Jump to content
Awoo.

"Dolphins are people too," say Scientists


Patticus

Recommended Posts

Wait, Dolphins seriously RAPE & KILL others like humans do?! Holy fucking shit this puts them in a new light. I always thought they were among the kindest sentient creatures on this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, Dolphins seriously RAPE & KILL others like humans do?! Holy fucking shit this puts them in a new light. I always thought they were among the kindest sentient creatures on this planet.

As is under discussion, Dolphins have the capacity to think and evolve like humans. And like humans, some are good and some are bad.

Mind you I am NOT approving of this nature in the slightest, but my point being saying that all Dolphins are terrible creatures because of this would be the same as saying all humans are terrible creatures because of what some humans/dolphins do.

Edited by Agent York
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are some of you really that closed minded to think that animals don't deserve rights because they don't have a legal system? Do you even realize our own legal system as it is now hasn't even been in place for that long? That the light bulb has only existed for 133 years? Compare that to how long man has been alive.

If evolution is true, animals that need government should already have a government to the extent that it's needed. In the same way, all human justice systems, be they 100 or 100,000 years old were created for a human constituency, so it takes some kind of hubris to believe we can effectively impose it on another species. If dolphins are to be treated as equal to humans, they are to be given the same restrictions as well as the same rights, and to me, expecting a dolphin to uphold the same laws as we do without knowing having a way to interpret it to them is, frankly, ludicrous. If you want to make laws on how humans are allowed to INTERACT with dolphins, I'm all for that, but if you're going to incorperate any species into the same umbrella as humans, they should be able to be held to the same standards.

And somehow saying treating animals that are proven to have the self-consciousness and a deeper level of sense and place that humans also possess with more respect is somehow a bad thing? What is wrong with some of you?

"People" is being used as a simpler means to explain that their brains have the capacity to evolve, think, and feel. Not that they actually are human, because their dolphins of course! Being intelligent doesn't just qualify as being human or living in human ways.

For the record, I don't disagree with these scientists particular intentions, it's the justification that anything that can exhibit self-awareness can be seen as an individual with the same respect we'd see another human. Sapience isn't something that just exists or doesn't, it's a spectrum. Between the simplest amoeba to the most cognitive man, there isn't any single point where a species can say Cogito Ergo Sum; every single one is capable of a different level of cognition and we should respect that.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see what that has to do with their complexity so much as representative of a differing core ideology between subsets of the same species.

I was just trying to explain that humanity itself has come up with many wildly different legal systems, which sometimes were entirely alien to what others coming in from outside had known before. God only knows what other species' may come up with on their own...

A legal system is pretty easy to identify, it's the complexity OF the legal system that I'm questioning, or more specifically the species ability to create a justice system. If an animal can reward another's good behavior or punish another's bad behavior, then you have justice. The point here is, if dolphins are intelligent enough to form a society around a codified set of laws as we are, they'd probably also have the brainpower to create technology, infrastructure, philosophy, art, economics and written language by now, in which case they wouldn't really need our protection much to begin with. I realize it's difficult to quantify a difference in awareness but it's usually pretty obvious when they differ; for instance, both humans and bears are smarter than bees, yet only one came up with the idea to farm honey. Until we see another species have their own Neolithic Revolution, I believe we should take ourselves in priority.

The Cetaceans involved here are highly intelligent, self-aware creatures with complex languages and what were previously considered human-exclusive attributes such as: The ability to think... considering scenarios, to problem solve to their advantage and outsmart our experiments. They clearly display compassion and empathy toward their fellows, even joining a sort of rudimentary medical expertise to it by identifying for example an injured jaw and what that meant (the inability to feed oneself) and helping the injured party by feeding it (suggesting well developed thinking abilities, perhaps even emotions we might understand). They have displayed complex and frankly ingenious hunting strategies (suggesting a capability for abstract thought, which even Neanderthals lacked), even in some areas successfully identifying the purpose of human fishing boats and working with them in exchange for a portion of the catch (which in itself may be no remarkable thing; birds have been known to cooperate with man during fishing activities, e.g. in south China, but couple it with all the rest that we know about them and it takes on a new significance, to me anyway), and they appear to be as flawed as any human when they murder and rape one another.

