The Deafening Silence | Hacker News Reader

The Deafening Silence

outlookzen.com

9 pointswhack14 comments

I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on.

Despite the many similarities we share with animals and regardless of your opinion of how bad and destructive humans are, we always will be qualitatively different from animals in a way that gives us rights that animals should not have. If we grant dogs the right of personhood, then they should be able to vote, marry, go to school... reductio ad absurdum.

I'm a dog lover myself, but this (American) societal tendency to blur the delineation between humans and animals is a slippery slope to absurdity.

> I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on.

We really are mimicking the fall of the Roman Empire. Next step: animals can vote. If they have the same rights as humans, then why not? After that comes being able to vote them into congress. I know people who think voting for a Beagle would be a better alternative than their local congressman.

We already do that. Aren't there some towns in some states that have a dog as their mayor or some shit? It's pretty amusing to me.

The right to not be killed for food is a long way from being able to vote, go to school or be married. No-one is suggesting that, you're straw-manning.

> “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."

The linked articles are suggesting that animals should be given similar protections as infants, since the two are of similar cognitive capacity. This eliminates any right to vote/marry etc etc, and voids your reductio-ad-absurdum objection

The article quoted by TFA suggests a limited personhood for animals as one possible response to the study. This is not the same as elevating their rights to that of a person.

> “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."

Not a surprise to me.

I was one of those aspie kids who couldn't run with the other kids but I did run with a pack of dogs. Recently I realized I knew a lot about dogs and that was how I learned it.

Since then I have worked closely with cats and horses, fought with beavers, got passed on by a raccoon and also worked in A.I. I am completely convinced that 90+% of human intelligence is animal intelligence and language is the main thing we have that other animals dont.

> language is the main thing we have that other animals dont.

There are plenty of animals with at least rudimentary forms of language. The thing which I think sets H. sapiens sapiens apart is the fictive use of language: we seem to be the only critters that knowingly, deliberate emit falsehoods from our pie holes (whether to deceive or entertain, or whatever else).

I think _persistence of thought_ is the thing that separates us. We are able to look back on ideas first thought by thinkers thousands of years ago and continue to riff off/transform ideas of old. That enables us to keep a catalogue not only of ideas that work, but ideas that no longer work and _why_.

Drongo birds lie to steal food.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140501-dron...

Or perhaps we are all but dancing birds trying to be our best.

If we're going to worry about treatment of animals, wouldn't livestock be the appropriate starting point? After all they are the ones living in our concentration camps and being mass slaughtered. Dogs on the other hand mostly tend to be treated very well and there is plenty of outrage when they are harmed or killed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com