Do Bigfoots, Yetis & Yowies Have Human Rights In The Eyes Of The Law?

[common_sense_seeker]

The Australians seem to be encountering the big hairy ape-man, the yowie, in their mountainland farmsteads with increasing regularity. If it can be assumed that clear-cut video footage is just a matter of time away, is the propect of a government led initiative to capture one to be put on display morally justified? Shouldn't they simply be left alone as much as possible and given a special status with human rights? This would be the law anyway, wouldn't it, since they are technically human?

BTW: Russians Search For Yeti Starting June 2009

 

[Oli]

The Australians seem to be encountering the big hairy ape-man, the yowie, in their mountainland farmsteads with increasing regularity.

Claim to be...

If it can be assumed

If it can be assumed?

This would be the law anyway, wouldn't it, since they are technically human?

Are they? Any more than any other ape?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

By the dictionary definition, the free dictionary, I would say "yes", since the intelligent beings would be of the Homo genus.

 

[Oli]

Intelligent?
Is there any evidence (or even sign) of intelligence?

Can we breed with them?
If no they're not human.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Intelligent?
Is there any evidence (or even sign) of intelligence?

Can we breed with them?
If no they're not human.

I believe that future studies will show that such creatures, if they exist, are highly intelligent. Interestingly enough, there IS some evidence to suggest that we humans interbred with neanderthals (although the offspring were still unable to throw a spear, and so at an evolutionary disadvantage). Even so, I think that the ability to interbreed or not is a poor measure of a sentient beings rights to lawful consideration.

 

[Oli]

You believe. Oh good.
The ability to interbreed or not is a good indicator of being the same specie (or whatever the correct term is).
If they can't breed with us they aren't human.
If they aren't human why should they have human rights?
So the Yeti, etc. is a Neanderthal?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You believe. Oh good.
The ability to interbreed or not is a good indicator of being the same specie (or whatever the correct term is).
If they can't breed with us they aren't human.
If they aren't human why should they have human rights?
So the Yeti, etc. is a Neanderthal?

What about the ethics? You don't think there is an issue?

 

[Oli]

What about the ethics? You don't think there is an issue?

Ethics?
How do ethics apply to mythological species?
We've more or less accepted that dolphins are intelligent, how do we treat them?
Dragons (for example) are commonly regarded as intelligent (and capable of speech). What are their rights?

 

[Tiassa]

The simple answer

If—

(A) the yeti is shown to exist, and
(B) it is identifiable as H. sapiens neanderthalensis, or a derivative or variation thereof, or another subgroup of H. sapiens​

—then yes, it has human rights.

As to the broader question of intelligence, it is possible that we will be visiting this question as regards cybernetic systems during most of our lifetimes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do Humans have human rights in the eyes of the Law?

Which human rights does the law protect?

 

[Tiassa]

Either yes, or maybe

Do Humans have human rights in the eyes of the Law?

Which human rights does the law protect?

That's a bit cynical, don't you think? Or, perhaps, I should simply respond:

• Yes.

• Whose law? Whose interpretation of that law?​

 

[S.A.M.]

• Whose law? Whose interpretation of that law?

You said Yes for the first part. Which law were you referring to?

 

[swarm]

...

You can't give fantasies human rights unless they are corperations and then they get better than human rights.

 

[swarm]

The ability to interbreed or not is a good indicator of being the same specie (or whatever the correct term is).

Same? No. A number of similar species are able to interbreed.

But we have genetic analysis to answer these questions so you can kick that yeti out of bed now.

 

[Baron Max]

Human rights come from the power of the muzzle of a gun! Without the power to enforce it, there would be no human rights.

And, for those of you who can't turn that around on your own, ....human rights can be taken away from people with the power of the gun. The UN calls those "violations of human rights", yet they do little or nothing to stop the armed violators.

Yep, people with the power of the gun can give out "human rights" to anyone that they want ...ain't no one to stop 'em. With a big enough gun, we could give "human rights" to ants and cockroaches.

Baron Max

 

[Oli]

Same? No. A number of similar species are able to interbreed.

Ah, okey-doke.
Biology is full of icky bits - dropped it early, but I don't mind learning a bit.

But we have genetic analysis to answer these questions so you can kick that yeti out of bed now.

Hey, the Yeti got me drunk.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

If—

(A) the yeti is shown to exist, and
(B) it is identifiable as H. sapiens neanderthalensis, or a derivative or variation thereof, or another subgroup of H. sapiens​

—then yes, it has human rights.

I'm glad to hear this common sense approach.

Human rights come from the power of the muzzle of a gun! Without the power to enforce it, there would be no human rights.

And, for those of you who can't turn that around on your own, ....human rights can be taken away from people with the power of the gun. The UN calls those "violations of human rights", yet they do little or nothing to stop the armed violators.

Yep, people with the power of the gun can give out "human rights" to anyone that they want ...ain't no one to stop 'em. With a big enough gun, we could give "human rights" to ants and cockroaches.

Baron Max

Interesting point. If, for example, the creatures responded to encroaching and interfering university research teams by the use of terrorising tactics, would this increase or decrease their potential for human rights?

 

[Baron Max]

Interesting point. If, for example, the creatures responded to encroaching and interfering university research teams by the use of terrorising tactics, would this increase or decrease their potential for human rights?

Depends entirely on the amount of power that the creatures have. If they have more power than others, then they can dictate whatever they wish as "human rights" ....and apply it to whomever they wish.

Just remember, the use of guns and power can be for ....EITHER... good or bad. In the popular westers, don't the good guys in white hats also use guns? Sure they do. And they use those guns for the good of the townspeople and the world of love and goodwill and all that wimpy, mamby-pamby, liberal bullshit.

Baron Max

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Depends entirely on the amount of power that the creatures have. If they have more power than others, then they can dictate whatever they wish as "human rights" ....and apply it to whomever they wish.

Just remember, the use of guns and power can be for ....EITHER... good or bad. In the popular westers, don't the good guys in white hats also use guns? Sure they do. And they use those guns for the good of the townspeople and the world of love and goodwill and all that wimpy, mamby-pamby, liberal bullshit.

Baron Max

Would you personally justify the shooting of a unknown big hairy ape-man, even if it wasn't an oncoming direct threat?

 

[Baron Max]

Would you personally justify the shooting of a unknown big hairy ape-man, even if it wasn't an oncoming direct threat?

Huh? What the fuck does that have to do with any-fuckin'-thing of this thread?????

But personally, I think people should be permitted to shoot anyone that they want to shoot ....on selected times of the year ...the legal hunting/killing days of the year. Human Hunting Season!

Baron Max