Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

quidity (1296)

quidity
  (email not shown publicly)
http://the.earth.li/~alex/
Jabber: quidity@jabber.earth.li

A relapsing reformed physicist.

Journal of quidity (1296)

Saturday April 27, 2002
09:07 AM

More lawyers required

[ #4494 ]

It seems that the Monkeys are men meme has surfaced again, and that they should obtain legal representation because they share 98.7% of our genetic code. I wonder if this means quite what the tree (ape?) hugging statisticians would have us believe... after all, most of our genetic code is, strictly speaking, inactive rubbish -- is it this part we share? Also, does this mean fish should gain 24.5% of the rights of a person?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you had read the whole article a little more carefully, you might have noticed that there are other arguments presented, besides that of genetics. I would agree that the genetics arguments is potentially misleading, if not outright bogus.

    Even worse, in my opinion, it bases animal rights solely on their "resemblence", genetic and behaviorally, on humans, which I think is a terrible position for any animal rights activist to take.

    Animal rights should be based on something more concrete, like their abili