There are many people in today's world who claim to an animal ancestry on the basis that their genome contains elements that are supposedly from some kind of ape.
But because the human genome only codes/specifies for a complete human being and not a partial ape, it will mean that we are all human for the point of reference.
Which means that human beings are never to be considered as part animal for reasons relating to human equality, which is not just a concept but a physical reality, because all are equal before the law according to their conscience and not according to their physical appearances.
If genetic and biological racism is to ever end then the theory of mankind deriving from various lineages of animals must also go with it because a human being will be described as a "person" regardless of the topic discussion for legal reasons.
The idea that people derived from animals is not only untrue because there are physical barriers between animals and humans that stops interrelationships.
But also because their are laws in place which include the definitions of animals and humans that are for correctional purposes which must be factual first in order for them to be realistic in any event.
Laws must be factual in accordance with the proper legal definitions used in order for a law to be made a legal requirement in writing for each person to be responsible with for themselves, which is what it means to be self governed and not enslaved.
So walking into a Court room and claiming that you're a descendant of an animal is not actually a proper legal defence in any event because slavery is not legal either.
An animal in legal terms is described as being "property" while human beings are described as "person/s" with certain responsibilities that cannot be carried out by an animal, so claiming to be an animal is not a legal defence but a ridiculous conclusion instead.
And no animal deserves to have legal duties in any event because they are responsibilities that animals cannot understand, which is another physical barrier between mankind and the animal kingdom.
The Darwinian argument from biology and genetics that animals and humans are related has resulted in people believing that they're an animal before being a person, which is not a rational train of thought whatsoever, especially if the individual applies this logic to others for before themselves for discriminatory purposes.
Which not only amounts to nothing more than a poor legal defence in court, but it's also not an excuse to deny your legal responsibilities and obligations as a person under the law to treat other members of society with dignity and respect as members of mankind.
And what all of this means is that no one has the right or legal obligation to define an individual as an animal under common law, and it's only the Atheist who is out there diligently trying to remove all of our inalienable rights from law and not the creationists.
Trying to convince someone that they're an animal either directly or indirectly is not only a form of coercion but it's also a method of reasoning by evolutionary psychologists to regard others who believe that their fully human as having some kind of psychological disorder for not agreeing with the pseudo-scientific terminology they have in place for them self.
Which is not even supported by law at all because it goes against the provisions of our inalienable right to exercise our freedom of conscience as person's under the law, and not as animals under a scientific theory.
What does natural person mean?
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.
Do animals have rights responsibilities?
Animals are like us in that they have their own perspective or point of view on the world. At the most basic, things can hurt them or give them pleasure. This is what matters morally. ... Animals have no obligations – indeed they cannot even understand what it is to have them – so they have no rights.
Are animals legal persons?
Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde said the status involved giving animals a “legal personality.” This means bestowing on animals, by judicial direction, the capacity to sue and be sued in courts of law. “Animals already have the protection of the law.
Is it a responsibility to obey the law?
Law: A rule made by local or national government. ... People have a general duty to obey the law because it is democratically decided. Legal duty: The obligations people have put upon them by the law. Moral responsibility: The personal obligations people feel based on their beliefs about what is right and wrong.
Do person have a duty of care to protect the welfare of animals?
If you have a duty of care for an animal, you are legally obliged by the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to provide 'appropriate care' for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way. ... This includes: providing food and water.
Oxford Online Dictionary
Search for a word
duty
/ˈdjuːti/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
noun
1.
a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
"it's my duty to uphold the law"
Similar:
responsibility
obligation
But because the human genome only codes/specifies for a complete human being and not a partial ape, it will mean that we are all human for the point of reference.
Which means that human beings are never to be considered as part animal for reasons relating to human equality, which is not just a concept but a physical reality, because all are equal before the law according to their conscience and not according to their physical appearances.
If genetic and biological racism is to ever end then the theory of mankind deriving from various lineages of animals must also go with it because a human being will be described as a "person" regardless of the topic discussion for legal reasons.
The idea that people derived from animals is not only untrue because there are physical barriers between animals and humans that stops interrelationships.
But also because their are laws in place which include the definitions of animals and humans that are for correctional purposes which must be factual first in order for them to be realistic in any event.
Laws must be factual in accordance with the proper legal definitions used in order for a law to be made a legal requirement in writing for each person to be responsible with for themselves, which is what it means to be self governed and not enslaved.
So walking into a Court room and claiming that you're a descendant of an animal is not actually a proper legal defence in any event because slavery is not legal either.
An animal in legal terms is described as being "property" while human beings are described as "person/s" with certain responsibilities that cannot be carried out by an animal, so claiming to be an animal is not a legal defence but a ridiculous conclusion instead.
And no animal deserves to have legal duties in any event because they are responsibilities that animals cannot understand, which is another physical barrier between mankind and the animal kingdom.
The Darwinian argument from biology and genetics that animals and humans are related has resulted in people believing that they're an animal before being a person, which is not a rational train of thought whatsoever, especially if the individual applies this logic to others for before themselves for discriminatory purposes.
Which not only amounts to nothing more than a poor legal defence in court, but it's also not an excuse to deny your legal responsibilities and obligations as a person under the law to treat other members of society with dignity and respect as members of mankind.
And what all of this means is that no one has the right or legal obligation to define an individual as an animal under common law, and it's only the Atheist who is out there diligently trying to remove all of our inalienable rights from law and not the creationists.
Trying to convince someone that they're an animal either directly or indirectly is not only a form of coercion but it's also a method of reasoning by evolutionary psychologists to regard others who believe that their fully human as having some kind of psychological disorder for not agreeing with the pseudo-scientific terminology they have in place for them self.
Which is not even supported by law at all because it goes against the provisions of our inalienable right to exercise our freedom of conscience as person's under the law, and not as animals under a scientific theory.
What does natural person mean?
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.
Do animals have rights responsibilities?
Animals are like us in that they have their own perspective or point of view on the world. At the most basic, things can hurt them or give them pleasure. This is what matters morally. ... Animals have no obligations – indeed they cannot even understand what it is to have them – so they have no rights.
Are animals legal persons?
Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde said the status involved giving animals a “legal personality.” This means bestowing on animals, by judicial direction, the capacity to sue and be sued in courts of law. “Animals already have the protection of the law.
Is it a responsibility to obey the law?
Law: A rule made by local or national government. ... People have a general duty to obey the law because it is democratically decided. Legal duty: The obligations people have put upon them by the law. Moral responsibility: The personal obligations people feel based on their beliefs about what is right and wrong.
Do person have a duty of care to protect the welfare of animals?
If you have a duty of care for an animal, you are legally obliged by the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to provide 'appropriate care' for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way. ... This includes: providing food and water.
Oxford Online Dictionary
Search for a word
duty
/ˈdjuːti/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
noun
1.
a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
"it's my duty to uphold the law"
Similar:
responsibility
obligation
Last edited:
