Are animals entitled to basic legal rights?

[The Straight Story]

DO YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS DESERVE BASIC LEGAL RIGHTS?

Deprived of legal protection, animals are defenseless against exploitation and abuse by humans. Through the Animal Bill of Rights, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is working to show Congress a groundswell of support for legislation that protects animals and recognizes that, like all sentient beings, animals are entitled to basic legal rights in our society.

More than a quarter-million Americans have already signed the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Bill of Rights. Sign on your support and speak out to your lawmakers today!

A Petition to the United States Congress

I, the undersigned American citizen, believe that animals, like all sentient beings, are entitled to basic legal rights in our society. Deprived of legal protection, animals are defenseless against exploitation and abuse by humans. As no such rights now exist, I urge you to pass legislation in support of the following basic rights for animals:

The Right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.

The Right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments.

The Right of farm animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs.

The Right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter, and adequate medical care.

The Right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and self-sustaining species population.

The Right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5154/t/3755/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=82


Animals Shouldn't be 'Property' -- Changing the Law

I’ve got Australia on my mind lately, probably because it is summer there. While many of us are digging out from piles of snow and surviving on what feels like about four hours of sunlight, they are down there frolicking around on Bondi Beach, right now, not a care in the world except avoiding death by a man-eating shark.

Earlier this year, ALDF attorney Bruce Wagman did a speaking tour in the land down under with the excellent Australia-based animal rights organization Voiceless. Among the many interviews he did while on his Australian tour, he spoke with “The Law Report” at ABC Radio National, which just posted his interview on their site as “one of the best programs of 2009.”

It’s a terrific primer on the challenges, and the progress already made, in working to protect animals through the legal system. Bruce explains how, according to law, animals are property—and that, while our ultimate goal is to change the property status of animals, there is much incremental progress we can make until that day comes. For example, some courts are now recognizing that companion animals are a special kind of property, and therefore have a special value—making the critical recognition that animals are sentient, and that they provide their guardians with emotional and therapeutic value.

He also discusses that in some pet custody disputes, judges are actually now considering the best interests of the animals in awarding custody. In a legal context where animals are by definition mere property, it’s a truly remarkable step forward when a judge asserts that an animal not only has special value to his human companions, but in fact has interests of his very own.

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-animals-shouldn-t-be-property-changing-the-law

[Skip Intro]

1. Yes, they are.

[phasma ex machina]

62. +1 using the Bible as a precedent.

[tonysam]

2. This is insane.

Animals do NOT have rights; the concept of rights is a human construct.

This is animal rights vegan nonsense.

[The Straight Story]

3. Lions will soon sign a peace treaty with lambs

;)

[tabatha]

5. The cruelty is a human construct.

That is, the cruelty imposed by humans on animals.

In the wild, there are predators and prey, where the prey have a fair and fighting chance.
Additionally, the role of the predator is to take the sick and injured, thus keeping the overall health of the prey species high.

Man's ill treatment of animals is NOTHING like what occurs in nature.

Hence this is NOT insane.

Added: The role of the predator is also to keep the populations of prey species from exploding into sizes that are unsustainable. There is no such predator for mankind, hence we are heading to an unsustainable population. The only way for mankind to limit population growth is by preventing pregnancy.

[galileoreloaded]

34. Limiting pregnancy??? You forgot killing each other. n/t

[tabatha]

68. I don't believe in killing by man.

I do believe in contraception - e.g. 19 children by one woman is a bit much.

[ZombieHorde]

54. "Man's ill treatment of animals is NOTHING like what occurs in nature."

Humans are just as natural as birds and beavers. So man's ill treatment of animals is exactly like what occurs in nature.

[tabatha]

67. Really?

I have not seen animals used in medical experiments in nature.

[ZombieHorde]

72. 100% of medical experiments on animals have occurred in nature.

Human beings are perfectly natural and everything we do is a part of nature.

[tabatha]

76. Actually, I have found that modern man does not

fit into nature. With modern medicine, and by using animals as guinea pigs, mankind has gotten around nature. Mankind is destroying nature, and therefore is not perfectly natural.

You have some serious conceptual problems.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Our sun will one day explode and destroy the planet, is the sun natural?

Of course the sun is natural. Everything which exists is natural. Modern medicine and using animals as guinea pigs are a part of nature. Video games, child birth, building cities, pooping, singing, and flying airplanes are all natural.

Nature can not be destroyed. Our environment can become uninhabitable for life, but our environment will still be nature.

[tabatha]

81. You are using "nature" according to your own fabricated definition.

"Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic."

"Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects–the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For, example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, and the artifactual."

"Although humans currently comprise only a minuscule proportion of the total living biomass on Earth, the human effect on nature is disproportionately large. Because of the extent of human influence, the boundaries between what humans regard as nature and "made environments" is not clear cut except at the extremes. Even at the extremes, the amount of natural environment that is free of discernible human influence is presently diminishing at an increasingly rapid pace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

[ZombieHorde]

94. OK, I don't like the definition, but it does seem to be accurate. You are right, I was wrong.

Thank you for correcting my vocabulary.

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. So you are opposed to "modern medicine" - survival of the fittest?

Do you believe that the "weak" and "sick" humans should be culled from the herd for the betterment of the species?

I find the similarity of such arguments to eugenics to be frightening and disturbing.

[tabatha]

85. I was talking about overpopulation

I was talking about overpopulation, and how it works in nature, and how it should work in humans - i.e. not having 29 children (which is only possible with the use of modern medicine such as birth control pills).

Please show me where I advocated eugenics for humans.

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. You say that modern medicine is opposed to nature

In nature, of course, only the fittest and strongest of the species survive - which you also mentioned, in another post. Predators kill the weak, sick, or injured, thus ensuring the optimal genetic viability of the prey species.

If being "opposed to nature" through modern medicine (which enables the survival of those who would die in a purely "natural" environment) is somehow bad, that it's not such a huge stretch to assume you are not entirely opposed to the Darwinian model for humans.

[tabatha]

104. I am opposed to the Darwinian model for humans -

but humans must understand that because their numbers are not limited by nature, they must limit their numbers themselves.

I totally support help for the sick and weak, whether animals or human.

It was very hard for me to accept that in wild preserves sick and injured animals were not helped by humans, but that nature was allowed to take its course.

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. OK fair enough, my apologies for misunderstanding you

I was born with a pretty serious health condition, so I tend to get very prickly when it sounds like people are suggesting that "nature take its course" with humans, because without modern medicine, I would be dead.

I think your compassionate stance is very admirable. I am sorry for misconstruing your intent.

[tabatha]

115. Yes, I was having problems with your misinterpretation.

But then I don't usually write lengthy explanations.

Btw, in grade school, I was the only friend of a girl crippled by polio, and have always been sympathetic to the least fortunate amongst us.

[jmowreader]

86. Man is the predator for man

[Bluebear]

14. "Vegan nonsense"? wow

[Lorien]

22. Wow, you're quite a piece of work

and someone that I'm glad I'll never have the misfortune of knowing, as those who have no compassion for animals are always lacking in compassion for anyone besides themselves.

[Bluebear]

41. She lists "pets" as a hobby in her profile, too!

:scared:

[LanternWaste]

118. What is the precise and relevant reason

What is the precise and relevant reason that human constructs may not be applied to or projected onto animals?

[LeftyMom]

4. Humans are animals.

The idea that there's some bright moral dividing line between humans and our animal kin is a lingering bit of religious nonsense which defies science, common sense and simple observation.

[The Straight Story]

6. And like other animals we often kill and eat other animals

But at least we cook them first ;)

[tabatha]

11. Not if the meat is dried.

[timo]

88. I like mine

Raw, rolled up with rice and sea weed, a little wasabi and some pickled ginger!!

[tabatha]

10. +1000

[DesertFlower]

7. yes. i signed the petition and

posted it on my facebook page.

[Tunkamerica]

16. I'm sure there are millions of neglected pigeons that are awaiting

your time and effort.

[jgraz]

28. I actually work with neglected and abused pigeons

They're intelligent and emotionally complex animals. Their greatest enemy is human ignorance and cruelty.

[Tunkamerica]

38. Not really my point, I had squirrels first but replaced it with pigeons

for their ubiquity.

There are a lot of them, and I bet at least one pigeon somewhere in the world will be ignored by humans, or never see a human its whole life... and then it has a court case. Neglected. Neglect is built into nature. This document carries everything a little too far. And I don't disagree with a lot of what it says. Neither was I calling for "neglecting" pigeons, whatever that means.

[jgraz]

42. In order to neglect something, you first have to assume responsibility for it.

Wild pigeons cannot be neglect since, by definition, they are not cared for by humans. Domesticated birds, on the other hand, is a whole nother story.

[Tunkamerica]

44. But the implication of this document is that all animals have these rights

or is that wrong? Is this only for domesticated animals? If so, a lot of this already is law.

[jgraz]

53. I'm merely quibbling with your definition of "neglected"

Wild animals cannot be neglected, so you don't have to worry about squirrels or pigeons.

[Goldstein1984]

30. You need to check the cyrillic letters in the picture you post

They are incorrect for how they are being used. For one thing, you have characters for the "d" sound where you should have characters for the "a" sound.

[Tunkamerica]

33. It was a free font, more for the look I guess.

Let's just say it was inspired by the Cyrillic alphabet.

[Goldstein1984]

35. Cyrillic letters look very cool. I love reading them.

Right now, the words say something like: Tzzztpk Dmericd

It's hard to get a perfect translation.

Not many people would notice. I wouldn't worry about it.

[Brickbat]

36. This Russian language major notices and it drives me up the wall every time.

Hee! :hi:

[Goldstein1984]

39. I just learned a little Russian for my job.

But the language is very cool.

I picked up the complete Russian Rosetta Stone, which is much better than a Russian class if you don't mind doing a little additional grammar and vocabulary on the side.

If you're interested in Russian, I highly recommend it.

The only trouble I've even gotten into was telling a teenage Russian girl she was "very beautiful" when I meant to say "very pleasant (to meet you)." I got a friendly giggle and a correction, so no harm was done.

[Brickbat]

45. "Don't mind additional grammar on the side"?

I'm a grammar junkie. You have to be, with Russian.

I studied there twice and lived there as well. At the top of my game, I was fluent, and no one could guess my accent. Unfortunately, I don't have many opportunities to speak it anymore, and I've lost a lot.

[Tunkamerica]

40. If you'd give me a usable equivalent

I'd try it

[Brickbat]

43. Are you looking for your username transliterated?

Тункамерика

[Tunkamerica]

46. I'll work on it.

But I think that might limit it's usefulness for english speakers.

[Goldstein1984]

49. I don't have a cyrillic font on this computer yet

but this one is exactly what I would have produced.

Cyrillic characters aren't very interchangeable on websites as far as things like user names go.

Thanks, Brickbat for helping out. (I need to get the cyrillic font on this machine.)

[Brickbat]

73. No prob! This site is helpful for online stuff:

http://www.apronus.com/internet/ruskey.htm

[white_wolf]

8. Personnally

I think it is far more important that we take care of the people in our country before we worry about animals. We still have a LONG way to go in helping other human beings and I really do not think we have the time to worry about animal rights.

[tabatha]

9. We can do both.

It is in our very best interest to do so.

[DesertFlower]

18. i agree. nt

[LeftyMom]

24. In my experience, people who make that argument are invariably doing neither.

By comparison, the people I know who do animal rescue or other animal advocacy in their spare time are disproportionately employed in jobs helping people or involved in volunteer work for humans as well.

Basically, compassionate people's empathy is reflected in their interaction with all beings, not just those of their own species.

[The Straight Story]

26. I would agree with that

And I don't think we often agree :)

Well stated and food (no pun intended...) for thought.

[JoeyT]

55. Agreed

Empathy isn't a zero sum game.
You can have empathy for more than one kind of animal.
You can fight for more than one cause.

[lukasahero]

82. Tell you what - you worry about what you want to worry about

and I'll worry about what I want to worry about. Ok?

FTR, I can worry about more than one thing at a time.

Why if fuck's name would you use "wolf" in your user name if you don't care about the animal?

[Blasphemer]

12. Yes, I support this

Animals are affected by humankind and human decision making processes so I have no problem with extending basic rights to them. I know there are arguments to be made relative to the animals we have sympathy for versus the animals we don't have sympathy for (i.e. mammals vs. insects), but animal cruelty is rampant and completely unacceptable. There are people who will go to a shelter and get an animal only to turn around and brutally abuse them after taking them home.

[Brickbat]

13. No.

[Tunkamerica]

15. The only one i have a problem with is the first.

All animals have the right to not be neglected?

All animals? Am I to feed the roaches now? Not use antibacterial soap?

If there's a neglected animal in the woods and nobody's around to represent it in court, is it really neglected?

If this leads to cats having more money than most people i'll be pissed.

[JoeyT]

56. I don't think that's what they mean by that.

I suspect they mean "You can't chain a dog to a tree in hundred degree heat with no shade, food, or water."
Which is pretty hard to argue with.

[notadmblnd]

17. If animals had legal rights, wouldn't it open them up to legal prosecution?

How would we try them? We couldn't possibly think a jury of their peers could sit at trial.

[yewberry]

20. No, it wouldn't.

Legal protection does not necessarily imply legal culpability. Animals could never be tried under civil laws because they cannot be proven to understand civil laws.

[Tunkamerica]

47. Ignorance of the law is no protection

public urination/defecation, streaking, public lewdness, assaults, trespassing. Soon all animals would be in jail. I guess Wackenhut is for this, huh?

[Pithlet]

65. There are humans who can't (or aren't supposed to be) held legally responsible

under certain circumstances. Besides, there are already laws on the books that protect animals as it is and we don't legally charge them for those things.

[Tunkamerica]

84. Protecting something does not give it rights.

We have laws protecting personal property. with rights come responsibilities.

[Pithlet]

87. I'm not arguing for a bill of rights like the OP, necessarily.

Just stating that your logic doesn't follow. You're right, they are already afforded those protections. We don't prosecute them, do we? I don't see how codifying them in rights would follow that they'd be prosecuted since there are human beings afforded those rights who are then not automatically prosecuted. Follow? In other words, we aren't prosecuted for crimes because we have certain basic rights. You're making a connection there that doesn't exist.

[RobinA]

89. No They Wouldn't

You can't Mirandize them. They'll all be out on a techinicality. And they can't aid in their own defense because they can't understand the proceedings, so technically they are insane. Off to the state hospital for all publically defecating and lewd dogs and cats.

[yewberry]

19. I think they're entitled to basic legal protections.

I also think that those will be a long time coming.

People view animals as commodities. Dominionism is rooted in our culture. Even the most most basic protections are fought against, as evidenced every time this topic comes up. It's incredibly sad.

[Lorien]

21. Yes they are. As M. K. Gandhi said "you can learn a lot about a people by

the way they treat their animals." Animals have emotions, feel pain, fear, and love. We once treated other races as badly as we treat animals today, and that was seen as immoral. Why is their one set of morals for a violent, self destructive overpopulated species (us) and another for more benign species who have just as much a right to exist as we do?

[JoeyT]

59. Once upon a time

races treated one another badly using the argument that they were animals, or little more than.
Or at least that was the justification for it and the keystone of the resistance to ending that treatment.

[Lisa0825]

23. I do think animals should have some basic rights, but the "animal rights movement" which

tries to equate animal rights with human rights has set back the cause because of extremism. I think most people in nations with moderate middle class populations would agree with rights for those animals that are under human care or supervision. However, groups like PETA and other extremists have given animal rights a bad name, so I don't know if or when we might see any progress.

edited to add: I thought I should explain about my "middle class" comment. The history of the animal welfare movement has coincided with the progress of middle class growth in industrial societies. When populations struggle they tend to have little energy or will to devote to worrying about what is good for animals. When populations are doing well (which generally coincides with the growth of the middle class), people then start directing their energy to areas that need help, such as less fortunate human populations and animals.

[drm604]

25. Will I still be able to trap mice that get into my home?

Can I still call an exterminator to get rid of the pigeon that currently is slowly destroying the plastic side panel of my window air conditioner by pecking holes in it?

Will pests have rights?

I love animals and I certainly don't believe in torture or unnecessary killing, but sometimes they have to eliminated. Certainly it should be done as humanely as possible but sometimes it has to be done.

[RobinA]

90. You Cannot Trap Mice

if it results in their death. Trespassing is not a capitol crime.

[drm604]

95. So we can't protect our properties from damage

and our families from disease?

Can we kill cockroaches?

[Bucky]

121. Do you *trap* mice, or merely respect their choices when they trap themselves?

After all, those glue platforms are clearly labeled "mouse trap." I guess we could outlaw them as inherently cruel and deadly, but then we're taking another step down the slippery slope toward some nanny state where mice aren't free to ride their own motorcycles without helmets on.

Live free or die! Or both!

[cali]

27. so are mouse traps out?

[The Straight Story]

29. Yep. If you put them out be ready for lawsuits by mice families and jail

:)

[Tumbulu]

31. Absolutely !!!!!

And this idea that it is OK to torture farm animals because it makes food cheaper is an outrage to both the animal and the humans ingesting products from these creatures.

Why they don't have the right to a torture free life is the question. When did it become OK to treat animals as they are currently treated?

[Goldstein1984]

32. I've discussed this with my Canine American buddy, Bruno.

I'm a vegetarian, and Bruno is a carnivore, but we both agree that animals should have protection under the law.

I believe the disconnect between humans and other thinking, feeling animals is an entirely human construct with an origin in primitive and anachronistic religious beliefs (i.e. Genesis).

I think the many parrots, cockatoos and macaws that my wife and I have rescued and rehabilitated over the years would agree that animals deserve protection from cruelty.

I'll sign the petition.

Thanks for posting it.

[Better Today]

37. Wow, I would hate to have some undefined "adequate medical care" shoved on me

regarding my pets. I won't be spending $100s for cancer surgeries, or really anything medically related to my pets. If they get that sick or injured they will be euthanized. So most might consider that inadequate medical care.

This idea it way too far. I agree animals should not have to suffer abuse or neglect, that's already handled in most jurisdictions, I know around here it is becoming a weekly news item for all the neglected, abandoned, and abused animals (and owners) being turned into animal control and humane society. And they are being charged with crimes and having their animals taken away and re-homed.

But the idea that they have rights, when they don't have voices to tell anyone what they want?
Some of the items listed are worthy of consideration, though impossible to assure even if made a legal right (I mean hell 1/2 of our human rights are in question most of the time, depending on how the corporate or military complexes have swayed our law enforcement, legislatures, or executives).

I think for now I would be more certain of my humanity if I worry about folks in places like Chad and Sudan and Gaza before I worry to much about animal rights.

[smalll]

52. I noticed that thing about "companion animals" and "medical care" too -

look out, if this gets legs, we'll end up being mandated to buy health insurance -- for our pets! :rofl:

[no limit]

61. Hey, if your pet already has health insurance rest assured this wont affect you in any way

[RebelOne]

71. My dog has health insurance, which costs me $75 a month.

But it is worth it to keep her alive as long as I can. She is a 12-year-old Rottweiler and my big fur child.

[dysfunctional press]

48. no, of course they aren't.

"rights" are a human construct that don't exist in the animal/physical/"real" world.

sorry. :shrug:

[proteus_lives]

50. They have the right to be delicious.

They have the right to catch frisbees.

They have the right to be scratched behind the ears.

They have the right to give us milk, eggs, cheese, fur, bones and medical knowledge.

They have the right to be our companions and food.

And until they appear before the UN, Congress and various talk shows with a thoughtfully worded presentation with a Power Point back-drop, that's how it's going to stay.

[SOS]

63. Actually, they don't "give" us meat, bones and fur

They are killed and those things are taken.

Imagine this construct in the human world...

Prosecutor: So you admit to smashing Ms. Smith's skull with a hammer?
Defendant: Yes.
Prosecutor: And you admit to stealing her purse after the killing?
Defendant: Hell no! After I crushed her head, she gave it to me.

[Kaleva]

51. So I have to give free loading mice a 30 day notice before evicting them?

[tabatha]

77. They are not free-loading

they are doing what is instinctive to them --- looking for food and shelter.

[safeinOhio]

57. Plants are people too.

Just because they are mute and you don't hear them scream as you bite down on them while still alive and crush them under foot. Any one want to sign my petition?

[SoCalDem]

58. They don't vote, they don't speak or write, and they don't pay taxes

....so

no, they will never have "rights" :(

[no limit]

60. "The Right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter, and adequate medical care."

They don't want to give this to humans, you think they'll give this to pets?

[Arkansas Granny]

64. Most states already have legislation which addresses many of the points listed here.

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/abuse/state_animal_cruelty_laws_080109.pdf

If these laws were enforced by all states, I think they would be sufficient.

[Xenotime]

66. Yes. They deserve equal representation under the law.

[Boojatta]

69. I've never heard of an animal being tortured until deciding to

pretend to have information about weapons of mass destruction hidden at the zoo.

[aikoaiko]

70. WE already have mechanisms for protecting non-human animals from much of what is listed

The relevant laws and regulations may not be enforced enough and sometimes inadequate, but we don't have to extend basic legal rights.


As someone who uses rats and pigeons in academic research, "legal rights" would open up legitimate research to too much BS from animal rights activists.

