In our legal system, plaintiffs not only face no requirement to testify, they need not have the ability to testify.
Newborn humans can't testify. Are you suggesting they have no rights?
Newborns have parents who are responsible for their lives - they speak for newborns. In the case of animals = newborns that's silly. Unless you're claiming newborn animals. However, human kind does have a responsibility to manage and speak for the animals - but there are limitations to that. We do not for example see the right to healthcare for animals, nor do humans issue drivers licenses to animals primarily because animals cannot pass the written or (if they cannot write) spoken version of the test. One has to identify the limitations of animals - as they do not have the same ability nor capability as humans.
This is why you cannot address the obviousness of language and having a goat, for example, taking the stand to communicate they can understand what their rights are and have the ability to utilize those rights. Frankly the subject is ludicrous but I'm indulging this subject out of pure curiosity.
Besides, you weren't asking for proof that animals can testify in court. You asked for evidence of animal intelligence, and because you got an answer your didn't like, you're now going to flail around and hope no one notices how very wrong you were about animal intelligence
How can an animal identify their intelligence other than in some form of communication? The chicken who plays checkers may be a good example .... can she (or is it a rooster) communicate to human kind why it has a right to say....rent controlled housing in NYC?
So now you're admitting that various species can communicate in ways that humans can understand. Earlier, you were denying it.
The point isn't can they communicate, it's can they communicate they can understand and use rights that have been so far used by humans. The answer is obviously no... but please, put a toad on the stand and question him. It's great television.
You're grasping. You clearly attempted to distinguish humans as something other than animals even though animals are what humans are.
The point of this thread is animal rights... you're simply being silly. You're attempting to credit animals with the ability to understand and communicate they can comprehend what animal rights are, and can utilize those rights. Ask the cricket in your basement how he feels... :lamo
The issue boils down (philosophically, not legally) to, what qualities must or should an organism possess in order to justify its' having rights?
The cricket has no rights. Animals have what rights humans believe they should have, not rights that animals think they have.
Your flailings do nothing to address this and amount to nothing more than pointing out that various species are not human - a point no one has disputed. Unfortunately, your pitiful attempts have led you to make claims about animal intelligence and emotion that just aren't true.
Ask your cricket how he feels about being stepped on and tell me what he says. What's pitiful is insane attempts to apply human rights to animals which clearly cannot either communicate, understand, nor exercise those rights. I'm sure it gives people like me something to laugh at, and lawyers something to do; as well it gives silly people something to squawk about.