quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Hmm.  Well, Firm, if not dogs, than what about pigs? 

Intelligence research was done with pigs in the 1990s. One of the experiments was to train the pigs to move the cursor on a video screen with their snouts. When the pigs used the cursors again, they were able to distinguish between the scribbles they already knew, and the scribbles they were seeing for the first time. The pigs learned this skill as fast as the chimpanzees.All species of pig are smarter than dogs, and capable of abstract representation. “They can hold an icon in their mind, and remember it at a later date,” says Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University, who discovered that pigs dominate at video games with joy sticks. Curtis goes on to say, “Pigs are able to focus with an intensity I have never seen in a chimp.”
Read more at Suite101: The Intelligent Pig: The Smartest Domestic Animal in The World | Suite101.com http://chris-mclaughlin.suite101.com/the-intelligent-pig-a84448#ixzz1c6Ydp2AB

So, would pigs get the "special treatment" you are talking about?  They are widely considered to be nearly as smart, if not as smart, as primates?  Close, but no cigar, in your opinion?  If intelligence is your criteria, then pigs are certainly deserving. Smarter than dogs, after all. They are also among the most mistreated of factory farm animals.  I won't even gross you out with the details.

I certainly am for anything that stops the mistreatment of animals, and the destruction of habitat, but PETA's approach is misguided and doomed to failure.  I have met a lot of animal rights people in my career, including PETA's primary attorney.  Nice people, but they seem to lack even a basic understanding of animals.

quote:

I'm not talking about dogs.

But you see, that is part of PETA's campaign, not only circus animals, but our food source and companions.  They feel we have no business at the top of the ladder, we are all equal.  If this is your belief, I support your right to think this way, just not the right to try and tell me it is the ONLY way, which is what they are aiming for.

Chimps can communicate. They have been taught ASL, and show amazing levels of intelligence, emotions and social behavior.

I don't think that they are "animals" without intelligence and emotions. I do think that they are intelligent beings that deserve more respect and consideration than cows, dogs, sheep, amoeba or even birds.

I think dolphins may be at that point as well.

The question becomes how do we treat them differently, than we do "animals"? (We are all "animals" in the biological sense).

No, we can't integrate them into our societies, and give them the right to sue, to vote, etc. Perhaps it is nothing more than a higher level of protection as to habitat and how they are treated when they are under the control of human society.

But continuing to classify them as animals in the respect that we can slaughter them for food or sport and entertainment, buy and sell them as "objects" doesn't seem to me to be a moral choice that I wish to continue to support.

And I support your feelings, a great many would agree with you.  I wouldn't classify any living being as an "object", such as furniture, but I don't feel I am equal with a chicken, or cat.  There is a chain of command, when dogs or chickens can sit down and discuss the state of our union, I may consider them my equal.  This doesn't mean I wish them harm, or wouldn't punch anyone in the face who was abusing an animal, but I call that compassion, not equality.  

Where I get annoyed with PETA, is their religious zealot approach.  Shock value and gruesome pictures sell, it doesn't matter if the topic is represented correctly, or not.  The more supporters they drum up, the more money in the till.  This is probably one of the reasons I made a lousy slave...I have issues with people telling me what to do, what is correct or not, according to their beliefs.  :)

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I dunno.

I actually favor giving Chimps, some of the other primates and dolphins more protection than simply that of animals, even if not complete "personhood".

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Now for a more serious response ...

I think the question is more about self awareness.

Do I have an unqualified "right" answer?  Nope.  I don't.

But if pigs are able to meet the standard of chimps and dolphins ... yes.  Protect them and take them out of the food chain.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

The 13th amendment implies to people not to whales. However corporations like Sea World  are person as stated by the US Supreme court. They are created in some lawyers office that is officially recognized as by the government as a person. And like all God's creation we must treat these people with care and respect and let it live the way God intended. This lawsuit an attempt to for Sea World live unnaturally, like forcing a lion to be a vegetarian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Exactly Lisa. I don't think most of the people who send donations to these revolting organizations have any idea what their true agenda is.

quote:

One of the most disturbing sights Ive EVER seen on video was of Japanese whalers hauling live dolphins up by their tails from the water into their boats to be slaughtered. The screams that came from from these animals was one of the most horrific sounds Ive ever heard, and just even thinking about it really upsets me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm not talking about dogs.

Chimps can communicate.  They have been taught ASL, and show amazing levels of intelligence, emotions and social behavior.

I don't think that they are "animals" without intelligence and emotions.  I do think that they are intelligent beings that deserve more respect and consideration than cows, dogs, sheep, amoeba or even birds.

I think dolphins may be at that point as well.

The question becomes how do we treat them differently, than we do "animals"?  (We are all "animals" in the biological sense).

No, we can't integrate them into our societies, and give them the right to sue, to vote, etc.  Perhaps it is nothing more than a higher level of protection as to habitat and how they are treated when they are under the control of human society.

But continuing to classify them as animals in the respect that we can slaughter them for food or sport and entertainment, buy and sell them as "objects" doesn't seem to me to be a moral choice that I wish to continue to support.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Been reading David Brin?

Do you think that we are ready to "uplift' another species?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

If you really want to protect animals, particularly wildlife, the only way to do that is to protect habitat.  That means sharply curtailing fishing, hunting, development, agriculture, and probably a lot of other things that people aren't willing to sacrifice to do.  Assigning them "rights" or establishing some dichotomy based on nebulous, emotional criteria is meaningless. That is why I disagree so completely with PETA.  In terms of actually protecting animals, I imagine the Nature Conservancy has done more than PETA and HSUS and all the other crackpot animal right's organizations combined.
If humans aren't willing to curtail habitat destruction (they aren't), then we need to accept the fact that some, if not many, species are only going to exist in captivity.  That includes places like zoos and Sea World.  So which is better, extinction or captivity?  That's the disconnect for me.  I fail to see how a lawsuit like this one will do anything to actually protect species.