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: JohnnyGringo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 03:00:38 pm
content: Fromhttp://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/12/lawsuits-could-turn-chimpanzees-legal-personsQuoteEDIT: Sorry for the misspellings in my poll. English is my only language. Poll allows for multiple responses.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 03:20:37 pm
content: You need to add the sixth option... "Only in America"

author: JohnnyGringo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 03:38:08 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on December 10, 2013, 03:20:37 pmDone!!

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 03:45:21 pm
content: All polls need an option that says "I'm Apathetic"

author: JohnnyGringo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 03:49:41 pm
content: Quote from: peter.mitchell on December 10, 2013, 03:45:21 pmDone!!

author: Mr Smiley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 05:08:43 pm
content: Should there not be a common sense option connected to the original question; perhaps a 'Yes' and 'No' are the maximum required options, otherwise this is a nonsensical set of answers belittling the question.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 05:25:17 pm
content: First thing they should do it phase out or at least tightly regulate factory farming. They're the leading abuser of animals and what they're doing (dirty environments and misuse of antibiotics that cause development of antibiotic resistant bacteria) isn't very good for people either.

author: JuKu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 05:50:53 pm
content: Freely quoting Asimov: "Anybody who understands the concept and can defend himself in court, should be granted the rights."

author: JohnnyGringo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 06:40:33 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Smiley on December 10, 2013, 05:08:43 pmYes, this is a rather whimsical poll. And as a rabid advocate of "all creatures deserve to live their life" (with few exceptions, i.e. mosquitoes. God wasn't paying much attention when he invented those pests), this does (for me) give rise to some serious ethical questions.Although the phrasing is a bit light-heated, I was hoping to generate some serious discussions on this topic. I respect all opinions, except my own.What *rights* will we grant to visitors? (domestic and extraterrestrial - if or when contact is made)When does a sentient being stop becoming just an animal and deserve the right to live their life as they choose?

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 06:45:21 pm
content: While people find it easy to bullshit themselves and others the reality is all genes are selfish and rights are not given but exchanged.When it comes to granting rights to anything the main consideration should be what rights the thing is able and willing to grant you.Should, but, usually isn't because many people are too dumb to understand what their instinct, emotions, and social conditioning is telling them and why.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 06:52:21 pm
content: Quote from: JuKu on December 10, 2013, 05:50:53 pmThis is a good argument for when theydotry to argue for their rights - at that point, they deserve them. It doesn't work the other way around, though. Even people who are unable for some reason to defend themselves in court have human rights.I don't really know where I stand. On one hand, yeah, it seems pretty silly to declare chimpanzees to be legal persons. On the other hand, just about any argument I have heard or can make against chimpanzees' "human" rights is either illogical, or could also be used against other groups who we do generally agree deserve personhood, such as the mentally ill. (On the gripping hand, the severely mentally ill can often be put under protection "for their own good" whether they like it or not... so, yeah.)Perhaps the dichotomy of "person" vs. "not person" is what is at fault? Most people don't really use them in their own personal scale of morals - for instance, humans (obviously) have full human rights; dogs and cats have to be treated with at least some manner of respect, and many agree that spiders can be flattened underfoot at will. For bacteria, sweeping genocide becomes acceptable.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 07:11:18 pm
content: Some spiders have more personality than some people I have met. I will admit that anything that is self aware ( can recognise the object in a mirror is themselves for a simple case) deserves to be classed as intelligent and needs to have rights. As well responsability for those capable of knowing the consequences of their actions. Corporations do not have this, and really do not need any rights. If they cause death the death penalty is good for them, dissolve then into parts and never allow them to join up again.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 08:06:08 pm
content: If monkeys want rights, they can grant each other.Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

author: M0BSW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 08:34:09 pm
content: And don't forget all those crazies walking around hi on ketamine, and thinking ET has abducted them, do they need rights

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 11:39:45 pm
content: In the USA, minors has less right until they become an adult. This was ruled acceptable by the USA supreme court on multiple occasions. Otherwise, a mom cannot keep her 5 year old home because he would "have the right and thus the freedom" to spend the night in the park.So, even as it is today, not all persons has full rights. The persons' ability to make proper judgement and decision IS part of the requirements for having the right of person-hood.Comparing animals to corporation is not a good example. Corporations are made with people - those people owning the stocks or the owning company. That group of people has the right to own property, right to make an opinion, right to have a bank account... Corporate right is just the consolidated rights of the people owning the corporation - something that the people already have that they choose to share.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2013, 11:53:24 pm
content: "What is being questioned here is not whether animals have rights, it's whether humans accept or reject the rights animals already have."Psi, 2013

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 12:11:08 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 10, 2013, 11:53:24 pmChoosing to accept it is very different than affirming that in our laws. Human-person's rights were clearly affirmed in our Constitution which states "We The People..." It did not say "The the Living Organisms..."Besides, why animals only? An apple tree is as alive as the dog pee-ing on it's roots.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 12:16:32 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 11, 2013, 12:11:08 amRight. I never understood vegetarians that ate plants because they didn't want any animals harmed. Well, who the Hell says you should harm a plant?

author: johnboxall
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 12:17:20 am
content: I don't think so - remember "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" and the following movies? That didn't end well.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 12:18:40 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 11, 2013, 12:11:08 amWe have no evidence that an apple tree can feel pain and suffering. A dog, however, reacts to the same things that cause us pain in much the same way, so while we can't truly know for sure, it's quite reasonable to think it might.

author: smashedProton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 01:01:02 am
content: I think that legal rights should come after you have given something moral responsibility. We dont sentence dogs to prison because we say that they aren't responsible for their actions, their owners are. As a society women were given legal rights shortly after society allowed them to have moral responsibility. Aliens should have legal rights, unless they are alien sheep. And corperations shouldn't have legal rights because there would be nobody to hold responsible.

author: deth502
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 01:06:58 am
content: i think losers that spend their lives fighting to protectanimalswhilepeopleare being tortured, starving, and dying needlessly should have all their rights stripped from them.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 01:22:57 am
content: Animals have had plenty of time to organize and get themselves off the menu. Either they are too bloody apathetic to care (and if being butchered and roasted are not enough motivation then I just don't know what is) or they are just animals.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:31:03 am
content: Quote from: deth502 on December 11, 2013, 01:06:58 amThere are always things left to improveOne of my designs is used for a new method to stun chickens individually before they are killed (new EU rules). The current method attempts to stun chickens in small batches but that doesn't always work too well and it is also affecting the quality of the meat. So +1 for the 'losers' fighting for animal rights. Puts meat on my diner table

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:36:54 am
content: Quote from: deth502 on December 11, 2013, 01:06:58 amIn other words, why are you on an electronics forum when you could be finding the cure for cancer?If we all fight for the same thing, all of humanity will eventually achieve exactly one thing.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:43:49 am
content: They have to the right to be my dinner.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:56:53 am
content: There is a legal precedent:Monkey tried and hanged for being a spy.

author: deth502
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:59:52 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on December 11, 2013, 02:36:54 amno, its not the same thing at all. if you think that, then you have obviously never dealt with any of these "animal rights" psychos. these zealots get to be of the mentality of being not only willing, but would prefer killing humans to protect animals. im not talking about ppl like the aspca members, but those arent the one who are psychotic enough to start these lawsuits. its the peta's and the other like animal rights "terrorists" that bring these things to court.dont get me wrong, im not for torturing animals, but you damn well better believe that im going to eat them. and id never put an animals safety before that of a humans.

author: JohnnyGringo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 03:42:18 am
content: But all in all, lot's of good posts here. I was really interested and am fascinated by the diversity of opinions.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 03:50:00 am
content: Quote from: deth502 on December 11, 2013, 01:06:58 amIt may sound like a paradox (at least until you really understand it), but if factory farming were phased out, there would be more food to go around. A win for the animals and for the people.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 03:51:19 am
content: Quote from: Fsck on December 11, 2013, 02:43:49 am

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 04:39:34 am
content: Quote from: deth502 on December 11, 2013, 02:59:52 amThose kind of people are that way because they have seen, in person, so many animals being subjected to pain and suffering at the hands of people. They have been effected mentally and lost hope for humans.The fact the all this suffering is breaking people like that should be a wakeup call to what's going on behind closed doors.Sadly the general public do not get to see it because they're shielded by modern society.For example, buying clean prepackaged meat from the supermarket vs killing the animal themselves.Or buying cosmetics from a store vs having to test chemicals on animals themselves.Killing an animal on live TV creates outcry from people who then buy meat from the supermarket.Personally i have much more of a problem with people who could never kill an animal themselves because they would consider it "unkind" or "wrong" but still buy meat from the supermarket.Compared to someone who goes out hunting and kills+eats the animal themselves.

author: cwalex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 04:51:19 am
content: India has officially recognized dolphins as non-human persons.http://www.dw.de/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519I like the idea "non human persons"Peace O0

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 05:30:54 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on December 10, 2013, 06:45:21 pmShark reading you your rights:-"You have the right to be eaten."

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 05:49:51 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 11, 2013, 04:39:34 amMy problem is people who don't eat what they hunt.I watched a youtube video the other day about a woman who has a self-sustaining farm and people bring her chickens that they bought to have fresh eggs that have stopped producing, because they can't bear to go through the process of getting the chickens ready for the oven.She took the chicken out of the cage and held it for several minutes stroking it gently and talking softly to it as it seemed to sort of doze off and then she started tapping on its neck with her fingers for about 15 seconds until it got used to it and dozed off again. She then inverted the chicken so its head was hanging down and continued to talk softly to it and then quickly cut the jugular with a sharp knife and held it continuing to talk softly to it and stroke it while it drifted away. When it lost consciousness, she gave the neck a quick twist. She got a little emotional afterwards and said that she knows she did everything she could to make sure it suffered as little as possible but still feels bad each time.She said that she won't buy store bought meat though because she has no control over how the chicken was treated or killed and doesn't feel right buying it.Afterwards she went through the process of cleaning the chicken and getting it ready for cooking later.They had a link to a website about people who life a self sustaining lifestyle and I learned quite a bit about raising chickens that day.One person had pointed out that he saw "vegetarian raised" chicken eggs for sale at the store and he said in his opinion that is a cruel way to raise a chicken because chickens enjoy chasing and catching bugs and feeding them grass and corn is no different than what happens at the large scale chicken farms.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:03:34 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on December 11, 2013, 05:49:51 amAgreed, that really annoys me too.Going out hunting for sport/enjoyment is not all that different to buying meat to enjoy the flavor though,It's still killing for fun.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:38:54 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 11, 2013, 06:03:34 amAs a kid I had a cousin who shot a small bird with a pellet gun and his parents found the bird and put it on a plate in front of him and said "You have the option of eating this bird or not eating today." And he chose to not eat that day.They actually did make dinner for him later that day but wanted him to at least skip one meal so that he'd think about the difference between killing for food and killing just for sport.

author: cwalex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:49:55 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on December 11, 2013, 03:50:00 amAnimals australia have a campaign called Make it Possiblehttp://www.makeitpossible.com/They just released some radio ads in australia with the goal of getting people to pledge to stop supporting factory farming.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 10:44:04 am
content: If you're going to talk about rights, there's several things that actually are important. Compared to 'rights' of relatively non-sentient animals like cows and chickens, which are non-issues. Animal cruelty should be dealt with as a separate issue.Here's what I think should be urgent priorities:1. Abolish corporate personhood. Granting that in the first place was one of the worst mistakes humankind ever made, only slightly behind fission power plants and depleted uranium munitions. Sure corporations are composed of people, BUT the actual legal entity of the corporation is legally defined to have no objective but to maximize profit for the shareholders. This means it's _forced_ to have no human sensitivities, even if it could. So corporations are immortal, heartless Frankenstein creatures, by design and by nature. And they're destroying the planet, ruining countless lives, wrecking societies and cultures, polluting... oh and also are directly responsible for most of the animal suffering in factory farming.Every business operation should be directly the responsibility and liability of specific real living persons.2. Define 'personhood' (that results in rights) as existing in any creature with quantifiable levels of intelligence and self-awareness. That takes care of dolphins, whales, higher chimps & gorillas, some birds, octopus, etc.Ha ha... and it wouldn't hurt to set the bar a little high, so morons like most of the US Congress would fail the personhood test. A squid could beat a lot of those guys.Might also have an interesting side effect - ETs (if they exist) might then drop in openly and say hi. Which they'd be totally nuts to do at present since legally they could be immediately shot and carted off to the labs for dissection. Since they're 'not people' and have no rights according to our law.It's fair to assume they're not stupid, and apart from wanting to stay alive also would wish to avoid the situation where they'd have to retrieve their dead mates' bodies by force. (And it would rapidly degenerate to both sides using massive force.) So it's certainly understandable why there's no open contact, if they are actually around.Klaatu barada nikto

