Do you do online banking and shipping? Same tubes.

So your advice is what? That women should hide their sexuality because there are deviants who will try to rape them or break into their cloud accounts?

A free society must protect the right of people to enjoy their freedoms, and where some small group of criminals and sociopaths attempt to destroy that freedom, the first words out of a free people's mouths shouldn't be "Well you had it coming you slut!"

That ideal world is a lot more distant of we just shrug and suggest people live in an live in an underground bunker if they want to be safe.

Not using antiperspirants ain't so good for the air either.

As I wrote in another post, the evidence all points to art and other forms of symbolism evolving among modern human populations prior to their departure from Africa. The Blombos Cave site suggests the first use of pigments at least as far back as 70,000 years, and perhaps as earlier as a 100,000 years ago. The cognitive rewiring seems to have been completed in Africa.

Neither is the oldest evidence of symbolism. The Blombos Cave site in South Africa, where the first evidence of the use of pigments (in this case ochre) are at least 70,000 years old.

Actually, the Indo-European peoples arose somewhere around 5000 to 6000 years ago. The first cave art in Europe predates Indo-Europeans by tens of thousands of years. If you buy into Nostratic, maybe the people that made the European cave art spoke some language ancestral to that group, but the Indo-European language group, indeed likely any of the language families spoken in the last 10,000 years, had not evolved yet.

Well, actually there is some significance here, in that it suggests that the neurological innovations that lead to modern human behaviors like art and symbolism arose among the ancestral populations to both the first modern humans in Europe and in Asia. If nothing else, it falsifies the few remaining wingnuts who believe Europeans are somehow unique.

Chimps kill young chimps. When tribes make war on each other, the killing of enemy tribes young is well documented. Chimps are pretty much as brutal as humans at the game of war.

There are plenty of people who appear before the courts who cannot argue their own cases. In fact, most Common Law jurisdictions have individuals called Public Trustees (or a similar office) who are charged with representing those who, because they are not deemed capable of representing themselves in court, still may need access to the judicial system. Surely granting basic liberties to other sentient creatures could be modeled on the same legal structures we put in place to protect children and the mentally incapacitated.

But the great apes, cetaceans and elephants do not possess even the rights of infants of the mentally incapacitated. They are protected via fairly limited and frequently ignored animal cruelty laws, but that's about it. There is no recognition of the sentience of these creatures, they receive no more protection than a hamster would.

In virtually ever jurisdiction in the industrialized world children under a certain age cannot give consent for a variety of activities; sexual intercourse, signing contracts, medical treatments, etc. That a nine year old cannot consent to having sex or signing a contract doesn't mean they aren't a person. Personhood alone doesn't afford all rights and privileges, but it does guarantee the basic liberties.

I can imagine animals like chimps, dolphins and elephants being granted personhood under the law, but being that they do not have the cognitive and rational capacities of humans (well, I'm not so sure about elephants, there is something kind of spooky about them in the intelligence and emotional departments), they might hold those basic liberties in the same way that a child, a mentally ill person or a severely mentally handicapped person might. They couldn't sign contracts independent of a guardian, they couldn't be given the vote, but they would be protected from egregious violations of their basic civil liberties.

An individual can possess personhood without necessarily enjoying all the rights and privileges that are generically afforded to them. Criminals and the insane, for instance, are certainly persons, but may have many of the rights limited and some outright revoked. I can certainly see chimps or dolphins, both highly intelligent and clearly in possession of some level of sentience, deserving some level of protection that approaches those of humans. Maybe that does mean a different class of personhood, but I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to simply place these more advanced animals in the same category as cows or gerbils.

What people don't like is any science that suggests they have to alter their behaviors.

That's part of it. People also frequently partake in shooting the messenger, so when researchers come along and say "This thing we're all doing is having these negative consequences, and we are going to have to stop that thing", they end up learning what Socrates must have felt like as he put the hemlock tea to his lips.