[Maru Kitteh]

74. YES.

[madokie]

75. Mine are

better not be catching someone mistreating our pets

[grahamhgreen]

78. Signed.

[Sancho]

79. YES, in Florida pregnant pigs are in the constitution!

Pigs win constitutional protection
National animal-rights groups wage 'big money' campaign in Florida
Posted: November 06, 2002
12:01 pm Eastern

By Diana Lynne
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite a consumer group's warning to voters not to fall prey to the "big money" politics of national animal-rights groups whom it claims are using the state as a guinea pig in their war against the $38 billion-a-year pork industry, Floridians have resoundingly approved a ballot initiative to extend constitutional protection to pregnant pigs.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Amendment 10 to the Florida Constitution limits the "cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy." The referendum specifically outlaws caging pigs in gestation stalls which are metal enclosures that measure two feet across and prevent sows from turning around freely.

The stalls cause the sows to suffer from crippling foot and joint disorders, and to experience chronic stress, depression and other psychological disorders throughout their four-month pregnancy, according to advocates.

[defendandprotect]

91. Yes . . .and I think there is a strong connection between exploitation/violence vs animals and

violence against other human beings --

[Beacho]

92. Animals are not capable of having rights

Because they are not capable of being moral agents. When animals are capable of understanding the 'rules of the game', then you can talk about their rights. When they are capable of demanding and enforcing their rights, without human intervention, Then they will have rights. Then they can sit on juries, sign contracts, vote, etc.

I also despise the anthropomorphizing of animal behavior leading to the abuse of the word 'sentience'. There is no scientific evidence that any animal besides humans have the qualities required to determine sentience. One of the basic qualifications for sentience is awareness of one's own mortality. The ability to feel pleasure or pain, by themselves, does *not* qualify as sentience.

I also want to ask a question of those that propose this nonsense. What animals have chosen *you* to speak on their behalf? Aren't you advocating their interests without their consent or input? In reality, aren;t you just using them to promote your own agenda without bothering to ask them what they think? When Mr. Quacky and Henny Penny show up to your office, give you a retainer, and present their demands, then you can advocate on their behalf.

Until then, you're just using dumb animals for your own selfish purposes.

Shame on you!

[The Straight Story]

96. A shark chose me to speak on it's behalf. It said "Swim More in the ocean, I am hungry"

:rofl:

[Beacho]

98. LOL!

nom! nom! nom!

[Mari333]

93. YES

[Trillo]

97. Possibly or probably; but there are hypocrisies, and at least one MAJOR exploitation not mentioned

I could sign #1, "The Right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse."

However, other sets or sub-classifications of animals' rights seem to have differing definitions of "exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse", and give pause.

Aren't all laboratory animals subject to cruel experiments? Even rats being studied as they traverse a maze and subject to no further and/or physically-invasive experimentation and treated well in all other respects could be construed as psychological abuse, as it involves confinement, which is much like jail, and the subjection of their will to their human captors' wills. I don't think it's possible right now for the rat to have given its informed consent to humans for even such mild and physically non-invasive experiments. So it seems lab animals are certainly exploited and possibly abused.

However, farm animals are supposed to have their "psychological needs" addressed. Lab animals don't explicitly need that addressed, but farm animals do? How does a farm animal give its consent? Farm animals may be slaughtered before they develop a known fatal condition, so how does this satisfy their basic physical needs? What is the difference between "basic physical and psychological needs" and the next category's "adequate medical care"?

Will companion animals adequate medical care be defined to a lower or higher standard than farm animals "basic physical ... needs"? Is the typical confinement, control, and training of companion animals exploitation? Then I'm guilty, I've controlled my pets.

What happens to wildlife's natural habitat under mild or extreme climate change?

Well, that's probably not exhaustive of all the hypocrisies, but it is what comes to my mind after thinking about it overnight. Now lets move on to what is not listed: Money. No animals other than humans use money, but money is used by "civilized" humans to exploit other animals including humans, and since humans are also animals, how does this set of rights help humans to be free from financial exploitation?

Is this failure to mention money and finance and its role in animals' exploitation just an oversight? How can that be when so very much of the human world is centered with single-minded focus on obtaining it?

It's possible the failure to explicitly mention civilized humans' need for money to survive is the biggest hypocrisy in this whole set of rights. Indeed, it could even explain the other hypocrisies, and thus be considered the overriding hypocrisy.

[Rhiannon12866]

99. Yes. But animal protection laws vary by state.

Here in NY, we have much stricter animal protection laws than in some other states, so rescued animals are often transported to rescue groups in NY and Vermont, including my beloved pup, Sara, brought to NY from Ohio in 2003 via an "underground railroad" for rescued dogs. :-)

Sara:loveya:

[ddeclue]

100. no.

[Unvanguard]

101. Absolutely. They should have all the listed rights.

And we should legally prohibit industries that depend upon the exploitation of animals, but that's such a pipe-dream right now that it's hardly even worth talking about...

[Bucky]

120. Inherent in the concept of civil rights is that they *can't* be listed.

This is why Madison, Washington, and Hamilton originally opposed the idea of Bill of Rights.

Of course I'm only pointing this out to stir up the pot.

[Cetacea]

103. A thousand words...

We should start with dolphins, as their brains have more in common with ours than do the brains of apes. Bottle-nose dolphins have more in the same areas of the brain that make us human. Though they have lived in an alien environment and are essentially weightless, they share more neurological similarities with us than any other species.

They easily meet two of the three criteria currently used to determine intelligence, and they pass these criteria in spades. Since it is very difficult to study them the jury is still out on cognitive abilities, though what we do know is tantalizing, and as new studies accelerate science will probably confirm within the next decade what many already suspect...

To the poster who believes that rights should only be extended to a species' that communicates the need for those rights, what do we do with a species that understands more about our language than we do of theirs?


In the meantime all animals should receive greater protections than are currently offered.

[Cetacea]

105. Bit &Recommended

[Beacho]

106. prove it

"what do we do with a species that understands more about our language than we do of theirs?"

Much like certain animals have superior abilities to our own, cetaceans have adapted to communicate in their environment. Day Of The Dolphins was a movie, not a documentary. Show me the proof that dolphins 'know more about our language' than we do. I'll bet you think that a horse trained to stamp their hooves in response to cues from their trainer are superior in math too.

And please don't post links to that quack, John Lilly. Show me peer reviewed evidence that supports any of the claims you're making.

More anthropomorphizing 'woo woo' New Age bullshit.

[Cetacea]

109. Hmmm. Ya think anthropomorphizing never occurred to us, woowoo?

You lost the argument by hurling insults. You are referencing "The Day of the Dolphin" and you expect a serious response from me?
The answer to your question regarding proof is right under your nose.

John Lilly a quack? You must listen to the same people who designated Gov. Jerry Brown a flake, "Governor Moonbeam". People like you parrot these baseless insults that are born from jealousy and primal instincts for professional survival...

Maybe you could sort through some of Lilly's..."quackery" and let me know if you find any flaws:

Scientific Briefs:

1. Borsook, Henry, J. Dubnoff and John C. Lilly. 1941 "The Formation of Glycocyamine in Man and Its Urinary Excretion." 7. Biol. Chem. 138:405-419

2. Lilly, John C. 1942. "The Electrical Capacitance Diaphragm Manometer." Rev. Sci. Instrum. 13:34-37

3. Lilly, John C., and Thomas F. Anderson. 1943. "A Nitrogen Meter for Measuring the Nitrogen Fraction in Respiratory Cases." Nat'l. Research Council, CMR-CAM Report #299 PB 95882 Library of Congress. Photoduplication Service, Publication Board Project, Washington 25, DC.

4. Lilly, John C. 1944. "Peak Inspiratory Velocities During Evercise at Sea Level" in Handbook of Respiratory Data in Aviation. Nat'l. Research Council, Wash., DC.

5. Lilly, John C. and Thomas F. Anderson. 1944. "Preliminary Studies on Respiratory Gas Mixing with Nitrogen as a Tracer Gas." Am.7. Med. Sci. 208 :136

6. Lilly, John C., John R. Pappenheimer and Glenn A. Millikan. 1945. "Respiratory Flow Rates and the Design of Oxygen Equipment " Am.J. Med. Sci. 210:810

7. Lilly; John C. 1946. "Studies on the Mixing of Gases Within the Respiratory System with a New Type Nitrogen Meter." (Abstract) Fed. Proc. 5:64

8. Lilly, John C., Victor Legallais and Ruth Cherry. 1947. "A Variable Capacitor for Measurements of Pressure and Mechanical Displacements: A Theoretical Analysis and Its Experimental Evaluation." J. Appl. Phys. 18 :613-628

9. Lilly, John C. 1950. "Flow Meter for Recording Respiratory Flow of Human Subjects" in Methods in Medical Research. Vol. 2:113-122. J. H. Comroe, Jr., Ed. Year Book Publishers, Inc., Chicago

10. Lilly, John C. 1950. "Physical Methods of Respiratory Gas Analysis" in Methods of Medical Research. Vol. 2:131-138. J. H. Comroe, Jr., Ed. Year Book Publishers, Inc., Chicago

10A. Lilly, John C. 1950. "A 25-Channel Recorder for Mapping the Electrical Potential Gradients of the Cerebral Cortex: Electro-Iconograms." Electrical Engineering. A.I.E.E., Annual Index to Electrical Engineering 69:68-69

11. Lilly, John C 1950. "Respiratory System: Methods: Gas Analysis." in Medical Physics. Vol. 2:845-855. O. Glasser, Ed. Year Book Publishers, Inc., Chicago

12. Lilly, John C. 1950. "Mixing of Gases Within Respiratory System with a New Type of Nitrogen Meter." Am. J. Physiol. 161 :342-351

13. Lilly, John C. 1950. "A Method of Recording the Moving Electrical Potential Gradients in the Brain. The 25-Channel Bavatron and Electro-Iconograms." (A.I.E.E.-IRE Conf. on Electronic Instrumentation in Nucleonics and Medicine). Am. Inst. of Electr. Eng., New York. S-33:37-3

14. Lilly, John C. 1950. "Moving Relief Maps of the Electrical Activity of Small (1 cm2) Areas of the Pial Surface of the Cerebral Cortex." EEG. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2:358

15. Chambers, William W., George M. Austin, and John C. Lilly. 1950. "Positive Pulse Stimulation of Anterior Sigmoid and Precentral Gyri; Electri Current Threshold Dependence on Anesthesia, Pulse Duration and Repetition Frequency." (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 9:21-22

16. Lilly, John C. and William W. Chambers. 1950. "Electro-lconograms from the Cerebral Cortex (cats) at the Pial Surface: 'Spontaneous' activity and Responses to Endorgan Stimuli Under Anesthesia." (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 9:78

17. Lilly, John C. 1950. "Moving Relief Maps of the Electrical Activity of Small (1 cm2) Areas of the Pial Surface of the Cerebral Cortex. Anesthetized Cats and Unanesthetized Monkeys" (Abstract). Proc. 18th Int'l. Physiol. Congress, Copenhagen. P. 340-351

18. Lilly, John C. 1951. "Equipotential Maps of the Posterior Ectosylvian Area and Acoustic I and II of the Cat During Responses and Spontaneous Activity" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 10:84

19. Lilly, John C. and Ruth Cherry. 1951. "An Analysis of Some Responding and Spontaneous Forms Found in the Electrical Activity of the Cortex." Am J. Med. Sci. 222:116-117

20. Lilly, John C., and Ruth Cherry. 1951. "Traveling Waves of Action and of Recovery During Responses and Spontaneous Activity in the Cerebral Cortex." Am. J. Physiol. 167:806

21. Lilly, John C. 1952. "Forms and Figures in the Electrical Activity Seen in the Surface of the Cerebral Cortex" in The Biology of Mental Health and Disease (1950 Milbank Mem. Fund Symposium). Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., New York. P. 205-219

22. Lilly, John C., George M. Austin, and William W. Chambers. 1952. "Threshold Movements Produced by Excitation of Cerebral Cortex and Efferent Fibers with some Parametric Regions of Rectangular Current Pulses: (Cats and Monkeys)." J. Neurophysiol 15:319-341

23. Lilly, John C. and Ruth Cherry. 1952. "New Criteria for the Division of the Acoustic Cortex into Functional Areas" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 11:94

24. Lilly, John C., and Ruth Cherry. 1952. "Criteria for the Parcelation of the Cortical Surface into Functional Areas" (Abstract). EEG. Ctin. Neurophysiol. 4:385

25. Lilly, John C. 1953. "Significance of Motor Maps of the Sensorimotor Cortex in the Conscious Monkey." (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 12:87

26. Lilly, John C. 1953. "Discussion of Paper by Lawrence S. Kubie; Some Implications for Psychoanalysis of Modern Concepts of the Organization of the Brain." Psychoanalytic Q. 22:21-68

27. Lilly, John C. 1953. Review of book by W. Ross Ashby: Design for a Brain. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York. Rev. of Sci. Instrum. 24:313

28. Lilly, John C. 1953. "Functional Criteria for the Parcelation of the Cerebral Cortex." Abstracts of Communications, XIX Int'l. Physiol. Cong., Montreal, Canada. P. 564

29. Lilly, John C. 1953. Recent Developments in EEG Techniques: Discussion. (Third Int'l. EEG Cong. 1953. Symposia). EEG Clin. Neurophysiol. Suppl. 4:38-40

30. Lilly, John C. 19541. Critical Discussion of Research Project and Results at Conference in June 1952 by Robert G. Heath and Research Group at Tulane Univ. in Robert G. Heath, et al. "Studies in Schizophrenia: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind-Brain Relationships." P. 528-532

31. Lilly, John C. 1954. "Instantaneous Relations Between the Activities of Closely Spaced Zones on the Cerebral Cortex: Electrical Figures During Responses and Spontaneous Activity." Am. J. Physiol. 176:493-504

32. Lilly, John C., and Ruth Cherry. 1954. "Surface Movements of Click Responses from Acoustic Cerebral Cortex of Cat: Leading and Trailing Edges of a Response Figure." J. Neurophysiol. 17:521-532

33. Lilly, John C. 1954. Discussion, Symposium on Depth Electrical Recordings in Human Patients. Am. EEG Soc. Neurophysiol. 6:703-704

34. Lilly, John C., and Ruth Cherry. 1955. "Surface Movements of Figures in Spontaneous Activity of Anesthetized Cerebral Cortex: Leading and Trailing Edges. J. Neurophysiol. 18:18-32

35. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, and Ellsworth C. Alvord, Jr., and Thelma W. Galkin. 1955. Brief. "Noninjurious Electric Waveform for Stimulation of the Brain." Science 121:468-469

36. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, and Ellsworth C. Alvord, Jr., and Thelma W. Galkin. 1955. "Motor Responses from Electrical Stimulation of Sensorimotor Cortex in Unanesthetized Monkey with a Brief, Noninjurious Waveform" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 14:93