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 01:08:00 pm
content: Just remember when the aliens land and want to eat US, you won't have any right to complain.For those of you who haven't seen it, there was a Twilight Zone episode where aliens landed and claimed to want to serve us. When the alien ambassador left the room he left his book on the table. When they translated the title it read "To Serve Man" so they thought he was really here to help us. But later they realized it was a cook book.Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man"

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 02:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 11, 2013, 10:44:04 amCan you enlighten me how you propose that "no corporate person hood" is suppose to work? If a company no longer has the right to own properties, have a bank account, sign contracts, etc., how is business to be conducted? I'm not sure about other countries. In the USA, that is exactly the reason why incorporation laws exists. (I'm no lawyer, but in starting a business I had to look into it in detail.)Without corporate rights, I as a person can own a farm. But the moment I join with someone to own and operate that farm together, my partner and I immediately loose our rights in ownership of that farm. Who in the right minds will get together with anyone else to do anything? We all have to operate as individual persons since as a group we no longer have rights. How can we as a civilized society operate if nothing needing more than one person can be done?Do we really want to move back to when every one live in a cave and kill each other over food? Or should we operate business Pol Pot style with the community garden just outside the house?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 04:08:59 pm
content: It was quite common at one time for animals to be tried in court for all sorts of things, from criminal damage to murder and even witch craft, they were even appointed lawyers to represent them in some courts.The question should really be when do things like computers get rights.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 04:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on December 11, 2013, 04:08:59 pmThat's easy.When they have consciousness indistinguishable from our own.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 04:51:23 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 04:48:12 pmThat's not so easy. Just because it passes theTuring test, can it really be said to besentient, or just programmed to appear so?

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on December 11, 2013, 04:51:23 pmWhere did I say what I'm talking about passes the Turing test? I said when it has consciousness indistinguishable from our own. If you can't distinguish a consciousness from another person, then how can you discriminate against it in terms of human rights?Back to ya ...

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:30:29 pm
content: I agree. But many do not. There will always be the people who insist that it can't be real because it is, in their minds,simulatingsentience, no matter how well it does that, and there are presently very many of them.My hunch is that consciousness is emergent from processes which take place in the brain, and anything thatsimulatesconsciousness willbeconscious. My opinion is that even if that isn't true, we have no way to know otherwise (that I know of) and should assume it is to avoid committing atrocities against something we didn't realize was conscious. But many religious people will argue that it's just a machine because God didn't give it a soul.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 06:45:25 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on December 10, 2013, 06:52:21 pmI would just like to give you a cookie for "the gripping hand". Although I do feel that one wasn't as good as the first book. The space battles weren't very well done in my opinion.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 07:51:08 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 06:23:33 pmBy being a philosopher and just playing semantic games and finishing with QED ... or in other words, theChinese room(don't have great respect for philosophers, at least not the majority which came after Hume). Whether we can distinguish it or not, if it's a deterministic machine it's just faking it ... according to Searle.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 08:08:12 pm
content: What ifyouare just a deterministic machine?IMHO his argument is flawed. He has now become part of a larger system enclosing himand his set of rules. Together, that system could be said to understand Chinese.Consider that no individual neuron in your head understands English. He has become a "neuron" in a system.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 08:34:14 pm
content: But with neurons we can call the ensemble conscious even if it's constituents are not, but the same is not true for a flipflop because of reasons ... extrapolate that argument to a couple of pages, make it circular and QED.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:25:42 pm
content: Time for a thought experiment.Suppose in the far future we can make an android with a neural network brain (or whatever it's called by then) that can execute or contain human level A.I.Suppose further that we can copy your consciousness mind to the android brain and then we delete your "wetware" mind after the transfer.When you open your eyes, you are as alive as you were before, except your consciousness is now in a machine body with a machine brain.Suppose then that I come up to your machine body and say I want to shoot your brain and kill you. Is that moral? Is that legal?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:32:36 pm
content: If consciousness is physically derived, then your entire existence has literally moved into the machine, leaving a soggy sack of organic chemicals behind. Do what you want with it. If it isnot, then the whole "delete your wetware mind" process was murder.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:37:24 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on December 11, 2013, 09:32:36 pmI think you missed the question. If I want to shoot the machine body with your mind working in it, is that murder or not? The old body isn't of any consequence anymore, because you don't live there anymore.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:40:20 pm
content: Like I said, if consciousness is physically derived, then you are now the machine. Yes, shooting it is murder. If consciousness comes from some (*cough*horseshit*cough*) soul or something, then you were already murdered during the transfer.This raises an entirely new question, though - what if you are uploaded to the machine, but your soggy sack of organic chemicals (still running its own "analog computer" simulation of your mind) isnotkilled? Are there two of you? How exactly would that work?

