Be careful this fall, your elk my have rights

[VikingsGuy]

Yet another example our society has jumped the shark.

The A-hed

Lawsuits also argue that lakes and wild rice have legal rights, too.

www.wsj.com

 

[Gellar]

The judge outa be fired for even thinking about allowing this.

 

[GoGriz]

So bad… a waste of time, money, energy, and oxygen

 

[Wallydeuce]

Insane.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The judge outa be fired for even thinking about allowing this.

The wonderful thing about our constitution and our freedoms is that it helps us weed out the wierdos through lawsuits like this.

Judge has to consider, but they can kick it out. Still, I've been to a lot of zoos, and I'm not really a fan. Just seems wrong to keep wild animals in cages.

 

[MTLabrador]

Still, I've been to a lot of zoos, and I'm not really a fan. Just seems wrong to keep wild animals in cages.

I draw the line at animals that were born in the wild. Bears especially. I’d rather see them put down.

 

[Gellar]

The wonderful thing about our constitution and our freedoms is that it helps us weed out the wierdos through lawsuits like this.

Judge has to consider, but they can kick it out. Still, I've been to a lot of zoos, and I'm not really a fan. Just seems wrong to keep wild animals in cages.

Trust me, I’m not a fan of zoos!

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am no fan of zoos, but the answer is not to pretend that an animal is a person.

While some areas of law to refer to inanimate objects as a party - for example in customs cases you get things like “The United States vs 50 cartons of cigarettes”. It is an odd formality, but no one pretends that the cigarettes themselves have all the legal rights of a person.

And beyond the stupidity of it, who gets to decide what the animal wants? What if I think the particular elephant like the zoo? Maybe it doesn’t want to be shipped back to a continent it has never known and be chased down by lions. This is a fatal flaw in this line of thinking? What if I believe lakes like development - they prefer we’ll manicured boundaries and plenty of neighbors? It is insane and impossible.

If you don’t like zoos or think a body of water has sufficient environmental protections, fine, we have laws to deal with that and processes to make new laws.

I disagree with Mr. Lamb that this is a proper and normal use of the courts. Our courts are stretched beyond their capacity as it is dealing with cases clearly within their jurisdiction. There are defendants sitting in holding cells waiting for a “speedy trial” for 2 yrs. There are people harmed by all manner of tort waiting for their day in court. There are important commercial developments on hold awaiting various determinations.

Our system does not guarantee every idiot the full attention of our limited court system. And this problem goes both ways. In the 90’s there was a movement in some conservative circles to file tens of thousands of junk cases in order to slow to a stop courts they considered “activist”. Thankfully it never got traction.

Our courts are an essential guardian of our democracy and already subject to unprecedented case loads and being asked to do far too much politically in lieu of a functional congress. These people should be publicly flogged by the families of defendants awaiting trial.

 

[Gellar]

I am no fan of zoos, but the answer is not to pretend that an animal is a person.

While some areas of law to refer to inanimate objects as a party - for example in customs cases you get things like “The United States vs 50 cartons of cigarettes”. It is an odd formality, but no one pretends that the cigarettes themselves have all the legal rights of a person.

And beyond the stupidity of it, who gets to decide what the animal wants? What if I think the particular elephant like the zoo? Maybe it doesn’t want to be shipped back to a continent it has never known and be chased down by lions. This is a fatal flaw in this line of thinking? What if I believe lakes like development - they prefer we’ll manicured boundaries and plenty of neighbors? It is insane and impossible.

If you don’t like zoos or think a body of water has sufficient environmental protections, fine, we have laws to deal with that and processes to make new laws.

I disagree with Mr. Lamb that this is a proper and normal use of the courts. Our courts are stretched beyond their capacity as it is dealing with cases clearly within their jurisdiction. There are defendants sitting in holding cells waiting for a “speedy trial” for 2 yrs. There are people harmed by all manner of tort waiting for their day in court. There are important commercial developments on hold awaiting various determinations.

Our system does not guarantee every idiot the full attention of our limited court system. And this problem goes both ways. In the 90’s there was a movement in some conservative circles to file tens of thousands of junk cases in order to slow to a stop courts they considered “activist”. Thankfully it never got traction.

Our courts are an essential guardian of our democracy and already subject to unprecedented case loads and being asked to do far too much politically in lieu of a functional congress. These people should be publicly flogged by the families of defendants awaiting trial.

Exactly!

 

[Shangobango]

There are several things that I find wrong in this. The first is when they state Happy the elephant does not want to be in the zoo. Ok, that is quite possible, but how do they know, did she tell them? Has she tried to repeatedly eacape?

The second is when the article sates “..the nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project, have represented whales, chimpanzees and dolphins who they argue have the complex cognitive abilities and autonomy to merit legal personhood.” I mean c’mon, all the rest aside being a person is a human trait right? All people are animals but not all animals are people.

I can’t stand zoos and I am all far protecting animals and ecosystems, but these type of antics are just whackadoo.

Edited to say: I can’t stand most zoos. I was thinking back and I have actually been to a couple where the animals seemed quite well taken care of. Also, some zoos do some really good things for animals.

 

[noharleyyet]

I am no fan of zoos, but the answer is not to pretend that an animal is a person.

While some areas of law to refer to inanimate objects as a party - for example in customs cases you get things like “The United States vs 50 cartons of cigarettes”. It is an odd formality, but no one pretends that the cigarettes themselves have all the legal rights of a person.

And beyond the stupidity of it, who gets to decide what the animal wants? What if I think the particular elephant like the zoo? Maybe it doesn’t want to be shipped back to a continent it has never known and be chased down by lions. This is a fatal flaw in this line of thinking? What if I believe lakes like development - they prefer we’ll manicured boundaries and plenty of neighbors? It is insane and impossible.

If you don’t like zoos or think a body of water has sufficient environmental protections, fine, we have laws to deal with that and processes to make new laws.

I disagree with Mr. Lamb that this is a proper and normal use of the courts. Our courts are stretched beyond their capacity as it is dealing with cases clearly within their jurisdiction. There are defendants sitting in holding cells waiting for a “speedy trial” for 2 yrs. There are people harmed by all manner of tort waiting for their day in court. There are important commercial developments on hold awaiting various determinations.

Our system does not guarantee every idiot the full attention of our limited court system. And this problem goes both ways. In the 90’s there was a movement in some conservative circles to file tens of thousands of junk cases in order to slow to a stop courts they considered “activist”. Thankfully it never got traction.

Our courts are an essential guardian of our democracy and already subject to unprecedented case loads and being asked to do far too much politically in lieu of a functional congress. These people should be publicly flogged by the families of defendants awaiting trial.

Atticus could not have said it better.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Atticus could not have said it better.

Probably would have done it with fewer iPhone typos though

 

[noharleyyet]

Probably would have done it with fewer iPhone typos though

Peck had big thumbs...

 

[okie archer]

So let's get this right.
Elephants can be people and have human rights but human babies are just zygotes consisting of a clump of cells and don't have the right to live if the mother chooses under her rights?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am no fan of zoos, but the answer is not to pretend that an animal is a person.

While some areas of law to refer to inanimate objects as a party - for example in customs cases you get things like “The United States vs 50 cartons of cigarettes”. It is an odd formality, but no one pretends that the cigarettes themselves have all the legal rights of a person.

And beyond the stupidity of it, who gets to decide what the animal wants? What if I think the particular elephant like the zoo? Maybe it doesn’t want to be shipped back to a continent it has never known and be chased down by lions. This is a fatal flaw in this line of thinking? What if I believe lakes like development - they prefer we’ll manicured boundaries and plenty of neighbors? It is insane and impossible.

If you don’t like zoos or think a body of water has sufficient environmental protections, fine, we have laws to deal with that and processes to make new laws.

I disagree with Mr. Lamb that this is a proper and normal use of the courts. Our courts are stretched beyond their capacity as it is dealing with cases clearly within their jurisdiction. There are defendants sitting in holding cells waiting for a “speedy trial” for 2 yrs. There are people harmed by all manner of tort waiting for their day in court. There are important commercial developments on hold awaiting various determinations.

Our system does not guarantee every idiot the full attention of our limited court system. And this problem goes both ways. In the 90’s there was a movement in some conservative circles to file tens of thousands of junk cases in order to slow to a stop courts they considered “activist”. Thankfully it never got traction.

Our courts are an essential guardian of our democracy and already subject to unprecedented case loads and being asked to do far too much politically in lieu of a functional congress. These people should be publicly flogged by the families of defendants awaiting trial.

Dork.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I draw the line at animals that were born in the wild. Bears especially. I’d rather see them put down.

Life in a cage is no life.

@VikingsGuy there are good zoos for sure. But the preponderance of private zoo's & poorly run ones do nothing for animal welfare or ethical treatment and cause issues like this.

Buddy of mine used to run the Philly zoo. He's one of the most forward thinking conservationists I've ever met. He doesn't agree with me on this, but I just tell him it's ok if he's wrong from time to time.

 

[shrapnel]

I draw the line at animals that were born in the wild. Bears especially. I’d rather see them put down.

The bears in question may not agree with you. Besides that, there are millions of people that do like zoos or they wouldn’t have zoos.

 

[kwyeewyk]

This is (part of) why I fear for our long-term assurance of consuming meat and animal products.

Nobody likes the idea of animals in a zoo, but truth be told, zoos perform important functions of research and species preservation not possible without them. And most animals that end up in zoos have issues that make them less than suitable for release into the wild.

This idea will eventually go well beyond zoo animals; lobsters, crabs, octopus, etc.. are sentient beings in UK now, Columbia just banned sports fishing, all the examples above.

Someday it will be illegal to kill anything, and illegal to die. We can all nuralink our way to a quantum digital existence where we have life without death, pleasure without pain, beauty without flaw, no need for cumbersome gender or race or food, just the perfect virtual reality. Go Coddle Culture!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Someday it will be illegal to kill anything, and illegal to die. We can all nuralink our way to a quantum digital existence where we have life without death, pleasure without pain, beauty without flaw, no need for cumbersome gender or race or food, just the perfect virtual reality. Go Coddle Culture!

Good lord no. I'm looking forward to some actual peace and quiet when I die.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Good lord no. I'm looking forward to some actual peace and quiet when I die.

Nope, back to work playing video games, that's what powers the central reactor!