They're a bit like humanity was for a hundred thousand years after we first evolved on this planet, in all those respects.

But you cannot build a human-level society as we might define one with brain power alone. Evolution has not blessed Cetaceans with hands, opposable thumbs, telekinesis or anything else that would allow the construction of a built-up, urban society as we would know it. They have not the physical capability to do those things, nor has such a capability ever been necessary for them.

"I think, therefore I am" evidently doesn't apply to Cetaceans if they don't write it down...

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm strictly Darwin at this point. No other animal than Humans are the most intelligent and no other animal can come up to our levels.

THAT'S NOT FUCKING DARWIN. Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, they're just one of many, many, many, many, many, many, many millions of branches. There's nothing there that suggests that humans can be the only bramch with self-awareness and the ability to think on a complex level.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just trying to explain that humanity itself has come up with many wildly different legal systems, which sometimes were entirely alien to what others coming in from outside had known before. God only knows what other species' may come up with on their own...

All that says then is that humans are capable of multiple kinds of legal systems. That doesn't say anything about other species.

The Cetaceans involved here are highly intelligent, self-aware creatures with complex languages and what were previously considered human-exclusive attributes such as: The ability to think... considering scenarios, to problem solve to their advantage and outsmart our experiments. They clearly display compassion and empathy toward their fellows, even joining some sort of medical expertise to it by identifying for example an injured jaw and what that meant (the inability to feed oneself) and helping the injured party by feeding it (suggesting well developed thinking abilities and even emotions we might understand). They have displayed complex and frankly ingenious hunting strategies (suggesting the capability for abstract thought, which even Neanderthals lacked), even in some areas successfully identifying the purpose of human fishing boats and working with them in exchange for a portion of the catch (which in itself may be no remarkable thing; birds have been known to cooperate with man during fishing activities, e.g. in south China, but couple it with all the rest that we know about them and it takes on a new significance, to me anyway), and they appear to be as flawed as any human when they murder and rape one another.

They're a bit like humanity was for a hundred thousand years after we first evolved on this planet, in all those respects.

I don't deny dolphins aren't intellegent, reletively speaking, but my objection is that it's a different kind of intelligence than our society accounts for in its structure.

But you cannot build a human-level society as we might define one with brain power alone. Evolution has not blessed Cetaceans with hands, opposable thumbs, telekinesis or anything else that would allow the construction of a built-up, urban society as we would know it. They have not the physical capability to do those things, nor has such a capability ever been necessary for them.

That's part of my point; they're not even physically built to interact with a human society let alone communicate with it. We have opposable thumbs because we exist in a way that we need them; dolphins live in a completely different setting with completely different needs.

"I think, therefore I am" evidently doesn't apply to Cetaceans if they don't write it down...

It's difficult to apply in any circumstance, but at the same time, it's all anyone truly knows. Do you know why that saying is phrased "I think therefore I am" as opposed to "If one thinks, therefore one is?" Because it's fundamentally impossible to comprehend the existence of a consciousness outside of one's own; when Decartes posed that notion, all he could knowingly prove is the axiom that he exists based on his ability to understand that he exists. Same for anybody else. But we're able to give other humans the benefit of the doubt because we exhibit similar physical and behavioral tendencies, so we can relate to each other's desires, needs and obstacles very easily, so we have no problem assuming other people have the same degree of sentience. We can coexist because the one frame of reference we have to understand other humans by IS human: ourselves. We can't say the same for other species, though. Dolphins can exhibit many cognitive faculties that rival humans but at the same time, we can't identify with them because we can't "anthropomorphize" them without disregarding their shortcomings. It's a bias, but it's a bias evolution gave us because we weren't built with the NEED to form a merged society with dolphins. I think it's fair for us to interact with them when there's a mutual benefit to be gained from it, i.e. humans study an injured dolphin to heal it, but other than that, I don't think we should be the ones to say which rights they should have.

Edited by SuperStingray
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that says then is that humans are capable of multiple kinds of legal systems. That doesn't say anything about other species.

I don't deny dolphins aren't intellegent, reletively speaking, but my objection is that it's a different kind of intelligence than our society accounts for in its structure.

That's part of my point; they're not even physically built to interact with a human society let alone communicate with it. We have opposable thumbs because we exist in a way that we need them; dolphins live in a completely different setting with completely different needs.

It's difficult to apply in any circumstance, but at the same time, it's all anyone truly knows. Do you know why that saying is phrased "I think therefore I am" as opposed to "If one thinks, therefore one is?" Because it's fundamentally impossible to comprehend the existence of a consciousness outside of one's own; when Decartes posed that notion, all he could knowingly prove is the axiom that he exists based on his ability to understand that he exists. Same for anybody else. But we're able to give other humans the benefit of the doubt because we exhibit similar physical and behavioral tendencies, so we can relate to each other's desires, needs and obstacles very easily, so we have no problem assuming other people have the same degree of sentience. We can coexist because the one frame of reference we have to understand other humans by IS human: ourselves. We can't say the same for other species, though. Dolphins can exhibit many cognitive faculties that rival humans but at the same time, we can't identify with them because we can't "anthropomorphize" them without disregarding their shortcomings. It's a bias, but it's a bias evolution gave us because we weren't built with the NEED to form a merged society with dolphins. I think it's fair for us to interact with them when there's a mutual benefit to be gained from it, i.e. humans study an injured dolphin to heal it, but other than that, I don't think we should be the ones to say which rights they should have.

I still don't understand why you're saying that Dolphins should be locked in cages or hunted because they don't have legal systems or aren't human-like. You're acting like scientist are somehow saying we're adapting Dolphins and Whales to become part of everyday society, like one day you're going to wake up and a Dolphin is going to be your next-door neighbor.

Besides, I honestly don't know why you're comparing intelligence to the ways humans do things. This reminds me of a quote from Deadly Premonition. "Binding down people with rules is a sign of small mindedness." Rules are important and all for a society, but they are not what defines intelligent life. We're not adapting Dolphins into our society, we're giving them the right to live and let live out of recognition their smarter than the average bear. Also, our rules are always changing, and not less than 400 years ago there were still plenty of human societies that didn't have a justice system that we would recognize as one these days, which involved everything from rape to cutting off ones head to kick around in games.

This whole thing is to accept Dolphins as having enough intelligence to be recognized as equal living creatures. Earth is not just a human world, we live on this world with all sorts of animals. There is good reason to believe that some of these other animals are close enough to our intelligence to not hunt or keep in a zoo. Their not getting human rights, it's to give Dolphins and Whales their own sets of rights because they have proven to support intelligence that classifies that they can learn, work together, think and problem solve, and feel.

I believe humans are intelligent enough ourselves to recognize that other animals exist that aren't like us. And apparently, a good majority of us can accept and acknowledge that other animals have different forms of intelligence than us that still classifies as advanced intelligence. Your basically just accusing them of not being human so they don't deserve rights, which is ridiculous.

Edited by Agent York
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that says then is that humans are capable of multiple kinds of legal systems. That doesn't say anything about other species.

Well, actually it sort of does, because if mankind can develop such wildly different legal systems, then god only knows what other species' might come up within their home environments, within the contexts of their lives...

I don't deny dolphins aren't intellegent, reletively speaking, but my objection is that it's a different kind of intelligence than our society accounts for in its structure.

They aren't just intelligent though, as lots of creatures can be considered to be intelligent. It's more than that; they are self-aware (or sentient, if you prefer that word, or sapient), which is quite a big step up from mere intelligence. They display behaviours and commit actions which (to my knowledge at least) require genuine thought and consideration, compassion and empathy, capacities for some form of abstract thought, and perhaps even some form of emotional development. Intelligence alone is in itself a wonder to behold, but combine it with self-awareness and all that I mention above, as well as the kind of lingual development these beings exhibit, and you're no longer dealing with mindless animal instinct. You're dealing with creatures with the potential capacity to reason (something half of our own species seems to be incapable of!), either now or in the future if we can protect them from human-driven extinction.

