Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rights of Nature?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 91 of 147 (702780)
07-11-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by dronestar
07-11-2013 11:41 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 11:41 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 11:56 AM Tangle has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 92 of 147 (702781)
07-11-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-11-2013 11:44 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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:
if only three races were left, negroid, caucasoid, and mongolian...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-11-2013 11:44 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-11-2013 12:00 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:19 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 93 of 147 (702782)
07-11-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
07-11-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2013 11:45 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 94 of 147 (702783)
07-11-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by dronestar
07-11-2013 11:55 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 11:55 AM dronestar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 147 (702784)
07-11-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by dronestar
07-11-2013 11:41 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 11:41 AM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 147 (702786)
07-11-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by onifre
07-10-2013 4:56 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
onifre writes:
How was it convenient to recognize black people had the right to be treated as equal individuals?
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).
onifre writes:
More so, wasn't the matter on civil rights that we recognized the fact that the rights of black people were being infringed on?
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."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 07-10-2013 4:56 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 07-11-2013 1:25 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 97 of 147 (702793)
07-11-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by dronestar
07-11-2013 11:55 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
dronester writes:
Do we really need to "make up" rules/laws for certian ideas, like murder or rape? Really?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 11:55 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 12:22 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 98 of 147 (702797)
07-11-2013 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
07-11-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:41 PM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 147 (702806)
07-11-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by dronestar
07-11-2013 12:22 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
dronester writes:
Okay, now make a similar argument for rape.
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.
Now will you withdraw your silly question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 12:22 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 12:50 PM ringo has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 147 (702807)
07-11-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2013 4:46 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2013 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2013 1:46 PM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 101 of 147 (702809)
07-11-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
07-11-2013 12:41 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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:
Rape definition, the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 1:38 PM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 102 of 147 (702810)
07-11-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
07-10-2013 5:13 PM


Re: Rights of Nature
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 07-10-2013 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 12:53 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 113 by jar, posted 07-11-2013 2:44 PM onifre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 103 of 147 (702811)
07-11-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by onifre
07-11-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Rights of Nature
This seems right to me, I'll use 'inherent' from now on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 07-11-2013 12:52 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 104 of 147 (702815)
07-11-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ringo
07-11-2013 12:07 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 1:51 PM onifre has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 147 (702816)
07-11-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dronestar
07-11-2013 12:50 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
dronester writes:
What you described wasn't rape.
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.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dronestar, posted 07-11-2013 12:50 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024