|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rights of Nature? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I noticed a wasp thought he had the right to build a home under my porch... and then I murdered his family.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I get what you're saying but I feel it's more like we're discovering that these rights actually exist. I call woo!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Maybe, but I think there's something there. Gawsh, its almost like you could believe in God.
Even with something like slavery, it is evident that the individual's rights have been infringed on. What is the evidence of these rights?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You wouldn't call the basic principle of freedom to live unimpeded by someone or some other thing elses necessity a right for all living organisms? (if not what would you call that, or do you even recognize that that exists as a quality?) Yeah, I don't recognize any principle of freedom to live unimpeded. In fact, in my experience, I'm constantly fighting against nature trying to impede on my shit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Two-legged species get the most rights. But chicken is delicious!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It doesn't mean the rights can't be infringed on. But it does points to there being something there that you feel has been infringed on. Yeah, my shit. Not my rights. Not even my right to my shit. Its take or be taken.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Does that make sense or does it sound like some hippy nonsense? It makes sense in that I'm understanding you, but I already called woo.
I feel we all have a right to exist and survive once we exist. It's up to the individual, and in many cases a group of individuals with a shared goal, to make sure those rights not infringed upon. But you can have the same effect without introducing the superfluous idea of some innate "right".
But to me it makes more sense to say, fight back or have your rights infringed upon. Why does that make more sense? The part about rights is just some fluffy nonsense that you're adding to abide your feelings. Tell Occam to bring his razor.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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. The difference between innate and inherent is whether or not the bearer is alive. I think this stems from the difference between is and ought. You could say that there's a right in that something ought to happen, but that right doesn't actually exist, per se. The woo comes in when you start describing the existence of some property that is independent of our simple labeling of it as a thing.
Because just saying take or be taken doesn't cover it all. Sure, it was specifically applied to the question of impedence. I may feel that the weeds ought to not impede on my garden, and say my garden has a right to be without weeds, but there is no property of my garden to be weed-free independent of me just not wanting there to be weeds in it. In that case, I either take the weeds out of my garden or they take over. There's nothing added by bringing the case of rights into it. And if you get all hippy-dippy on me and start talking about my garden having the right to exist without weeds, then I'm gonna call woo. Maybe your just saying that I ought to be able to have a garden without weeds (which is true), but it sounds like you're saying my garden has some inherent property independent of us applying a label (which is false).
We clearly recognize some quality in living things that we deem necessary to protect, and have extended that protection to other living things. I don't think its a quality of the thing, I think its our own desires. My garden doesn't possess a weed-free quality, I just don't want there to be weeds in it. Call that a right if you want, but I'm gonna tell you its woo.
We try to decern what those things may be and have as of now called those things "rights".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There is an inherent danger in falling, Its not the falling, its the sudden stop at the bottom.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The woo comes in when you start describing the existence of some property that is independent of our simple labeling of it as a thing.
But I haven't done that, Naytcha Boy. You know, Mean Gene, when I re-read your posts in this thread I see you doing exactly that:
quote: .
Danger isn't a property of cliffs but there is an inherent danger in standing on the edge of one. That's just confusing me... I'd say that cliffs are dangerous. And you're saying the danger is inherent in standing.
The danger is independent of the cliff and not a property of the cliff. Rights can exist in the same way danger exists when standing on the edge of a cliff. I'm having trouble picturing rights in this way. You better...*pant*... expound on that...*pant*...FOR ME BROTHER! WOOOOOO!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you ever going to get anything right?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm just saying it's inherent to living beings but not innate in living beings. There is a difference. Which is?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Which is what? Are you asking me what the difference between something being inherent to living beings and innate to living beings is? Yes. Exactly that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As an example, living freely is an inherent right to being alive. But freedom is not innate to living things. Okay, that makes sense. Its the is/ought thing I brought up before, like: People ought to be free, but that don't mean they is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
After all...out of all the tools you've used in your life, how many of them have you, personally, made? You should see the awesome hand-vagina that he made.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024