Many of these things used to be considered traits which separated man from beast. They are the same 'kinds' of intelligence (albeit less refined, though still entirely recognisable) which many people still believe to be elements of what raises man above the rest of the animals. Our society does account for these kinds of intelligence.

It wouldn't take a great alteration of our legal framework to enshrine certain rights for these creatures in law, such as making it murder to kill one.

... And it would provide an important legal precedent, should we one day develop machines with self-awareness and intelligence and the various human traits which we consider to be uniquely our own (today, anyway), which one day might stand up and demand their own bill of rights. It'll prove invaluable in averting the Machine Apocalypse...

That's part of my point; they're not even physically built to interact with a human society let alone communicate with it. We have opposable thumbs because we exist in a way that we need them; dolphins live in a completely different setting with completely different needs.

They are built to suit their environment, just as we were when we were forced to evolve on the expanding grasslands of east Africa six million years ago, yet both environments and circumstances have given rise to ostensibly the same thing: self-awareness, language, and all that they shall entail.

While they might lack the technology to interact with us, we are gradually developing technologies which will hopefully allow us to interact and communicate with them (or some of them anyway; Dolphins in particular), and if we can interact with them via these technologies, they can communicate with us through them too. I doubt they'll be able to recite Shakespeare or cite legal precedents, but being able to share an intelligible greeting with a Dolphin, or communicate in simple terms back and forth, that would be a remarkable thing indeed.

It's difficult to apply in any circumstance, but at the same time, it's all anyone truly knows. Do you know why that saying is phrased "I think therefore I am" as opposed to "If one thinks, therefore one is?" Because it's fundamentally impossible to comprehend the existence of a consciousness outside of one's own; when Decartes posed that notion, all he could knowingly prove is the axiom that he exists based on his ability to understand that he exists. Same for anybody else. But we're able to give other humans the benefit of the doubt because we exhibit similar physical and behavioral tendencies, so we can relate to each other's desires, needs and obstacles very easily, so we have no problem assuming other people have the same degree of sentience. We can coexist because the one frame of reference we have to understand other humans by IS human: ourselves.

We can't say the same for other species, though. Dolphins can exhibit many cognitive faculties that rival humans but at the same time, we can't identify with them because we can't "anthropomorphize" them without disregarding their shortcomings. It's a bias, but it's a bias evolution gave us because we weren't built with the NEED to form a merged society with dolphins. I think it's fair for us to interact with them when there's a mutual benefit to be gained from it, i.e. humans study an injured dolphin to heal it, but other than that, I don't think we should be the ones to say which rights they should have.

I can't argue with a lot of that, and while it is admittedly difficult to relate to these creatures because they are so different, physically, from us, although when they display behaviours previously mentioned, it does become easier to do so, because we can empathise with them and draw parallels with our own lives, our own world.

I understand that our society didn't evolve to be merged with that of the Cetaceans, nor is it likely ever to evolve in that direction, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't afford them the legal protection they deserve as thinking, sentient, sapient beings.

Interacting for mutual gain is what we should do, wherever possible, and I think that protecting them from our hunters would be a gain for us.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to jump in and say that it's not like other animals are all mindless. :X There are other mammals with advanced cognition and thinking capabilities, it's just not on the same level. The whole "I think, therefore I am thing" is bull, IMO. But idk, I'm just not a fan of the idea that animals such as cats and dogs are mindless instinct machines when they exhibit a variety of personalities.

That being said, I do think these findings are interesting, since dolphins are far beyond the level of domestic mammals and even birds. And given that so many dolphins/whales in captivity aren't exactly treated with favorable conditions, I can pretty much get behind this. However, I feel like banning hunting isn't enough. To really protect these species, protection of their habitats must be taken into account. Especially in places like Puget Sound, where orcas are really suffering right now.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legit question: Can we communicate with Dolphins as in have a conversation with them and expect a response?

I've heard things about Dolphins such as them being the sexual deviants of the animal kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard things about Dolphins such as them being the sexual deviants of the animal kingdom.

Again, the list of similarities between dolphins and humans just goes on.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legit question: Can we communicate with Dolphins as in have a conversation with them and expect a response?

I've heard things about Dolphins such as them being the sexual deviants of the animal kingdom.

Funny you should mention that. I saw a documentary a while ago where marine biologists made a device for emitting dolphin calls. They took it down to a pod (group of dolphins), and tried it out. The result was that not only did the dolphins respond to the synthetic call, they repeated it and added extra vocalisations to it, leaving the biologists embarrased that they'd started a conversation with no means of responding.

I don't know if it can be said that dolphins have language, but dolphins have proven themselves able to perform complicated tricks in perfect unison. What proves their ability to communicate is that the dolphins were being rewarded on their ability to perform synchronised tricks, not on which specific trick they performed, so the animals would have to agree to do the same trick somehow. I don't know how they'd do that without something approaching language. Still, they could have learned that through mimicking past reward behaviour.

No, what gives the strongest proof to me that dolphins have the power of intelligent communication is the fact that they have names. Every dolphin has a signature call, which they respond to when their family members call them, and that call is added to additional signals when dolphins are communicating. Which is to say "Bob, go do this. Carol, stay here and keep watch. Dave, you can take five"

Dolphin parents also punish their children when they misbehave, and make peace with them afterwards. I saw one remarkable scene on TV where the child went too close to a boat propeller, so the mother urged it away and made certain the lesson was learned by emitting sharp powerful signals against the child's body, which is painful to them. Afterwards she swam away with the child, with their fins kept touching. Heartwarming sight.

In short: Yeah, the communicate. If we can interpret the signals and program a machine to respond correctly, then human-dolphin communication is definitely possible. We've taught apes sign language, so I'm positive those bright biologists could pull it off.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why you're saying that Dolphins should be locked in cages or hunted because they don't have legal systems or aren't human-like.

At no point did I ever say that. All I claim is that humans should refrain from becoming involved in dolphin affairs.

You're acting like scientist are somehow saying we're adapting Dolphins and Whales to become part of everyday society, like one day you're going to wake up and a Dolphin is going to be your next-door neighbor.

As I said, I'm not opposed to what the scientists are doing here and now, but I am nervous that the approach of giving them rights defined by us would lead to holding animals to the same standards as we do people. If we see dolphins as citizens, then we would have to hold them accountable for murder in the same way we would a person. I think dolphins are entitled to the same rights as we are, but only because they define them for themselves, that's not our duty. Are duty is to stand back and respect that. The most we can do is create laws for ourselves that restrict people from infringing upon the rights other sentient creatures make for themselves.

Besides, I honestly don't know why you're comparing intelligence to the ways humans do things. This reminds me of a quote from Deadly Premonition. "Binding down people with rules is a sign of small mindedness." Rules are important and all for a society, but they are not what defines intelligent life. We're not adapting Dolphins into our society, we're giving them the right to live and let live out of recognition their smarter than the average bear. Also, our rules are always changing, and not less than 400 years ago there were still plenty of human societies that didn't have a justice system that we would recognize as one these days, which involved everything from rape to cutting off ones head to kick around in games.

Intelligence is the entire reason people do things. Legal systems are in place because while humans are adapted with the desire and ability to create a society as intricate as what we have. Simply put, if dolphins needed one like that, they'd have it. I'm sure they have their own sense of justice, but thing is, it's their justice, not ours.

This reminds me of a quote from Deadly Premonition. "Binding down people with rules is a sign of small mindedness." Rules are important and all for a society, but they are not what defines intelligent life. We're not adapting Dolphins into our society, we're giving them the right to live and let live out of recognition their smarter than the average bear.

And I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it should be justified by imposing human values and traits on them. Human rights are human rights, dolphin rights are dolphin rights. One shouldn't be able to define the other.

Also, our rules are always changing, and not less than 400 years ago there were still plenty of human societies that didn't have a justice system that we would recognize as one these days, which involved everything from rape to cutting off ones head to kick around in games.

Because those were the morals at the time. A hundred years from now, people will be horrified at how our justice system is today. It's not that dolphins AREN'T able to have a justice system, it's that they need one for their own individual context, and only they can define that.

