Moderator: Community Team


black elk speaks wrote:I would say no. there is enough difference in the genetic code that they are not Homosapien.














deepsouth wrote:unless monkeys can succesfully produce offspring with humans they can never be classified as humans. intelligence isn't enough.
sure, using that logic who's to say jonny knoxville isn't a chimpanzee?
















jiminski wrote:(Neanderthal man may have interbred with early homo sapien man but we are still classified as separate)
























2dimes wrote:jiminski wrote:(Neanderthal man may have interbred with early homo sapien man but we are still classified as separate)
I've missed some past information here. You're which again?
















2dimes wrote:The concept "They can even learn sign language, they're just like us!!" is so funny.
It's not like they are getting a full education here and learning valuble job skills. They're learning to sign LOL after throwing the contents of thier diaper at the so called scientists.



















chogori wrote:Following the definition of species, monkeys would have to produce fertile offspring with humans to be able to be classified as homo sapiens...
This is also why lions and tigers are of a different species; they only produce non-fertile offspring.
















































Jenos Ridan wrote:the blame can be more or less evenly spread between most of the Muslim world for aiding and abeiting terrorism [and] the UN for allowing it to happen

Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis































Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?
















jiminski wrote:Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?
as moral or at least emotive dilemmas go, that is quite an easy one... the slug gets it every time.
now if you swap 'slug' for 'blind puppy', i think you may be on to something!


Ditocoaf wrote:jiminski wrote:Ditocoaf wrote:Classifying them as humans is an irrelevant question; it's a simple matter of genetics. What is interesting: should they be considered non-human people? They can communicate with us, and understand our speech. Physically they are incapable of making the vocal sounds that we are. But does intelligence and intercommunication imply that we should extend further rights to them than we do towards, say, a slug?
as moral or at least emotive dilemmas go, that is quite an easy one... the slug gets it every time.
now if you swap 'slug' for 'blind puppy', i think you may be on to something!
...perhaps my question was flawed, but not on the cuteness factor. A better question:
Should they receive more rights than an endangered frog?






















HapSmo19 wrote:So this is how the grassroots campaign to legalize man-monkey marriage gets started.


Users browsing this forum: No registered users