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:51:53 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on December 11, 2013, 09:40:20 pmOK thanks for the answer.QuoteWell, I'd say no, because you consented to the transfer. I would say a murder is the elimination of a person (the consciousness) altogether without consent. Since the transfer didn't eliminate it, but merely transfer it, then I would not call it murder.If I pour a glass of milk from one glass into another, the original milk is not gone, it's just moved. So if in the far future we can move, what each neuron holds, bit by bit, to a machine, well same principle.QuoteThe answer, I believe, would be yes.QuoteThere are two persons, both the same, yet still stand-alone persons, so they both have full legal rights. Weird, but that is the only logical answer (IMHO).Probably should guard against doing that, but some Mad Scientist will no doubt do it anyway.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 12:12:19 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 11, 2013, 02:01:58 pmThe same way it worked before corporate personhood existed. You do realize that legal fiction is a relatively recent development, right? For eg:http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1794/corporate-executive-who-snuck-corporate-personhood-supreme-court-historyThe concept hadn't even been contemplated before 1886.QuoteBy people. With the result there's always someone who had responsibility and can be dealt with personally if the business does something wrong. A lot of the arguments for corporations involve liability, and removing personal risk. But there's a down side to that. Complicated topic, I know.QuoteIn that instance someone (or couple) would have to have their name on the land deed. The rest, is what contractual agreements between people are for.QuoteBoth these are Straw Man arguments, invalid because they suppose an extreme and unreasonable counterexample. Business worked fine before corporate personhood.Also, ha ha, your Pol Pot example demonstrates an ignorance of the Pol Pot history. My ex-wife is Cambodian, and believe me you were quite unlikely to have a house at all. Or your own garden.Oh, and that entire sad saga was the result of the US corporate military-industrial complex deciding to napalm every village they could see from the air in the Cambodian countryside, because national defense forces of _another_ small nation (Vietnam) were using Cambodia as a supply route in an attempt to defend against the US corporate mil-indust. complex's efforts to destroy _their_ country too. For twisted, insane 'policy' reasons that had nothing to do with 'defending against communism'. More to do with corporate profit (wanted the oil off the V. coast), and cold-war d*ck-waving (prove USA is prepared to do unthinkable things, and so really would exercise nuclear MAD if pushed. Yes, that was the policy. Another was to deliberately smash any small nation that had the potential to rise to economic independence, thus challenging US global economic dominance.) Oh, and another war started with a lie, as usual. Gulf of Tonkin incident - NV attack was fabricated. Sigh... not to mention that LBJ (who started bombing Cambodia) was already a murderer (over the years since, it's become abundantly clear that he was one of the core conspirators that had Kennedy shot. Another was Bush Snr.)Aaaand... going even deeper, Communism itself can be considered a product of Corporate inhumanity. Do you know who funded Marx to sit scribbling in the British Library for years? Do you know who funded the shipload of Bolshevik Marxists (with a pile of gold) who arrived in Russia after the initial risky Revolution had succeeded, then took over in a 2nd, internal coup? But that's a very deep rabbit hole indeed, and if you delved into it you'd end up questioning everything you think you know about 20th C. world history. Part of that rabbit hole involves why you won't find truthful accounts of that and some other topics, on Wikipedia.That was an aside. I can back up all of that with voluminous references, but this is not an appropriate venue. So let's stick to corporate personhood, if you wish to continue."Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."-- Benito MussoliniAll forms of central accumulation of power are bad, and corporatism is just another path to centralism, and dis-empowerment of individuals.Here's a question. If corporations have the same rights as living individuals, why can't they be 'thrown in gaol', or sentenced to death? Fines, and 'breakups' don't really cut it.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 12:15:47 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 09:51:53 pmYeah, OK, you got me there, poor choice of terms.s/murder/homicideBut at least presently, if you pay somebody to kill you, that person will be in very hot water.Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 09:51:53 pmAgreed.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 12:22:55 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 06:23:33 pmExactly.But of course, many people *would* find reasons to discriminate against it.For instance:* "But it has no soul!"* "We can't grant it equal rights, it has the wrong paint colour casing!"* "It's obviously an inferior sort of sentience, due to those connectors near the base being the wrong gender!"

