In the News

[TTG4]

Another piece of good news (in my opinion): a court in Buenos Aires has decided that an orangutan, though not human, is sentient enough to be entitled to certain basic rights. More in a BBC News article.

They say that it paves the way for other sentient creatures to be freed. The main issue that I see here is that people tend to empathise more with mammals than with other groups of animals, so how are we going to define what is sentient and what isn't?

[Jubal]

I'm nervous about trying to define "non-sentient personhood" - I'm happy to have variations of animal rights, and I probably agree that the concept of "owning" a Great Ape is a bit wrong, but on the other hand I'm imagining the legal mess if every scientific lab with monkeys in it was faced with attempts to push through Habeas Corpus writs. Good for the orang in question, but I'm not sure legally I think this was the right formulation to solve the problem.

[comrade_general]

Indeed.

[Clockwork]

Isn't it non-human personhood? I thought that the sentient bit was what was making the case? Or I've misunderstood. Both are equally likely. I'm happy for the monkey. Go monkeys!

[comrade_general]

In Star Trek they argue Data is alive because he meets only three criteria: intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness.

[TTG4]

I'm imagining the legal mess if every scientific lab with monkeys in it was faced with attempts to push through Habeas Corpus writs.

I'm quite confident something like this will happen. The extreme animal rights groups are still quite strong, around 3 times a year they'd mount a noisy protest outside the some of the faculties back at uni. They never cared about plant sciences using bees or aphids in their work, but of course the cute fluffy mice and rats they cared deeply about.

[comrade_general]

So how convenient: Sony is now renting out The Interview for $5.99 a pop even though they apparently pulled it from theaters due to NK threats. Definitely a publicity stunt.

[Jubal]

Totally called it.

[Clockwork]

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21638195-france-and-other-european-countries-have-long-been-braced-commando-style-terror-attack

Obviously read about it days ago but hey. It's almost like there are more and more attacks each year.

[Jubal]

Do you actually have a source for that? Because at least in Western Europe, I'm not sure that's statistically correct - citation needed!

I just worry that the response to this is going to be that people will berate Muslims more and more for attacks that in most cases they could've done nothing about, making those communities more marginalised, and fuelling more terrorism, which will mean the far right gains more ground, in a vicious and violent circle. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was disgusting, and one of the most horrifying attacks we've seen in quite a number of years. But if our response to that in the West is to further erode our human rights laws, weaken things like habeas corpus, introduce yet more surveillance powers - that, I think, is when the irreverent, free speaking, and egregiously offensive Charlie Hebdo has lost and their killers have won. And that's something I'm really quite scared of at the moment.

[TTG4]

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731/french-muslims-attacks-charlie-hebdo

Speaking of a backlash...

[Clockwork]

Or retribution...

[Pentagathus]

Its hardly retribution if its conducted against people who have had no part in terror activities.

[Clockwork]

Whoever is doing this is only doing the same to them as they do to us. From that angle, yeah you can have retribution. Doesn't need to be on the exact people, there's collective guilt/debt etc not just personal. I wasn't advocating it btw, just saying I don't think they'd see it as backlash and more as justified retribution.

Source for what specifically Jub? There were a few statistics in there.

Also, if we're alive still then their killers don't win, if we're under surveillance and police statery then it makes it easier to stay alive. I'll add in that with obvious drawbacks and breaches of this that and the other, so it's more like Charlie loses, killers lose, and we lose.

EDIT: I'm hoping France bans Islam and possibly all public worship. To make that clear, being a 'x religionist' is still legal just do it in your own home.

[Son of the King]

Doesn't need to be on the exact people, there's collective guilt/debt etc not just personal.

So they are just as bad as the terrorists? You cannot blame an entire group for the actions of a minority. Some football fans are violent - this doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys football is automatically a hooligan, or even that everyone is responsible for the idiotic behaviour of a minority. The recent events were the result of a small number of people plotting to spread fear and hatred, most of whom are now dead. What collective debt do other people who happen to be of the same faith as them owe?

EDIT: I'm hoping France bans Islam and possibly all public worship. To make that clear, being a 'x religionist' is still legal just do it in your own home.

What good would that do?