Skip to comments.
US activists demand lawyers for chimps
BBC News ^
| Friday, 26 April, 2002, 12:46 GMT 13:46 UK
| Editorial Staff
Posted on 05/29/2002 3:23:28 PM PDT by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: vannrox
Here's a good lawyer for the chumps...er, uh, chimps.
21
posted on
05/29/2002 3:51:12 PM PDT
by
South40
To: bescobar
Damn, sorry about the grammar.
22
posted on
05/29/2002 3:52:38 PM PDT
by
bescobar
To: vannrox
Darn good show! Animals DO have rights and have for quite some time. I say AMEN to lawyers for chimps. parsy.
23
posted on
05/29/2002 3:53:05 PM PDT
by
parsifal
To: bescobar
Your family eats chimps?
To: vannrox
Chimp legalisms:
"The ape that defends himself has a monkey for a lawyer."
"Posession is nine-tenths the banana."
"The law is king-of-the-jungle!"
"No Chimp has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another..."
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in any Jungle, unless you're an 800 lb gorilla."
25
posted on
05/29/2002 3:54:24 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: bescobar
Okay, here is my plan. I think we need to call these PETA people what they are...racist. See, the mixed cultures that make up my background (Anglo/Hispanic) consider meat as part of our culture and long tradition. I consider any assault on my family of rancheros and farmers an assault on my race. I hate racist and those who would attack my family history. All PETA people are racist. See my logic, I'll just call them racist whenever there in my face and threaten to sue them for a hate crime.
26
posted on
05/29/2002 3:54:39 PM PDT
by
bescobar
To: AriOxman
No, But I have had monkey and baboon, it taste bad but I was hanging out with a local tribe in Africa during some volunteer work. What is the difference between a chimp and a cow?? Cultures should not be attacked for what they traditionally eat. Dogs, cats, horses, bird nest, cow stomach...it is all tradition in some land. Next Hindus will demand Godly rights for cattle; who has the right to decide what ANIMAL is more deserving of rights than another??
27
posted on
05/29/2002 4:00:27 PM PDT
by
bescobar
To: AmericaUnited
The natural insane byproduct from all those who think we evolved from monkeys.I subscribed to sub-sect of Darwinism. Only Liberals evolved from monkeys. Conservatives are divinly inspired.
28
posted on
05/29/2002 4:01:38 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: vannrox
US activists demand lawyers for chimps
I have no problem with this. If these US activists want to pay a lawyer to do whatever it is they want him to do for the chimp, that's fine, it's their money. Any money wasted by liberals and not fed into the democratic machine or Planned parenthood is OK with me.
Now, if they want me to pay, forget it.
29
posted on
05/29/2002 4:06:03 PM PDT
by
patent
To: vannrox
"He is not an ape, therefore he has no rights under ape law."
Paybacks are a you-know-what!
To: bescobar
What is the difference between a chimp and a cow? Morally, nothing. As a practical matter, however, bushmeat is a bad idea - most bovine diseases do not affect humans. Monkey diseases, on the other hand....
To: bescobar
Well, Jews are prohibited from needlessy damaging/hurting animals of any sort - "Tzar Ba'alie Chaim", lit. causing pain to living creatures. Hence, most forms of hunting are off-limits, since if we can't eat it if we kill it wiht a gun ect. Of course, one can use a dart gun to stun it and then slaughter it...
Note that the above doesn't apply to medical experiments - that isn't considered needless. Even though PETA might be extreme, there are those on the other side who see nothing wrong with hurting animals for the heck of it.
To: vannrox
I have no problem with that as long as they are judged by a jury of their peers. Come to think of it, many of the U.S. courts are already experienced and ready to accomadate chimps in the court room.
33
posted on
05/29/2002 4:26:16 PM PDT
by
SSN558
To: vannrox
While it is true that chimpanzees share 98.7% of our genetic make-up, the same cannot be said for lawyers. There is no reason for these animal-rights types to be crusading on their behalf. I personally treat my own lawyers well, and would never dream of killing them or wearing their skins. However, I don't think that we should interfere with Nature by artificially protecting them from predatory beasts. |
To: troublesome creek
Surely there is a way lawyers can win another megalawsuit over this. And when they do, shouldn't dogs have attorneys too? After all, man's best friend should have the nation's best legal representation, right?
To: The_Media_never_lie
heck yes. we've got BIG TOBACCO, BIG OIL and next we could have BIG ANIMAL...an annuity for shysters everywhere.
To: SSN558
I have no problem with that as long as they are judged by a jury of their peersI can see the new TV show now, just like we have Judge Judy and Judge Wappner, the Animal Planet will carry Judge Bonzo.....
37
posted on
05/29/2002 5:01:01 PM PDT
by
4TheFlag
To: vannrox
Index
38
posted on
05/29/2002 5:01:20 PM PDT
by
UB355
To: PsyOp
Johnny Cochran to the jury: "If the banana is split, you must acquit!"
To: vannrox
is roddy mcdowell still alive?
40
posted on
05/29/2002 6:46:35 PM PDT
by
tomakaze
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson