May 27, 2025
Elephants All the Way
Timothy Birdnow
Increasingly animal rights is becoming a legal matter.
How?
Recently the Colorado Supreme Court had to rule elephants are not people. My question is, how was this case ever in court? Elephants cannot file the peitition themselves, and nobody else had standing.
This is PRECISELY what standing is intended for; to keep third parties from intervening in legal matters that do not concern them.
FTA:
And this while every attempt to deny personhood has been made in the case of fetuses. The hypocrisy and inconsistency off the Left is breathtaking.
And yet a fetus is a human being. It will turn into that remarkable entity if given time and the right environment and proper care. An elephant or a gorilla will never be anything but an elephant or gorilla. (BTW Gorillas are the smartes of animal, smarter than elephants, and yet they eat their own waste and wander around naked, humping a female whenever it suits their fancy. I would speak to Orcas but they are pretty much the same.)
What makes someone human? DNA first off. (It's amazing how the Left hates that inconvenient little molecule.) There are many other aspects of humanity though; our intellect, even of the stupidest of us, is WAY above the smartest animal. It's high enough to where we have free will, and can and must make all sorts of choices. (It's not so high we lose free will beause we always know the right answer.) Animals don't do that; they live by their instincts. Intelligence may help them solve basic problems but that's the extent of it. Animals do not progress. There is no culture of animals that changes and grows. There is no improvement of animal technology.The life of an elephant is pretty much the same as the life of it's parents and this goes back all the way. Only environmental changes matter to the beasts. They do not have cultural or political or technological changes because they do not think, not the way humans do. It seems doubtful there is any introspection among them. They lack hopes and dreams - they just are. Their existence is entirely bound by their circumstances and the NOW. They do not live in past, present, and future as do humans.
They may have some sort of love but you won't find it being as complex a thing as human love. The Greeks had 7 different words for love and all of them meant something different. I rather doubt elephants have agape love, or any of the more distinct forms. Yes, they have eros, and probably Philia, but it's doubtful they had any of the rest.
And while they can communicate with one another in some fashion they lack formal language and thus cannot communicate complex ideas as do we. Humans have a specific speech centers in the brain known as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas, among a few others. No animal has that. Animals CAN communicate and Gorillas have been taught to use basic sign language, but it's always pretty simple stuff. Research on Chipmonks showed they have a kind of language and can communicate things like color. But they can't possibly communicate things like Relativity theory or Shakespearean sonnets.
Animals do not create or enjoy music.
Animals do not laugh. Whether they have a sense of humor or not is questionable too. I believe my cats did,but I can't prove it. At any rate there are no Jewish comedians in the animal kingdom.
Animals do not write. Animals do not make fire. Animals do not worship. I don't know if animals have a sense of the existence of God or not, but they clearly don't do anything about it. Only Man seems to be cognizant of God and practices religion.
Some animals do have crude funeral rituals, but they don't seem to be much. Elephants do have graveyards, but they don't bury their dead; they are content to just let the flesh of their fathers and mothers and children rot in a big pile of bones.
I could go on but the point is made; there is a distinct differnce between "personhood" which is a way to get around the non-human nature of critters, and being human. (Personhood,by the way, has long been the philosophical argument used by leftists to justify abortion and euthenasia both. They claim sound minds are necessary for "personhood" which frees them from the moral obligations of human beings - thus putting them into the class of animals, which also do not seem to be too constrained by any moral code.)
And there is absolutely no reson for any court of law to hear such cases. Until an elephant can actually sign it'sname to a legal complaint the point is moot.
Of course the elephant can't take the witness stand and raise it's right hand when so instructed either.
This is all part of the desacrilizing of Mankind. We used to rightly understand we were not animals except in the basics of our flesh. But there are those who rejected Christianity, indeed, all religions and thus they must drag us down to the mud. The only way we can operate a society run by "the best and brightest" without restraint is to make Man no differnt than the animals. Man is not a glorious spirit, a little less than the angels, inside a physical body but rather the body and the corporeal universe is all there is and they intend to prove this by giving "personhood" to animals. If their view becomes the majority view then they can do anything to anybody at any time. The only restrictions are those a majority of people agree with, or which the oligarchical rulers of society allow. If you are a guy who wants to be a girl so be it! Natural law and the sacredness of humanity doesn't enter into the decision, nor does accepting any role put forward by nature. We can kill human beings if we deem them non persons (remember the Holocaust) which makes ruling the public a lot easier. In fact you can be a god unto yourself if you follow this route; just will it so! But to get to that point one first must reject anything beyond this immediate existence. Raising up animals to equality with Man is simply another tool of the Devil.
Well, if we are to give elephants rights then I insist they take the same responsibilities as we all must bear. They should pay taxes. They should be forced to go to jury duty. They should have to register for the draft (I suppose Hannibal drafted elephants in his army, but I rather doubt the animals registerd for it first.) They should have to wear clothing, defecate in private, and obey all pedestrin traffic laws.
Somehow I suspect they won't be able to do that.
The reality is our society has become batcrap crazy and the very fact we are pushing animal rights is proof of that. Animals do not have rights. Humans have responsibilities for treating animals ethically. There is a huge difference.
Increasingly animal rights is becoming a legal matter.
How?
Recently the Colorado Supreme Court had to rule elephants are not people. My question is, how was this case ever in court? Elephants cannot file the peitition themselves, and nobody else had standing.
This is PRECISELY what standing is intended for; to keep third parties from intervening in legal matters that do not concern them.
FTA:
The Colorado Supreme Court did not hear from the elephants directly. They heard from the Nonhuman Rights Project, which filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of the pachyderms, arguing that their confinement in a Colorado Springs zoo violated their right to bodily liberty.
Over the past decade, the Nonhuman Rights Project and several other animal rights groups have waged a novel campaign to extend legal "personhood" to animals, which would allow them to be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits. Many of these cases have attempted to free large, charismatic animals such as elephants and chimpanzees from zoos under the great writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful imprisonment.
Other courts around the world have recognized fundamental rights for animals. In Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court declared in 2020, in the case of a shackled and mistreated elephant, that it "is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter's behavioral, social and physiological needs." In 2022, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that animals were subject to "rights of nature" enshrined in the country's constitution. And last year, indigenous leaders of New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands signed a treaty recognizing whales as legal persons.
Critics scoff that this amounts to little more than absurdist lawfare and that legal recognition of animal personhood would almost certainly empower busybody environmentalists—and might not even improve conditions for the animals. There are also public pressure campaigns and existing legal avenues that could improve animal welfare without attempting to shift one of the bedrock principles of Western law.
But the question at the heart of these cases—whether a nonhuman entity can have a cognizable liberty interest—has surprisingly deep implications, not just for animals but for human freedom and flourishing. Research into artificial intelligence (AI) may eventually run into similar ethical considerations.
Over the past decade, the Nonhuman Rights Project and several other animal rights groups have waged a novel campaign to extend legal "personhood" to animals, which would allow them to be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits. Many of these cases have attempted to free large, charismatic animals such as elephants and chimpanzees from zoos under the great writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful imprisonment.
Other courts around the world have recognized fundamental rights for animals. In Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court declared in 2020, in the case of a shackled and mistreated elephant, that it "is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter's behavioral, social and physiological needs." In 2022, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that animals were subject to "rights of nature" enshrined in the country's constitution. And last year, indigenous leaders of New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands signed a treaty recognizing whales as legal persons.
Critics scoff that this amounts to little more than absurdist lawfare and that legal recognition of animal personhood would almost certainly empower busybody environmentalists—and might not even improve conditions for the animals. There are also public pressure campaigns and existing legal avenues that could improve animal welfare without attempting to shift one of the bedrock principles of Western law.
But the question at the heart of these cases—whether a nonhuman entity can have a cognizable liberty interest—has surprisingly deep implications, not just for animals but for human freedom and flourishing. Research into artificial intelligence (AI) may eventually run into similar ethical considerations.
And this while every attempt to deny personhood has been made in the case of fetuses. The hypocrisy and inconsistency off the Left is breathtaking.
And yet a fetus is a human being. It will turn into that remarkable entity if given time and the right environment and proper care. An elephant or a gorilla will never be anything but an elephant or gorilla. (BTW Gorillas are the smartes of animal, smarter than elephants, and yet they eat their own waste and wander around naked, humping a female whenever it suits their fancy. I would speak to Orcas but they are pretty much the same.)
What makes someone human? DNA first off. (It's amazing how the Left hates that inconvenient little molecule.) There are many other aspects of humanity though; our intellect, even of the stupidest of us, is WAY above the smartest animal. It's high enough to where we have free will, and can and must make all sorts of choices. (It's not so high we lose free will beause we always know the right answer.) Animals don't do that; they live by their instincts. Intelligence may help them solve basic problems but that's the extent of it. Animals do not progress. There is no culture of animals that changes and grows. There is no improvement of animal technology.The life of an elephant is pretty much the same as the life of it's parents and this goes back all the way. Only environmental changes matter to the beasts. They do not have cultural or political or technological changes because they do not think, not the way humans do. It seems doubtful there is any introspection among them. They lack hopes and dreams - they just are. Their existence is entirely bound by their circumstances and the NOW. They do not live in past, present, and future as do humans.
They may have some sort of love but you won't find it being as complex a thing as human love. The Greeks had 7 different words for love and all of them meant something different. I rather doubt elephants have agape love, or any of the more distinct forms. Yes, they have eros, and probably Philia, but it's doubtful they had any of the rest.
And while they can communicate with one another in some fashion they lack formal language and thus cannot communicate complex ideas as do we. Humans have a specific speech centers in the brain known as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas, among a few others. No animal has that. Animals CAN communicate and Gorillas have been taught to use basic sign language, but it's always pretty simple stuff. Research on Chipmonks showed they have a kind of language and can communicate things like color. But they can't possibly communicate things like Relativity theory or Shakespearean sonnets.
Animals do not create or enjoy music.
Animals do not laugh. Whether they have a sense of humor or not is questionable too. I believe my cats did,but I can't prove it. At any rate there are no Jewish comedians in the animal kingdom.
Animals do not write. Animals do not make fire. Animals do not worship. I don't know if animals have a sense of the existence of God or not, but they clearly don't do anything about it. Only Man seems to be cognizant of God and practices religion.
Some animals do have crude funeral rituals, but they don't seem to be much. Elephants do have graveyards, but they don't bury their dead; they are content to just let the flesh of their fathers and mothers and children rot in a big pile of bones.
I could go on but the point is made; there is a distinct differnce between "personhood" which is a way to get around the non-human nature of critters, and being human. (Personhood,by the way, has long been the philosophical argument used by leftists to justify abortion and euthenasia both. They claim sound minds are necessary for "personhood" which frees them from the moral obligations of human beings - thus putting them into the class of animals, which also do not seem to be too constrained by any moral code.)
And there is absolutely no reson for any court of law to hear such cases. Until an elephant can actually sign it'sname to a legal complaint the point is moot.
Of course the elephant can't take the witness stand and raise it's right hand when so instructed either.
This is all part of the desacrilizing of Mankind. We used to rightly understand we were not animals except in the basics of our flesh. But there are those who rejected Christianity, indeed, all religions and thus they must drag us down to the mud. The only way we can operate a society run by "the best and brightest" without restraint is to make Man no differnt than the animals. Man is not a glorious spirit, a little less than the angels, inside a physical body but rather the body and the corporeal universe is all there is and they intend to prove this by giving "personhood" to animals. If their view becomes the majority view then they can do anything to anybody at any time. The only restrictions are those a majority of people agree with, or which the oligarchical rulers of society allow. If you are a guy who wants to be a girl so be it! Natural law and the sacredness of humanity doesn't enter into the decision, nor does accepting any role put forward by nature. We can kill human beings if we deem them non persons (remember the Holocaust) which makes ruling the public a lot easier. In fact you can be a god unto yourself if you follow this route; just will it so! But to get to that point one first must reject anything beyond this immediate existence. Raising up animals to equality with Man is simply another tool of the Devil.
Well, if we are to give elephants rights then I insist they take the same responsibilities as we all must bear. They should pay taxes. They should be forced to go to jury duty. They should have to register for the draft (I suppose Hannibal drafted elephants in his army, but I rather doubt the animals registerd for it first.) They should have to wear clothing, defecate in private, and obey all pedestrin traffic laws.
Somehow I suspect they won't be able to do that.
The reality is our society has become batcrap crazy and the very fact we are pushing animal rights is proof of that. Animals do not have rights. Humans have responsibilities for treating animals ethically. There is a huge difference.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:58 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1495 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Hmmm... I have a suspicion that this article has more than a little relationship to the previous one, at least in terms of where we are coming from... Think about it for a couple of minutes.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at May 27, 2025 09:47 PM (km+Lu)
29kb generated in CPU 0.0894, elapsed 0.9356 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.9291 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.9291 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