37. Lilly, John C. 1955. "An Anxiety Dream of an 8-Year-Old Boy and Its Resolution." Bull Phila. Assn. for Psychoanal. 5:1-4

38. Lilly, John C. 1955. Review of book by Robert G. Heath, et al. 1954. Studies in Schizophrenia: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind-Brain Relationships. Harvard Univ. Press. EEG Clin. Neurophysiol. 7:323-324

39. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, Thelma W. Galkin and Ellsworth C. Alvord, Jr. 1955. "Production and Avoidance of Injury to Brain Tissue by Electrical Current at Threshold Values." EEG Clin. Neurophysiol. 7:458

40. Lilly, John C. 1956. "Effects of Physical Restraint and of Reduction of Ordinary Levels of Physical Stimuli on Intact Healthy Persons." 13-20 & 44, in Illustrative Strategies for Research on Psychopathology in Mental Health, Symposium No. 2. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. New York. P. 47

41. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, and Thelma W. Galkin. 1956. "Gradients of Motor Function in the Whole Cerebral Cortex of the Unanesthetized Monkey" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 15

42. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, and Thelma W. Galkin. 1956. "Physiological Properties of Cerebral Cortical Motor Systems of Unanesthetized Monkey" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. I5

43. Lilly, John C. 1956. "Mental Effects of Reduction of Ordinary Levels of Physical Stimuli on Intact. Healthy Persons" in Psychiat. Res. Reports 5. American Psychiatric Assn., Wash., DC. P. 1-9

44. Lilly, John C., John R. Hughes, and Thelma W. Galkin. 1956. "Some Evidence of Gradients of Motor Function in the Whole Cerebral Cortex of the Unanesthetized Monkey" (Abstract). Proc. 20th Int'l. Physiol. Congress. P. 567-568

45. Lilly, John C. 1956. "Distribution of 'Motor' Functions in the Cerebral Cortex in the Conscious, Intact Monkey." Science. 124 :937

46. Lilly, John C. 1957. "Some Thoughts on Brain-Mind and on Restraint and Isolation of Mentally Healthy Subjects. (Comments on Biological Roots of Psychiatry by Clemens F. Benda, M.D.)" J. Phila. Psychiatric Hosp. 2:16-20

47. Lilly, John C. 1957. "True Primary Emotional State of Anxiety-Terror-Panic in Contrast to a 'Sham' Emotion or 'Pseudo-Affective' State Evoked by Stimulation of the Hypothalamus" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 16:81

48. Lilly, John C. 1957. "Learning Elicited by Electrical Stimulation of Subcortical Regions in the Unanesthetized Monkey." Science. 125:748

49. Lilly, John C. 1957. Review of book by Donald A. Scholl. 1956. The Organization of the Cerebral Cortex. Methuen and Co., Ltd., London and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Science. 125:1205

50. Lilly, John C. 1957. "A State Resembling 'Fear-Terror-Panic' Evoked by Stimulation of a Zone in the Hypothalamus of the Unanesthetized Monkey." Excerpta Medica. Special Issue, Abstracts of Fourth Int'l. Cong. EEG and Clin. Neurophysiol. and 8th Meeting of the Int'l. League Against Epilepsy. Brussels. P. 161

51. Lilly, John C. 1957. "'Stop' and 'Start' Systems" in Neuropharmacology. Transactions of the Fourth Conference, Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation, Princeton, N.J. (L.C. 55-9013). P. 153-179

52. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Learning Motivated by Subcortical Stimulation: The 'Start' and 'Stop' Patterns of Behavior." 705-721. Reticular Formation of the Brain. H. H. Jasper, et al. Eds. Little, Brown and Co., Boston. P. 766

53. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Correlations Between Neurophysiological Activity in the Cortex and Short-Term Behavior in the Monkey," in Biological and Biochemical Bases of Behavior (Univ of Wis. Symposium. 1055) H. F. Harlow and C. N. Woolsey, Ed. Univ. of Wis. Press, Madison, Wis. P. 83-100

54. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Development of a Double-Table-Chair Method of Restraining Monkeys for Physiological and Psychological Research." J. Appl. Physiol. 12:134-136

55. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Simple Percutaneous Method for Implantation of Electrodes and/or Cannulae in the Brain." (Abstract.) Fed. Proc. 17:97

56. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Electrode and Carmulae Implantation in the Brain by a Simple Percutaneous Method." Science. 127:1181-1182

57. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Some Considerations Regarding Basic Mechanisms of Positive and Negative Types of Motivations." Am. J. Psychiat. 115 498-504

58. Lilly, John C. 1958. "Rewarding and Punishing Systems in the Brain" in The Central Nervous System and Behavior. Transactions of the First Conference, Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation, Princeton, N.J. (L.C. 59-5052.) P. 247-303

59. Lilly, John C. 1959. "'Stop' and 'Start' Effects in The Central Nervous System and Behavior." Transactions of the Second Conference, Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation and National Science Foundation, Princeton, N.J. (L.C. 59-5052.) P. 56-112

60. Lilly, John C. 1960. "Learning Motivated by Subcortical Stimulation: The 'Start' and The 'Stop' Patterns of Behavior. Injury and Excitation of the Brain by Electrical Currents." Chapter 4 in Electrical Studies on the Unanesthetized Brain. E. R. Ramsey and D. S. O'Doherty, Eds, Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., New York. P. 78-105

61. Lilly, John C. 1960. Contributing Discussant-The Central Nervous System and Behavior. Transactions of the Third Conference Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation, Princeton, N.J. (L.C. 59-5052.)

62. Lilly, John C. 1960. "The Psychophysiological Basis for Two Kinds of Instincts." J. Am. Psychoanalyt. Assoc. Vol. 8: P. 659-670

63. Lilly, John C. 1960. "Large Brains and Communication." Paper Presented to the Philadelphia Assoc. for Psychoanalysis.

64. Lilly, John C. 1961. "Injury and Excitation by Electric Currents." Chapter 6 in Electrical Stimulation of the Brain. Daniel E. Sheer, Ed., Univ. of Texas Press for Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, Austin, Texas. P. 60-64

65. Lilly, John C. and Jay T. Shurley. 1961. "Experiments in Solitude in Maximum Achievable Physical Isolation with Water Suspension of Intact Healthy Persons." (Symposium, USAF Aerospace Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, 1960.) in Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. P. 238-247

66. Lilly, John C., and Alice M. Miller. 1961. "Sounds Emitted by the Bottlenose Dolphin." Science. Vol. 133, P. 1689-1693

67. Lilly, John C., and Alice M. Miller. 1961. "Vocal Exchanges Between Dolphins." Science. Vol. 134: P. 1873-1876

68. Lilly, John C. 1961. "Problems of Physiological Research on the Dolphin, Tursiops" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 20:1

69. Lilly, John C. 1961. "The Biological Versus Psychoanalytic Dichotomy." Bul. of The Phila Assoc. for Psychoanal. Vol. 11: P. 116-119

71. Lilly, John C. 1962. The Effect of Sensory Deprivation on Consciousness. Man's Dependence on the Earthly Atmosphere, Karl E. Schaefer, Ed. MacMillan Co., New York. (L.C. 61-9079.) P. 93-95. (Proceedings 1st Int'l Symp. on Submarine and Space Medicine, New London, Conn., 1958)

72. Lilly, John C., and Alice M. Miller. 1962. "Operant Conditioning of the Bottlenose Dolphin with Electrical Stimulation of the Brain." J. Comp. & Physiol. Psychol. Vol. 55 P. 73-79

73. Lilly, John C. 1962. Cerebral Dominance in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebal Dominance. Vernon Mountcastle, M.D., Ed. Johns Hopkins Press, Inc. Baltimore, Md. P. 112-114

74. Lilly, John C., and Alice M. Miller. 1962. Production of Humanoid Sounds by the Bottlenose Dolphin. (Unpublished manuscript.)

75. Lilly, John C. 1962. A New Laboratory for Research on Delphinids. Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists Bul. Vol. 9, P. 3-4

76. Lilly, John C. 1962. "Interspecies Communication" in Yearbook of Science and Technology. McGraw-Hill. New York. P. 279-281

77. Lilly, John C. 1962. "The 'Talking' Dolphins" in The Book of Knowledge Annual. Society of Canada Limited, Grolier, Inc. (This article was updated in the 1969 Yearbook covering the year 1968, pp. 8-15.)

78. Lilly, John C. 1962. "Vocal Behavior of the Bottlenose Dolphin." Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Vol. 106. P. 520-529

79. Lilly, John C. 1962. "Consideration of the Relation of Brain Size to Capability for Language Activity as Illustrated by Homo sapiens and Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose Dolphin)." Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 14, no. 3:424

80. Lilly, John C. 1962. Sensory World Within and Man and Dolphin. (Lecture to the Laity, New York Acad. of Med., 1962.) Scientific Report no. CRI-0162

81. Lilly, John C. 1963. "Critical Brain Size and Language." Perspectives in Biol. & Med. Vol. 6. P. 246-255

82. Lilly, John C. 1963. "Distress Call of the Bottlenose Dolphin: Stimuli and Evoked Behavioral Responses." Science. Vol. 139. P. 116-118

83. Lilly, John C. 1963. "Productive and Creative Research with Man and Dolphin." (Fifth Annual Lasker Lecture, Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, III., 1962). Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. Vol. 8. P. 111-116

84. Lilly, John C., and Ashley Montagu. 1963. Modern Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, as Challenges to Our Intelligence in The Dolphin in History by Ashley Montagu and John C. Lilly. A Symposium given at the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles, Calif. P. 31-54

85. Lilly, John C. 1964. "Animals in Aquatic Environment. Adaptation of Mammals to the Ocean" in Handbook of Physiology. Environment 1, Am. Physiol. Soc., Wash., D.C. P. 741-757

86. Jacobs, Myron S., Peter J. Morgane, John C. Lilly and Bruce Campbell. 1964. "Analysis of Cranial Nerves in the Dolphin." Anatomical Record Vol. 148. P. 379

87. Lilly, John C. 1964. "Airborne Sonic Emissions of Tursiops truncatus (M)" (Abstract) J. AcousticaI Soc. of Amer. Vol. 36. P. 5, 1007

88. Lilly, John C. 1965. "Report on Experiments with the Bottlenose Dolphin." (Abstract) Proc. of the Int'l. Symp on Comparative Medicine, Eaton Laboratories, Norwich, Conn. P. 240

90. Lilly, John C. 1965. "Vocal Mimicry in Tursiops. Ability to Match Numbers and Duration of Human Vocal Bursts." Science Vol. 147 (3655). P. 300-301

91. Lilly, John C. 1966. "Sexual Behavior of the Bottlenose Dolphin in Brain and Behavior. The Brain and Gonadal Function." Vol. III. R. A. Gorski and R. E. Whalens, Eds., LICLA Forum Med. Sci., Univ. of Calif. Press, Los Angeles, Calif. P. 72-76

92. Lilly, John C. 1966. "Sonic-Ultrasonic Emissions of the Bottlenose Dolphin in Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises." Kenneth S. Norris, Ed. Proc., 1st Int'l Symp. on Cetacean Research, Wash., DC. 1963. Univ. of Calif. Press. P. 503-509

93. Lilly, John C. 1966. "The Need for an Adequate Model of the Human End of the Interspecies Communication Program." IEEE Military Electronics Conference (MIL-E-CON 9), on Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Wash., DC. 1965. IEEE Spectrum 3, no. 3: P. 159-160

94. Lilly, John C. 1966. Contributing Discussant. Proc. of Conf. on Behavioral Studies. Contractors Meeting, U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, Md.1965. Dept. of the Army EARL Report

95. Lilly, John C. 1966. "Research with the Bottlenose Dolphin" in Conference on the Behavioral Sciences, Proc. of Conf. on Behavioral Studies (Contractors Meeting, U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, Md. 1965). Dept. of the Army EARL Report

96. Lilly, John C., and Henry M. Truby. 1966. "Measures of Human-Tursiops Sonic Interactions" (Abstract). J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. Vol. 40, issue 5. P. 1241

97. Lilly, John C. 1966. "Sound Production in Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose Dolphin)." Conference on Sound Production in Man: Section on Phonation: Control and Speech Communication, New York Acad. of Sciences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1968

98. Lilly, John C. 1965. "Intracerebral Reward and Punishment: Implications for Psychopharmacology." Fifth Annual Meeting of American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1968

99. Lilly, John C. 1967. Dolphin-Human Relationship and LSD-25 in The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism. Harold Abramson, Ed. Second International Conference on the Use of LSD in Psychotherapy, South Oaks Research Foundation, Amityville, L.I. 1965. The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., New York. P 47-52

100. Lilly, John C. 1967. Dolphin's Mimicry as a Unique Ability and a Step Towards Understanding in Research in Verbal Behavior and Some Neurophysiological Implications. Kurt Salzinger and Suzanne Salzinger, Eds. Conference on Verbal Behavior, N.Y.C. 1965. Academic Press, New York City. P. 21-27

101. Lilly, John C. 1967. Dolphin Vocalization in Proc. Conf. on Brain Mechanisms Underlying Speech and Language. F. L. Darley, Ed. A Symposium held at Princeton, N.J. 1965. Grune and Stratton, New York City. P. 13-20

102. Lilly, John C. 1967. Basic Problems in Education for Responsibility Caused by LSD-25. Proc. of 17th Conf. on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life. Clarence H. Fause, Ed. Paper presented in section on Character Education of Scientists, Engineers and Practitioners in Medicine Psychiatry and Science with Strategies for Change. Loyola Univ., Chicago, Ill. 1966

104. Lilly, John C. 1967. "Intracephalic Sound Production in Tursiops truncatus: Bilateral Sources" (Abstract). Fed. Proc. 25, no. 2.

107. Lilly, John C., Alice M. Miller, and Henry M. Truby. 1968. Reprogramming of the Sonic Output of the Dolphin: Sonic-Burst Count Matching. Miami. Communications Research Institute. Scientific Report no. CRI 0267. J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. (See number 112.)

108. Lilly, John C., Alice M. Miller, and Henry M. Truby. 1968. "Perception of Repeated Speech: Evocation and Programming of Alternate Words and Sentences." Scientific Report no. CRI 1067

109. Lilly, John C., Alice M. Miller, and Frank Grissman. 1968. "Underwater Sound Production of the Dolphin Stereo-Voicing and Double Voicing." Miami. Communications Research Institute Scientific Report no. CRI 0367

110. Truby, Henry M., and John C. Lilly. 1967. "Psychoacoustic Implications of Interspecies Communication." Miami. Communications Research Institute. J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. Vol. 42: P. 1181. S3 (Abstract.)

