Activists Want Chimp Declared a ‘Person’

I find this incredibly hard to believe, and yet I don’t. I can almost not even bring myself to type such an absurdity.

Check it out for yourself here.

Can a chimp be a “person”? If the answer to this question is yes, then what makes me not a chimp? This is nothing more than the inverted logic of Darwinism. The natural end of Darwinian evolution is that I am nothing more than an animal. Apparently the flip side to this is that animals are persons. Either way you look at it, there is nothing unique to human kind. The result is that you have chimps watching television and elementary kids committing suicide.

Oh God save us!

5 thoughts on “Activists Want Chimp Declared a ‘Person’

  1. The previous comment has been deleted by the administrator due to a violation of the terms and conditions for comments on this blog found here. Someone decided to copy and paste a lengthy comment from a late racist professor from the University of Illinois. I will not direct my readers to the source, nor will I allow any further comments to do so either. To whomever posted the previous comment, keep your fascist antisemitism to yourself and off my blog.

  2. Sean,
    Regarding your previous post about cyber-church, I was going to say that one thing I can’t stand about the internet is how people can act in ways online that they never would act in reality. It’s easy to pretent you are courageous when you’re anonymously sitting behind some computer screen. So, you get some person posting something idiotic that he/she would never have the guts to say publically.

    Regarding this post, I’m actually surprised that we don’t see more of this kind of nonsense. I mean, if naturalism is true, the distinctions between humans and other animals seems to break down (especially moral distinctions). I have the feeling, though, that most people who don’t believe in God still believe that there is a profound difference between humans and other animals. They see the huge moral difference between killing humans and killing mice, but their naturalistic worldview doesn’t give them good reasons to make this moral distinction. It seems to me, that if naturalists were truly consistent, they should either be nihilists and do away with morality, or be extreme animal rights activists and apply moral catagories to all animals. Maybe there’s a way in which they would try to get around these two options, but I tend to think that most naturalists aren’t consistent.

  3. Tristan,

    I’m not even going to dignify that person’s comment by saying anything else about it. I feel the same way about it as you.

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your assessment of naturalism. It’s the inconsistency part that I think really gets to the heart of the matter. It seems as though the only people who are carrying naturalism to its true logical conclusion are these poor kids committing suicide for lack of hope. All the rest, like Richard Dawkins for example, want to maintain some form of morality but without any transcendent ground to do so.

  4. You guys need to stop monkeying around.
    Naturalism takes out human responsibility and guilt and replaces them with carnal-animal tendancies that lead toward hedonism.
    Man, I have a paper to work on, I don’t have time for this.

  5. Ron! Welcome back. We need your parental presence to keep us in order.

    Your thoughts on naturalism bring out another aspect of my point. These activists want to elevate an animal to the status of “person,” which is really another way of saying that a “person” is nothing more than an animal. If this be true, then hedonism is the immediate fruit of this line of thinking, and for those who perceive the ultimate meaninglessness and hopelessness of this logic deem suicide a natural means of escape. It truly is a sad situation.

    Check back and comment more often (assuming that you’ve got your homework done first, of course).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *