Skip to main content

They're coming out of the trees!





Beastly Behavior?



Steven Wise leans to the lectern. "I don't see a difference between a chimpanzee," he states unequivocally, "and my 4 1/2-year-old son."
In short, Wise is arguing that "nonhuman animals" are deserving of the same civil rights protection we afford "human animals." Really?



Consider Lucy, a 6-year-old chimpanzee legally kept as a pet and test subject. Smart and personable, Lucy learned American Sign Language. She greeted her human teacher every morning with a big hug and two cups of tea she made herself at the stove.



But acting "almost human" didn't protect Lucy as legal rights might have, says Wise. As often happens when aging chimps outlive their usefulness as study subjects or become hard to handle as pets, her owners sent Lucy to a chimp rehab center in Africa. Poachers shot and skinned her, and cut off her feet and hands as trophies.
They returned Lucy to the "wild," to a "chimp rehab center," where some bozos violated existing law. I don't quite see how granting her civil protections would have prevented this.



Unless, of course, we're now supposed to provide free housing, forever, for all such "nonhuman animals." And when one of them goes off the deep end, such as Koko....



On human IQ tests, Koko scores between 70 and 95 -- by human standards, slow but not retarded. She articulates emotions -- a human attribute increasingly shown in nonhuman animals in neurological and zoological research at Oxford and New York universities, among others.



Wise reports this conversation from the day after Koko bit a caretaker, and her trainer asked what she had done.



"Wrong wrong," Koko signed with her large dark fingers.



"What wrong?" her trainer signed back.



"Bite," signed Koko. "Sorry bite scratch."



"Why bite?"



"Because mad," signed Koko.



"Why mad?"



Koko signed, "Don't know."
Sounds like battery to me. If Koko and other "nonhuman animals" are entitled to protection under the law, will they also be prosecuted for crimes under that law? (I can hear the protests: "They don't understand or know the law!" Ignorance of the law is no excuse, remember?) Besides, Koko made a confession, clearly "knew" she had done wrong. And by the same measures they use for her intelligence, she's probably eligible for criminal prosecution.



But that's an area animal rights activists don't want to visit. These animals deserve our protection, deserve to be treated as human, in all regards except being held accountable for their actions. At least that's consistent with most left-wing thought. (Society is to blame!)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more