|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rights of Nature? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
dronester writes: Okaaay. So what would be some of the reasons for their disagreemnet with you? Why would some people (cough, cough, Jar), believe that rights SHOULD be arbitrarily given to blacks, women, and native americans? You're going to have to ask them. Rights are things that we decide on and then confer - which is a just a fancy way of saying we make them up at our convenience. They are not something that is out there in the world undiscovered, they arise from our own developing morality.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Tempe writes: Dronester, you are missing what everyone is saying completely. It's not that it SHOULD be arbitrary, but rather that it IS arbitrary. How am I misunderstanding the following? . . .
Jar writes: Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary. Tempe writes: We make up the rules, and they tend to follow whatever society is creating these rules. Do we really need to "make up" rules/laws for certian ideas, like murder or rape? Really?
Tempe writes: We determine the rights, there is nothing innate in it. That is where we are disagreeing.
Tempe writes: Look at it this way, if only three species were left, humans, chimps, and gorillas...would we still see the same right to life of these two other species or would our decisions have to change with a need for protein in our diet? What happens if I trade species with race? Can this argument be credibly seen in parallel?:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Tang writes: Rights are things that we decide on and then confer - which is a just a fancy way of saying we make them up at our convenience. They are not something that is out there in the world undiscovered, they arise from our own developing morality. That is where we are disagreeing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Dronester writes: What happens if I trade species with race? Can this argument be credibly seen in parallel?: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if only three races were left, negroid, caucasoid, and mongolian... Sadly, yes that could be the way it would divide up...survival would become the necessity. Now, are you saying there are only three races, but all the rest of the species still exist? Or that only these three races of humans remain on the entire planet? In scenario one, nothing would be required to change, we could still get our dietary proteins from other species. So, the three races could remain working together. In scenario two, it could end up as races against one another for survival and food, or it could end up separated not by race, but by geographical location or some other arbitrary standard. If the only source of protein was other humans, I think historically we have already shown that they are willing to kill and eat human in those situations where its death or that.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You might ask jar.
As a Native American and someone who was very active in the Civil Rights movement what is needed is not giving rights to blacks, women, property holders, Native Americans but rather talking rights away from some party in power. I was fired and blackballed in my profession at the time and my boss had the right to do that. What was needed was not giving me rights but rather removal of my boss' right. Up until 1924 my family were considered Native Americans. Then the term Indian was stricken as an option; folk were either white or colored. Fortunately for my family there was an exemption that we could claim and we were light enough to pass anyway. But in both cases everything was arbitrary. Rights were the reality. My boss had the right to behave as he did and the Virginia Legislature had the right to say there were only two classification, white or colored. What I wish were preferable is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to rights. It is the current majority within a given era, society, culture or state that decides what rights are proscribed and what rights are prescribed.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
onifre writes:
Well, that hasn't happened yet.... First, we recognized their right not to be bought and sold like a hammer. Then we recognized their right not to be lynched for looking at white girls. Then we recognized their right to use the same drinking fountains. Some of those great leaps forward were made because it was more convenient than putting up with boycotts, etc. If we had just issued a blanket recognition of their right to equality, based on principle, we could have done it in one step (and gotten further than we are now).
How was it convenient to recognize black people had the right to be treated as equal individuals? onifre writes:
So we, the people, just woke up one morning and said to ourselves, "Hey, the rights of black people are being infringed on. Well, we can't have that any more." More so, wasn't the matter on civil rights that we recognized the fact that the rights of black people were being infringed on? I don't think so. That realization comes one person at a time for individual reasons. One person grows up with the maid's kid as his best friend and he says to himself, "This guy should be able to sit beside me on the bus." Another person's maid doesn't show up for work and she says to herself, "We have to change the rules on buses so I don't have to do my own housework." And another person in an ivory tower says to himself, "We have to treat black people equally because it's the right thing to do." There are probably more ebony maids than ivory towers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
Of course we do. It isn't murder if the victim is wearing a different uniform. It isn't muder if he's about to kill a child. Are you really suggesting that all homicides should be treated the same? Really?
Do we really need to "make up" rules/laws for certian ideas, like murder or rape? Really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
RingO writes: Of course we do. It isn't murder if the victim is wearing a different uniform. It isn't muder if he's about to kill a child. Are you really suggesting that all homicides should be treated the same? Really? Okay, now make a similar argument for rape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
No problem. If she said, "Yes," it isn't rape. If she changes her mind and doesn't testify against hm, it isn't rape. Okay, now make a similar argument for rape. Now will you withdraw your silly question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But you can have the same effect without introducing the superfluous idea of some innate "right". Maybe that's where you're feeling there is a woo. I have not said an innate right. I said rights are inherent. As in, an inherent characteristic of existing in nature.
Why does that make more sense? Because just saying take or be taken doesn't cover it all. We clearly recognize some quality in living things that we deem necessary to protect, and have extended that protection to other living things. We try to decern what those things may be and have as of now called those things "rights". - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
RingO writes: No problem. If she said, "Yes," it isn't rape. If she changes her mind and doesn't testify against hm, it isn't rape. What you described wasn't rape. Try again. Here's some help for you . . .
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Do trees have the right to not get hit by lightning. Do forest fires have the right to burn homes. Do dermatophytes have the right to grow on humans. Do floods have the right to kill people. Do weeds have the right to grow in yards. These examples are missing the point comepletely.
There are no innate rights. Agreed, but I don't think I've suggested anything like that. Let me try it this way: There is an inherent danger in standing on the edge of a cliff. But there ISN'T an innate danger in a cliff. There is an inherent right to being a living thing. But there isn't an innate right in living things. Can you tell the difference in the two? I ask sincerely because it makes sense to me but I could very well be wrong. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
This seems right to me, I'll use 'inherent' from now on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Well, that hasn't happened yet.... I've recognized it. So it has happened already, but maybe not everyone has recognized this.
First, we recognized their right not to be bought and sold like a hammer. Then we recognized their right not to be lynched for looking at white girls. Then we recognized their right to use the same drinking fountains. Some of those great leaps forward were made because it was more convenient than putting up with boycotts, etc. If we had just issued a blanket recognition of their right to equality, based on principle, we could have done it in one step (and gotten further than we are now). How would that be convinient? You said rights are given when it's convinient. How would the above be convinient?
So we, the people I don't know what this means, and when I talk about rights being inherent it has nothing to do with government or rights by law.
So we, the people, just woke up one morning and said to ourselves, "Hey, the rights of black people are being infringed on. Well, we can't have that any more." No, not woke up one day and decided. First, black people made it clear that their rights were being infringed on by saying that very thing. It took time for that concept to spread to, I feel, many people today. I certainly recognize that. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
Nonsense. Your own definition says, "the unlawful compelling...." When it's lawful it's lawful and when it's unlawful it's unlawful. When it's compelling it's rape and when it's not compelling it's not rape. The victim can change her mind about whether or not she was compelled and about whether or not she's a victim. It's all relative. What you described wasn't rape. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024