111. Lilly, John C., Henry M. Truby, Alice M. Miller, and Frank Grissman 1967. "Acoustic Implications of Interspecies Communication." Miami. Communications Research Institute. J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. Vol. 42: P. 1164. I10 (Abstract.)

112. Lilly, John C., Alice M. Miller, and Henry M. Truby. 1968. "Reprogramming of the Sonic Output of the Dolphin: Sonic Burst Count Matching." Jnl. of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol. 43. No. 6. P. 1412-1424

[Beacho]

111. Yes, quack is what I say, quack is what he was

Did he do some valid legitimate research? Yes, tons of it. But studying the acoustic nature of dolphin communication doesn't prove your previous statement, as useful as it is in understanding the animals behavior. The man claimed LSD allowed him to communicate with dolphins. IOW he claimed intelligent interspecies communication via getting fucked up out of his mind. Now show me where anyone has duplicated his 'experiment' and validated his research.

BTW, anyone can post a ton of links with no context. 'Argument by mass' does not an argument make.

"1. Borsook, Henry, J. Dubnoff and John C. Lilly. 1941 "The Formation of Glycocyamine in Man and Its Urinary Excretion." 7. Biol. Chem. 138:405-419"

LOL! Wut?

:rofl:

[Cetacea]

116. lol.

And you are still an idiot. Nevertheless, Happy New Year. Don't step on any harpoons.

[Beacho]

119. Oh, I see only two choices two make here, eh?

Either I accept your woo woo or I'm Thor Gunnsenson in my my all weather gear manning a harpoon on a whaler. The fact that you try to frame the question that way proves you're the idiot. Just because I scoff at the idea of dolphins being these spiritually linked super genii, doesn't mean I don't think they should be protected. I support the banning of whaling BTW.

[Cetacea]

122. Lilly didn't create magical thinking. And you misread my post.

It's not his fault that new agers think that dolphins are angels from another planet or what have you.

And I do apologize for referring to you as an idiot. You are too politically astute to be an idiot. You realize that the best and most powerful way to "neutralize" somebody is to destroy their credibility by referring to them as a "quack" (or any other variation of the word).

You have me writing that "dolphins know more about our language than we do". ( Lol) .Wrong. I wrote "a species that understands more about our language than we do theirs". What that means is that they understand English better than we understand "delphenise". Capish?

As part of your attempt to be clever or insulting you wrote of the fictional movie, "Day of the Dolphin" in which a scientist ,played by the late George C Scott, with funding from the government, teaches dolphins to speak English. lol.

Now what isn't silly about the film is that Lilly did find that dolphins will, in the presence of humans, attempt to use their blowholes in ways totally unnatural to them in order to attempt human speech. But the film had them speaking clear English, which is ridiculous, though that bit of creative license did help drive the plot of a very good movie.

And of course the bit in the plot about using dolphins as weapons turned out to be quite prophetic. Who was it that said all science fiction eventually becomes science fact?


Lilly sued the director, Mike Nicols, as the resemblance to Lilly and his research center was obvious. The bit of nonsense about dolphins speaking English made Lilly's real work look ludicrous and Lilly knew it would provide fodder for skeptics like your self.

He and Nicols eventually became friends and Nicols later helped finance some of Lilly's post government funded research.

"I'll bet you think that a horse trained to stamp their hooves in response to cues from their trainer are superior in math too." No, I don't. And nothing in my post suggests that I do.

I don't know about the mathematical skills or lack thereof in horses but I do know that dolphins can retain more numbers and recall them at a faster rate than humans do, and exhibit a lot less anxiety than humans when doing so. (they also exhibit superior impulse control over humans and monkeys when in pain)

Now how would researchers know this fact if dolphins didn't understand at least some of our language, alien as it (probably) is to them?


How much do we understand about the dolphin clicks , whistles,and air borne vocalizations? Very little. We know that each dolphin has a "signature whistle" and all dolphins have distress whistles. Some Japanese fisherman understand the distress calls very well. If you nail a dolphin to the side of a boat with his head under water he or she will put out a distress call and all of those bleeding heart liberal dolphins will (tragically) attempt to come to his aid...


I'm curious as to why you'd think I was going to post links "to that quack, John Lilly". Do I know you? Lilly may have pioneered the area known as Inter-species Communication but was certainly not the last to pursue it. I highly recommend you acquaint yourself with the ongoing research of Dr. Louis Herman. I believe the dolphins working with him are up to several hundred words based on a form of sign language and he has demonstrated that they understand syntax, display self-awareness, and are capable of abstract thinking. Some of his work not only reinforces some of Lilly's own results, it also validates what many people who work with dolphins already know.

Nearly everything known about dolphin behavior, brain anatomy, communication methods, sonic output, sonar, and so on comes from the discoveries and work of Lilly. Little progress has been made in the pursuing years as no other scientist has had the US Government helping out as Lilly did, with the exception of Louis Herman and the Navy. I should add that his lab was built for Lilly by the Navy, possibly as a thank you for his inventions that aided high altitude pilots. And while he was being a quack he also invented the Peak Flow Meter, that little tube you one blows into to measure lung capacity. (if you have not had to use one I can assure you that you know someone who has). So that "quack" has presumably saved and/or helped untold millions of people just from that inventon alone. Being the good public servant that he was, he was neither compensated for or recognized for that achievement.

And of course there was the brain mapping and discovering a method to painlessly probe the brain...The list of discoveries and data he compiled are truly extraordinary. There was a good reason why he ws given due recognition for "Outstanding Contributions To Science". I would add medicine and a few other areas as well but that will happen in due time. ( From your response I gather that you already know this, which makes your attempt to neutralize him even more puzzling.)


I believe it was either Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman who said that Lilly was "the only person I know whose M.D. was the weakest part of his resume."

And it should be mentioned that his LSD experimentation took place under the auspices of the National Institute of Health, another government agency that I suppose thought he was a quack. You're attempt at neutralizing his brilliant career(s)and especially his dolphin research by quoting something silly he wrote while experimenting with LSD is really a cheap shot and intellectually dishonest, albeit politically astute.

You should know that after Lilly freed his dolphins , the US NAVY picked up his dolphin communication research but went classified with it, and it should be noted that the work continues as I write this...



Cheers

[Cetacea]

110. dupe

[yawnmaster]

107. How do you define animal? Are insects, for instance, included?

because they are animals.
Or do you mean mammals? or mammals and birds and reptiles and fish? And if so, why not insects too?
Or just animals that can be easily anthropomorphized?

[Posteritatis]

114. Imagine what the ant vote would do for communist parties! (nt)

[chaska]

112. The way we treat even our pets is unacceptable. Until this changes I advocate all possible rights...

to those who are mistreated. Where did this idea of pet as prisoner of war come from anyway?

Man is the problem animal on the planet, and does not deserve the special status he claims for himself. Man is an infestation, and as such, endangers the rest of life on the planet.

Man who would give no rights to his fellow creatures deserves none for himself.

[FLDCVADem]

113. No n/t

[flvegan]

117. Don't know how I missed this Knuckledragger Fest earlier.

Unga bunga, animals yummy.

Fucking idiots.