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 01:55:20 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 12, 2013, 12:12:19 amOf course the concept hadn't even been contemplated before 1886. Publicly owned company is a recent concept. Anyone who wish to own a portion of IBM or China Mobile can just go purchase their stocks. What can work in small family farms in 1886 cannot possibly work for a billion dollar company with thousands of stock owners world wide today.Quote from: TerraHertz on December 12, 2013, 12:12:19 amThe officers of the corporation are the ones responsible. When they commit crimes in the name of the company, they are the one held responsible. Of course the law is not perfect. For example, the former governor of New Jersey as CEO of some global investment fund got away with mis-using billions of investor dollars. He got away (in my view) because of his connections with those in power and they choose not to pursuit the case. That some murders got away doesn't mean murder laws doesn't hold killers responsible. Corruption will always exist.Quote from: TerraHertz on December 12, 2013, 12:12:19 amAre you suggesting that the contracts should be with the owners and not the company? So you are suggesting if IBM needs office space and for whatever reason purchased a building. The deed of the building is in the stock owners' names? That is sheer impossibility. By the time you finish typing the list of stock owner names, that list would be outdated.Quote from: TerraHertz on December 12, 2013, 12:12:19 amIn my view, Communism is not a form of "Corporate inhumanity", it is a form ofgovernment inhumanityhence my reference to Pol Pot.Both of these examples are intended to be exaggerations. Since you said your x-wife is Cambodian, you are already well aware of the folly of community garden utopianism. I need not say more.I had mistaken you for those wild-eyed community garden utopian who think "we should be fair". Pol Pot was fair: everyone (except the elites) lived in equal fear and equal provity. And of course I know no one owns their house there.I am well aware of the history of Vietnam war. I am also aware of the so call Gulf of Tunkin incidence. However, while Tunkin was clearly LBJ over reacting, I think the whole Vietnam war is a case where USA should have acted different and support Vietnam's independence immediately after Dien Bien Phu. Had we supported them, we would have the influence to help Vietnam become an independent but non-communism nation. I think Vietnam "Uncle Ho" was more a nationalist than he was communist. The difference between Vietnam and Cambodia is so clear after "the other side" took over - one is hell bend on introducing community gardens, the other just went on living with far less blood shed.Lastly, company do get death penalty for a number of reasons. CEO's do go to jail - at least those CEO who are not former politicians of "current party in charge" whichever party it may be.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 03:53:31 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 12, 2013, 01:55:20 amYou're still presenting an imaginary contrast. Nothing stops a personally owned business from being large, and there are many examples of huge ones. The 'stock holders' system is typically presented as providing a benefit to economic utility, but really its purpose is to allow obfuscation of true ownership. For the purpose of avoiding public visibility of the actual persons responsible for unpopular corporate actions, and maintaining a pretense that it is not their personal objectives driving corporate actions.There are also other ways of allowing public funding of private businesses - crowd funding being one example.QuoteBut we're talking about the company committing acts. In most cases if the company does bad things the individual executives are _not_ accountable. That's the whole point of limited liability.QuoteActually, it can be argued that the rule of law in the USA has entirely broken down, high-end investment markets and corporations now exist in a kind of lawless wild-west 'biggest guns win' robber free for all, and our discussion is moot. MF Global, MERS & the mortgage CDO/illegal foreclosures scandal, Madoff, PFG fraud, Libor rate rigging, computer-driven HFT, gold & silver price manipulation, the DTCC, etc, as examples.But this state too, is the result of the efforts of corporations. Because they have no intrinsic morals, no human considerations such as care for future generations, and yet wield vast financial resources.QuoteNo, I'm saying that every business entity should be owned by an individual. And that's who's name appears on deeds etc. If that person needs public funding, then the issue of how they raise it, pay returns on investment, etc, is an entirely contractual problem.QuoteBoth governments and corporations are examples of abstract entities, that have been able to gather far too much power to themselves. Btw, did you know that the US government, since (from memory) around the 50s is incorporated? Never mind that there's no constitutional basis for a corporate government, and that effectively the US has not had a valid sitting government since that time.QuoteBut what you did say, demonstrates you don't understand what the Khmer Rouge were about. 'Communism' was just a veneer. The real story was this:Cambodia had two distinctly separate social classes. There were the city folk - lighter skinned, a lot of Chinese blood, lots of foreign influence, distinct accent, many knew French, relatively well off, educated lifestyle. Then there were the country people - small farming villages mostly. Darker skinned, distinct accent, very poor, little to no education, virtually no exposure to the outside world at all. Then suddenly, aeroplanes they knew nothing about started napalming their villages. Virtually everyone in many country areas had at least some (or all) their families and homes destroyed in unimaginable horror. Literally, a whole people (the survivors) went mad.In this environment, Pol Pot arrived and created an ideology that everything from outside Cambodia was evil, and everything even influenced by outsiders was also evil. It's understandable how the villagers would be receptive to this. So the obvious solution was to kill all the foreign-influenced city folks. Then they would return Cambodia to an idyllic 'year zero' condition.It wasn't about Communism, or 'garden utopianism', or anything like that. The villagers had been living something similar anyway. What it was about, was killing everyone that seemed in any way to have been associated with having your mother, father, sisters and brothers napalmed. Of course there was a lot of mission drift, but that was the founding idea.QuoteThere's no way to utopia by forcing it on people. Pol Pot was just a lunatic.Btw "no one owns their house there." You do realize that was all long ago, and Cambodia is not communist now?As for 'wild eyed', perhaps.http://everist.org/archives/links/QuoteIt wasn't an 'over reaction'. It was a calculated ploy involving a staged incident. This is SOP.QuoteIf only politics really worked like that. Now who's being a garden utopian?Independent, economically successful small nations are the last thing US policy makers want to see.QuoteYes, re Ho Che Minh. And General Giap. Their sole objective was to get the US out of Vietnam, whatever it took. It's awesome that they won.Oh! Vo Nguyen Giap died Oct 4 this year. I didn't know. Sad. He was one of my great heroes.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/13/us-vietnam-general-idUSBRE99C01920131013So glad the Vietnam war ended the year before I'd have been eligible for conscription. I'd have gone to gaol rather than Vietnam, and if somehow forced to go, it would likely have resulted in me shooting my commanding officers. Which wouldn't have ended well either.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 05:01:56 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 12, 2013, 03:53:31 amGiven that limitation, it would work. But how many individuals owns billion dollar business? So, in your world, you want businesses no larger than what an individual could handle. I can understand your view but I disagree with that being good for the people in that world.You are right that I probably don't know much about the Khmer Rouge, but I am not talking about specifics. Instead, I am talking about the mindset. De-industrialization, eliminate personal properties, eliminate personal choices, all are drones and all work for the community garden utopia. Whether you call it the Borg or the Khmer Rouge, it really makes no difference.You are informed but you come to a different conclusion, I can respect that. As I said, I mistook you for a "wild eye utopian" merely replays what have been droned into their heads. I consider myself well informed too and I draw different conclusions.So, true to my own believe: whether you are an individual or you are a business, you have the right to an opinion. (Hack, even if you are a wild-eye-utopian, you still have the right to that opinion by my very own logic...)

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 06:37:22 pm
content: wont make a long list as before but... "Granting Legal Rights for non-humans":"technically" human is getting better and better and civilized allright?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 07:27:00 am
content: I wonder how many species their are out there that have actually managed to survive such an arrogant/self important phase of their evolution such as the human race is current facing?Any species that treats their fellow life forms/co-inhabitants with such contempt WILL eventually get bitten .. and rightly so!

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 08:27:11 am
content: +1That's a perfect explanation for the Fermi paradox right there.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 02:47:00 pm
content: Quote from: Pippy on December 13, 2013, 07:27:00 amWhy don't you go try cuddling up to a crocodile and see how much respect and compassion you get? Crocodiles have survived around 65 million years with almost no evolution.Humans do have the unique ability to talk and think shit. The rest of intelligent life on the planet gets by with 3 questions :- Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it? (not necessarily in that order).

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 03:43:31 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on December 11, 2013, 09:25:42 pmThe wetware brain in the comatose body or the brain he's using?