This whole thing is to accept Dolphins as having enough intelligence to be recognized as equal living creatures. Earth is not just a human world, we live on this world with all sorts of animals. There is good reason to believe that some of these other animals are close enough to our intelligence to not hunt or keep in a zoo. Their not getting human rights, it's to give Dolphins and Whales their own sets of rights because they have proven to support intelligence that classifies that they can learn, work together, think and problem solve, and feel.

My whole point is that WE shouldn't be the ones giving dolphins and whales rights. If they're intelligent enough that they can do all those things, we should recognize that they can comprehend their own rights and that we should be respectful of them.

Edited by SuperStingray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole point is that WE shouldn't be the ones giving dolphins and whales rights. If they're intelligent enough that they can do all those things, we should recognize that they can comprehend their own rights and that we should be respectful of them.

I'm sorry, you keep saying this and I'm genuinely not understanding it.

The only rights these scientists intend on giving them are the right to life and right to freedom. Whether they have a rights system to call their own has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not humans can kill and/or capture them. That's entirely up to us. I just really do not see how you're relating these two things.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only rights these scientists intend on giving them are the right to life and right to freedom.

My problem aren't the rights in question, it's the fact that they believe they have the authority to just GIVE them. It's pretty obvious that dolphins assume the rights to life and freedom, so what place do we have to give them their "Bill of Rights?" When America broke free of England's authority, England didn't say "Alright, you're a separate entity, here's your Bill of Rights." Americans took up those rights themselves, and since then all England did was sit back and respect that framework and we've been good friends ever since. What these scientists should be doing is creating a manifesto on how people should respect these rights, not grant the rights themselves.

Edited by SuperStingray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem aren't the rights in question, it's the fact that they believe they have the authority to just GIVE them. It's pretty obvious that dolphins assume the rights to life and freedom, so what place do we have to give them their "Bill of Rights?" When America broke free of England's authority, England didn't say "Alright, you're a separate entity, here's your Bill of Rights." Americans took up those rights themselves, and since then all England did was sit back and respect that framework and we've been good friends ever since. What these scientists should be doing is creating a manifesto on how people should respect these rights, not grant the rights themselves.

It's simply saying that we as humans won't be hunting them or keep them in Zoos, which isn't a natural course of action and something humans make the choice on whenever they do or not. This whole thing is simply acknowledging that Dolphins and Whales are intelligent enough to not be hunted by us. I still don't know why you're acting like we're writing rules for the creatures when all we're doing is us ourselves as humans recognizing them and agreeing to not hunt or enslave them.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not making it sound like I think you're a retard by constantly saying how confused your posts make me, I'm just kind of bewildered.

Maybe "rights" is a misleading way of wording things. But at the core, scientists are saying that we should have laws against hunting cetaceans... we should have laws against capturing cetaceans... and there are plenty of laws targeting other animals that do these exact same things already... I don't think anyone would really argue that on principle, protecting animals in this way is a bad thing.

This isn't as if we're scribbling up a Bill of Rights, shoving it a dolphins' face and saying, "follow this." In fact, we're doing exactly as Britain did in your analogy: Acknowledging a group as our equals, and giving them due respect for it. Nothing more.

Edited by The Pyro
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm clearly not winning any points in this thread, so I'll shut up after this, but just know that I'm on not on the other side here; I support this effort, just not the semantics behind it. I'm a hard determinist, so I apologize if what I was saying sounded cold somehow, but I'd just prefer the issue was approached under the admission that we're coming from a different perspective than the dolphins by virtue of being a different species.

Edited by SuperStingray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, I do think these findings are interesting, since dolphins are far beyond the level of domestic mammals and even birds. And given that so many dolphins/whales in captivity aren't exactly treated with favorable conditions, I can pretty much get behind this. However, I feel like banning hunting isn't enough. To really protect these species, protection of their habitats must be taken into account. Especially in places like Puget Sound, where orcas are really suffering right now.

Wait a minute... what you're saying right now, reminds me of reservations. I'm not saying you're implying that, but if you could specify a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys. guys there's a simple solution to all of this. All we have to do is set up a law where Dolphins can hunt Humans. See? EQUAL rights for all :D

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.