NationStates Jolt Archive

Swiss lawyers are elaborating the doctrine of vegetable rights. "A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out." In short, they are arguing that plants have inherent rights which humans can't transgress.


It may soon be a felony to pick flowers in Switzerland.

link (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/terra-nullius.html)

original link (http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf)

Personally, I think Swiss citizens are becoming irrational and the government is exploiting this by passing laws. What do you think?

Should I laugh or cry that one of the Nationstates issues' options has become real life?

Should I laugh or cry that one of the Nationstates issues' options has become real life?

Both.

Both.
HAHAHAHAHAHA:D hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:( ahahahahaha:D hhhhhhhh:( ahahahaha:D hhhhhhh:D

I hope that worked. Yeah, this is absolute insanity on Switzerlands' part.

HAHAHAHAHAHA:D hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:( ahahahahaha:D hhhhhhhh:( ahahahaha:D hhhhhhh:D

I hope that worked. Yeah, this is absolute insanity on Switzerlands' part.*Goes to the Swiss Alps and picks endangered wild flowers.*

As a founding member of PETOP, I welcome our leafy overlords,

Wtf. Rlmaof.

Are there sentient plants out there that actually understand the concept of rights?

Does this mean that, if a plant contributes to harming a human, or even another plant, it will be subject to prosecution under the law? "Your honor, the tree, with malice aforethought, did willfully fall on the pedestrian, causing great bodily harm. In addition, as it fell on the pedestrian, it killed or otherwise damaged several weeds, a rose and some bacteria. We ask for the most extreme punishment in this case."

Wtf. Rlmaof.

Are there sentient plants out there that actually understand the concept of rights?

Does this mean that, if a plant contributes to harming a human, or even another plant, it will be subject to prosecution under the law? "Your honor, the tree, with malice aforethought, did willfully fall on the pedestrian, causing great bodily harm. In addition, as it fell on the pedestrian, it killed or otherwise damaged several weeds, a rose and some bacteria. We ask for the most extreme punishment in this case."

Switzerland does not have a death penalty. I guess its life in tree prison then.

Wait, aren't the Swiss growing increasingly xenophobic and arguably fascist? Only Swiss born plants get the rights, I guess.

I don't know about this talk of rights, but what's so wrong with the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee's statement that:

"it is unanimously held that plants may not be arbitrarily destroyed ... the majority considers this morally impermissible because something bad is being done to the plant itself without rational reason and thus without justification."

Sounds mighty sensible to me.

I don't know about this talk of rights, but what's so wrong with the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee's statement that:

"it is unanimously held that plants may not be arbitrarily destroyed ... the majority considers this morally impermissible because something bad is being done to the plant itself without rational reason and thus without justification."

Sounds mighty sensible to me.

yeah, but isn't it silly that the government is even debating this? They amended their constitution to protect a plant's right to live. Tell me thats not absurd.

They're worried they weren't quite progressive enough... Darwin, I love the Swiss. And armed to the teeth, too -so no fucking with them.

yeah, but isn't it silly that the government is even debating this?
They're debating the meaning of a rather woolly phrase. That in itself is not particularly silly.

They amended their constitution to protect a plant's right to live. Tell me thats not absurd.
Perhaps, if that's in fact what's transpired. I haven't read the 24-page document, and all I've got to go on is some blogger's word.

yeah, but isn't it silly that the government is even debating this? They amended their constitution to protect a plant's right to live. Tell me thats not absurd.

This is what happens when a government has to much time on it's hands. Switzerland needs some distractions like economic woes or a good old war to get it back into the real world.

They're debating the meaning of a rather woolly phrase. That in itself is not particularly silly.

Actually, I've always thought that when the government starts debating the meaning of words, it usually is a little silly. But our government does that a lot, especially the judicial system.

Perhaps, if that's in fact what's transpired. I haven't read the 24-page document, and all I've got to go on is some blogger's word.

True, and don't take my word for it either, lord knows I'm too lazy to read the whole damn thing.

video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM)

Listen up brothers and sisters,
come hear my desperate tale.
I speak of our friends of nature,
trapped in the dirt like a jail.

Vegetables live in oppression,
served on our tables each night.
This killing of veggies is madness,
I say we take up the fight.

Salads are only for murderers,
coleslaw's a fascist regime.
Don't think that they don't have feelings,
just cause a radish can't scream.

Chorus:
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

I saw a man eating celery,
so I beat him black and blue.
If he ever touches a sprout again,
I'll bite him clean in two.

I'm a political prisoner,
trapped in a windowless cage.
Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips
by killing five men in a rage

I told the judge when he sentenced me,
This is my finest hour,
I'd kill those farmers again
just to save one more cauliflower

Chorus

How low as people do we dare to stoop,
Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes
Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gormet slob)
How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....

This is what happens when a government has to much time on it's hands. Switzerland needs some distractions like economic woes or a good old war to get it back into the real world.

Well if this is the biggest problem Switzerland is facing at the moment, it must be a wonderfully peaceful place to live.

Well if this is the biggest problem Switzerland is facing at the moment, it must be a wonderfully peaceful place to live.

The fascist must be that 900lb gorilla in the room then.

"It makes sense" and "I can't believe every country doesn't have an ethics committee."

Alpine meadows are extremely fragile, even alpine forests are, it is simply a marginal environment for life. Switzerland is mostly mountains by area.

Switzerland would be quite right to forbid the picking of wild flowers, without the rest of the EU having to do likewise. I'm sure the aim is wider than that but given how little of the committee's finding the article quoted, let's just think of the little flowers.

The recognition of the dignity of nature should probably go in every country's constitution.

Good for you, Switzerland. :)

And the angel of the Lord came unto me,
snatching me up from my
place of slumber,
and took me on high,
and higher still until we
moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.
and he bore me unto a
vast farmland of our own midwest,
and as we descended cries of
impending doom rose from the soil.
one thousand, nay, a million
voices full of fear.
and terror possessed me then.
and I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots,
the cries of the carrots.
You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day
and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
like the tears of one millions terrified brothers
and roared,
"Hear me now,
I have seen the light,
they have a consciousness,
they have a life,
they have a soul.
damn you!
let the rabbits wear glasses,
save our brothers...can I get an amen?
can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Y_PD-2vo4)

"If this is evolution in terms of political candidates, in twelve years, we're going to be voting for plants."

--Lewis Black, on the 2004 US election

Seems he's not all that far off, at least in Switzerland. What else should I have expected from a nation willing to arm its soldiers with corkscrews* and pride itself on cuckoo clocks?







*"Now many of you have never opened Chardonnay under fire, so pay attention. First you cut the foil, plunge and twist the corkscrew in, pull the cork, yell 'meat or fish!' and THROW!"

--Eddie Izzard

"It makes sense" and "I can't believe every country doesn't have an ethics committee."

Alpine meadows are extremely fragile, even alpine forests are, it is simply a marginal environment for life. Switzerland is mostly mountains by area.

Switzerland would be quite right to forbid the picking of wild flowers, without the rest of the EU having to do likewise. I'm sure the aim is wider than that but given how little of the committee's finding the article quoted, let's just think of the little flowers.

The recognition of the dignity of nature should probably go in every country's constitution.

Good for you, Switzerland. :)

Its one thing to set up a wildlife preserve or a national park zone, but giving plants rights? Is that not a loony solution?

And the government already decides what is ethical for us. Like, murdering is bad, paying your taxes is good, vandalism is bad, joining the military is good, etc. Honestly, an "ethics" committee would just be another excuse to hire more bureaucrats and pass more laws.

And the angel of the Lord came unto me,
snatching me up from my
place of slumber,
and took me on high,
and higher still until we
moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.
and he bore me unto a
vast farmland of our own midwest,
and as we descended cries of
impending doom rose from the soil.
one thousand, nay, a million
voices full of fear.
and terror possessed me then.
and I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots,
the cries of the carrots.
You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day
and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
like the tears of one millions terrified brothers
and roared,
"Hear me now,
I have seen the light,
they have a consciousness,
they have a life,
they have a soul.
damn you!
let the rabbits wear glasses,
save our brothers...can I get an amen?
can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Y_PD-2vo4)

This, is, necessary. Life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on...

Its one thing to set up a wildlife preserve or a national park zone, but giving plants rights? Is that not a loony solution?

And the government already decides what is ethical for us. Like, murdering is bad, paying your taxes is good, vandalism is bad, joining the military is good, etc. Honestly, an "ethics" committee would just be another excuse to hire more bureaucrats and pass more laws.

Politician walks into the thread:

"What's your point?"

video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM)

Listen up brothers and sisters,
come hear my desperate tale.
I speak of our friends of nature,
trapped in the dirt like a jail.

<snip long song>

I never knew there was a video!

Its one thing to set up a wildlife preserve or a national park zone, but giving plants rights? Is that not a loony solution?

They aren't talking about giving plants human rights, you know. As it is, animals are recognized as having rights, and that doesn't stop us eating them when we feel like it.

This is simply a recognition of the oneness of all life, and the only law that is likely to follow from it will be on the margins of existing laws about ecological protection, as a guiding principle. At least that's my guess.

I'm not really that curious that I will go and find a better source as to what the committee ruling really is. The OP's linked article was rather weak as a source of information, and not far short of paranoid ranting by the end.

And the government already decides what is ethical for us. Like, murdering is bad, paying your taxes is good, vandalism is bad, joining the military is good, etc.

Oh, how terrible! God forbid they should protect any life which isn't paying taxes.

We could also follow the example of the Dominican Republic. Under the Balaguer regime, the nation's army was employed to protect the Dominican rainforests from illegal logging. Trespassers were pretty much shot on sight.

Give me the money or the dandelion gets it...

It may soon be a felony to pick flowers in Switzerland.

link (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/terra-nullius.html)

original link (http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf)

Personally, I think Swiss citizens are becoming irrational and the government is exploiting this by passing laws. What do you think?

It alreay IS a felony to pick mushrooms on the wrong days of the week.

I think this is not quite as mental as it would first sound. The Swiss live in a small mountainous country with a very, VERY delicate eco-system. They've been fighting erosion due to loss of forests and damage done to grassland by skiing on it in winter for decades. Providing legislation to ensure that their nature - one of their biggest assets - isn't damaged further is just the next logical step.

Clearly it's a plot by the meat industry to outlaw salads.

yeah, but isn't it silly that the government is even debating this? They amended their constitution to protect a plant's right to live. Tell me thats not absurd.

It's not absurd.
In fact, it's sadly necessary. It wouldn't be if people were rational and acted sensibly, but they don't, hence the laws are required.

This means nothing. The Swiss will still allow their banks to be used to hold the ill-gotten gains of florists and green grocers.

these are the reasons that europe is so much more advanced then us.

these are the reasons that europe is so much more advanced then us.

Who are you?

Actually, I've always thought that when the government starts debating the meaning of words, it usually is a little silly.
The interpretation of the words determines how government acts upon and instructs the relevent autorities to enforce the law, so a clear understanding within government of what the words actually mean is hardly silly.

Now, there's the larger issue of whether the implications of the debate will be fruitless or meaningless, but a lot of talk about human rights seems, to me at least, to be just as silly as talk of rights for plants.

human rights, animal rights, plant rights... them swiss can just go eat rocks. :D

Its one thing to set up a wildlife preserve or a national park zone, but giving plants rights? Is that not a loony solution?

Nope - it is a pretty efficient way to preserve the envionment. Only way you can harm it is to show it is necessary. That the value of transgression vastly surpasses the value of preservation.

Haha, giving them rights is an incredibly superfluous way of saying "don't pick the flowers".

Haha, giving them rights is an incredibly superfluous way of saying "don't pick the flowers".
Has anyone discovered if the Swiss government has actually passed a Bill of Plant's Rights, or if folks here are merely taking the word of a rather waffly blogger?

It seems to me the Ethics committee has merely suggested that Swiss citizens not needlessly destroy plant-life.

I can't help but think that many people reacted to the idea of giving "rights" to women or black people, in the exact same way that you folks are doing.

Snide Clyde: "What? Women? Rights? Don't make me laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Lord Nelson: "Indeed, how preposterous! Oh, those silly foreigners. What's next, rights for Negroes? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Snide Clyde: *wipes tear from eye while high-fiving Lord Nelson in a completely non-homosexual way*

You're too stuck on the idea of "rights" only applying to "humans." Much like the idea only USED to apply to male, white citizens, and people got stuck on that idea. In both cases the only argument seems to be "That's silly! It hits my silly-o-meter. How silly!"

Has anyone discovered if the Swiss government has actually passed a Bill of Plant's Rights, or if folks here are merely taking the word of a rather waffly blogger?

It seems to me the Ethics committee has merely suggested that Swiss citizens not needlessly destroy plant-life.

To be honest, I didn't bother to click on the links.

I can't help but think that many people reacted to the idea of giving "rights" to women or black people, in the exact same way that you folks are doing.

Snide Clyde: "What? Women? Rights? Don't make me laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Lord Nelson: "Indeed, how preposterous! Oh, those silly foreigners. What's next, rights for Negroes? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Snide Clyde: *wipes tear from eye while high-fiving Lord Nelson in a completely non-homosexual way*

You're too stuck on the idea of "rights" only applying to "humans." Much like the idea only USED to apply to male, white citizens, and people got stuck on that idea. In both cases the only argument seems to be "That's silly! It hits my silly-o-meter. How silly!"

Ah yes the ecological extension argument. Too bad rights are a completely human made and arbitrary concept to begin with.

And comparing giving rights to blacks and women with giving rights to plants is pretty silly. Plants are one step up from inanimate objects, they cannot think or suffer, they do not care if they get trampled on. In fact, the only reason people are giving them rights is for our OWN benefit, because people like to look at the countryside, not for the plants benefit.

Ah yes the ecological extension argument. Too bad rights are a completely human made and arbitrary concept to begin with.

In what way does their arbitrariness support your and not my point?

If it's so arbitrary then shit, I see no reason for your "Ha ha ha ha" argument to have any weight. Not that it had much weight anyway.

And comparing giving rights to blacks and women with giving rights to plants is pretty silly.

Comparing the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the former, to the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the latter, however, is pretty dead-on, I thought.

In what way does their arbitrariness support your and not my point?

If it's so arbitrary then shit, I see no reason for your "Ha ha ha ha" argument to have any weight. Not that it had much weight anyway.


Just because it's ultimately arbitrary doesn't mean it's not a very big deal and not a very dramatic way of saying "don't pick the plants".


Comparing the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the former, to the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the latter, however, is pretty dead-on, I thought.

But you seemed to be implying that the people in this thread were being irrational as the people in your example, which if you were, is a bit silly.

Just because it's ultimately arbitrary doesn't mean it's not a very big deal

Why not?

But you seemed to be implying that the people in this thread were being irrational as the people in your example, which if you were, is a bit silly.

They are. Not all, but many. Do I have to cite posts?

Comparing the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the former, to the reaction of people who oppose the concept of the latter, however, is pretty dead-on, I thought.
Perhaps, but if we are granting rights to plants then we've got some tricky questions to answer regarding the rights we assign to humans.

We can argue against the reactions of those who would deny rights to those with different skin colour, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc., because no matter who these people are or what their lifestyle is, they are all still humans and thus we can grant them human rights.

If we wish to grant rights to nonhuman life, then the justification for doing so has to change, obviously, from the subject being a human. This is by no means impossible, but it raises issues over the legitimacy of human rights.

its a bioethics committee and there happens to be many of them (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/bioethics/bioethics_ethics_en.htm) (lol @ Malta having one)

however I'm still not convinced that they don't just get high all day

Plants are one step up from inanimate objects, they cannot think or suffer, they do not care if they get trampled on. In fact, the only reason people are giving them rights is for our OWN benefit, because people like to look at the countryside, not for the plants benefit.

I'd be very careful with making such wild accusations ;)

Why not?


Because to the majority of people in europe, rights are inherent and very real, or at least the vast majority of people act if they are even if they know that they aren't in reality.


They are. Not all, but many.

Which further implies that not giving rights to something which has no consciousness or self awareness and does not care if harm comes to it is the equivalent of not giving rights to a race or gender or human, which again is very silly. If you hold that then you absolutely have to believe that a foetus has an absolute right to life for instance.

Plants are one step up from inanimate objects, they cannot think or suffer, they do not care if they get trampled on. In fact, the only reason people are giving them rights is for our OWN benefit, because people like to look at the countryside, not for the plants benefit.

Trees and other plants are capable of actively defending themselves when under insect attack. I wouldn't call that not caring. When you pick a flower you're ripping off a living thing's sex organ. How would you like it if someone ripped off your dangly bits just because you didn't move fast enough to stop 'em?

Trees and other plants are capable of actively defending themselves when under insect attack. I wouldn't call that not caring.

But it doesn't care. That's just a mutated trait of the tree where its species survived because of this random mutation, they don't realise they have this trait, they don't realise anything because they can't think. They don't 'defend' themselves because they want to, they cant want anything.

Perhaps, but if we are granting rights to plants then we've got some tricky questions to answer regarding the rights we assign to humans.

We can argue against the reactions of those who would deny rights to those with different skin colour, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc., because no matter who these people are or what their lifestyle is, they are all still humans and thus we can grant them human rights.

Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning? We can grant "rights," but only to "humans," because "rights" actually means "only humans, and because of their being human?" I mean sure, if you define rights to exclusively refer to humans, then yeah, by definition you can't give rights to plants. But that's not a real good definition of "rights," its not a catch-all term to mean everything and anything up to and including the ability to elect a Republican president.

If we wish to grant rights to nonhuman life, then the justification for doing so has to change, obviously, from the subject being a human. This is by no means impossible, but it raises issues over the legitimacy of human rights.

Indeed, as Hydesland has already brought into question that legitimacy. Maybe human rights ARE bogus. But if they are, I don't think it has anything to do with the Swiss motion. (Whatever it actually is.)

But it doesn't care. That's just a mutated trait of the tree where its species survived because of this random mutation, they don't realise they have this trait, they don't realise anything because they can't think. They don't 'defend' themselves because they want to, they cant want anything.

That's a rather broad claim to make. Just because a species is different than us doesn't mean that it's not on some level aware. Plants react to stimulus and injury. Who's to say?

The only reason it's alright to go at a grove of trees with a chainsaw and not a herd of cows is because the cows scream when the chain starts chewing them up.

That's a rather broad claim to make. Just because a species is different than us doesn't mean that it's not on some level aware. Plants react to stimulus and injury. Who's to say?

The only reason it's alright to go at a grove of trees with a chainsaw and not a herd of cows is because the cows scream when the chain starts chewing them up.

It's pretty absurd to say that trees or plants have consciousness, that would imply they have a brain, which they do not.

It's pretty absurd to say that trees or plants have consciousness, that would imply they have a brain, which they do not.

Starfish don't have a proper brain either. They move, hunt, and react to injury. I don't know if they're "conscious" but I wouldn't go jabbing one with a hot poker just for giggles.

I can't help but think that many people reacted to the idea of giving "rights" to women or black people, in the exact same way that you folks are doing.

Snide Clyde: "What? Women? Rights? Don't make me laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Lord Nelson: "Indeed, how preposterous! Oh, those silly foreigners. What's next, rights for Negroes? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!"

Snide Clyde: *wipes tear from eye while high-fiving Lord Nelson in a completely non-homosexual way*

You're too stuck on the idea of "rights" only applying to "humans." Much like the idea only USED to apply to male, white citizens, and people got stuck on that idea. In both cases the only argument seems to be "That's silly! It hits my silly-o-meter. How silly!"

Do you realize that you have just compared minorities, to plants. :D

Starfish don't have a proper brain either. They move, hunt, and react to injury. I don't know if they're "conscious" but I wouldn't go jabbing one with a hot poker just for giggles.

I'm not sure if they do or if they don't, if they don't then they can't suffer, which means jabbing them won't bring them any pain. However, wild life is nice and is something we can all agree should be preserved, just because something doesn't have rights doesn't then follow that its fine to destroy it. It's like destroying a piece of art, the artwork doesn't have any rights, but it's still a bad thing to do.

Because to the majority of people in europe, rights are inherent and very real, or at least the vast majority of people act if they are even if they know that they aren't in reality.

Fair enough. So it's arbitrary, but people act like it isn't, and so it's still a big deal.

Which further implies that not giving rights to something which has no consciousness or self awareness and does not care if harm comes to it is the equivalent of not giving rights to a race or gender or human

Did you miss the part where I said "reactions?" Quit trying to read shit into what I write that isn't there. I am not comparing black people to plants. Jesus!

Do you realize that you have just compared minorities, to plants. :D

No, but I do realize that I haven't.

Trees and other plants are capable of actively defending themselves when under insect attack. I wouldn't call that not caring. When you pick a flower you're ripping off a living thing's sex organ. How would you like it if someone ripped off your dangly bits just because you didn't move fast enough to stop 'em?

I don't know if you can call it active. More like passive defense against bugs. And yeah, we rip off the sex organs from plants all the time and eat them. So do most herbivores. Its nature's way.

Fair enough. So it's arbitrary, but people act like it isn't, and so it's still a big deal.


Yeah, pretty much.


Did you miss the part where I said "reactions?" Quit trying to read shit into what I write that isn't there. I am not comparing black people to plants. Jesus!

Yes but you're saying that the reactions are equally as irrational, which can only mean that not giving rights to plants and not giving rights to humans is equally as bad.

No, but I do realize that I haven't.

Then what did you mean by this?

I can't help but think that many people reacted to the idea of giving "rights" to women or black people, in the exact same way that you folks are doing.

Do you realize that you have just compared minorities, to plants. :D

I like how he also compared plants to women and nobody has batted an eyelid :cool:

I don't know if you can call it active. More like passive defense against bugs. And yeah, we rip off the sex organs from plants all the time and eat them. So do most herbivores. Its nature's way.

So is raping women and clobbering eachothers brain in.
Sometimes humans like to pretend to be "better" than natures way.

Perhaps, but if we are granting rights to plants then we've got some tricky questions to answer regarding the rights we assign to humans.

We can argue against the reactions of those who would deny rights to those with different skin colour, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc., because no matter who these people are or what their lifestyle is, they are all still humans and thus we can grant them human rights.

If we wish to grant rights to nonhuman life, then the justification for doing so has to change, obviously, from the subject being a human. This is by no means impossible, but it raises issues over the legitimacy of human rights.

And that is bad because.... ?
And yes, a change in the way people look at things is probably the desired outcome. So I doubt they will mind it requires change :p

I'm not sure if they do or if they don't, if they don't then they can't suffer, which means jabbing them won't bring them any pain. However, wild life is nice and is something we can all agree should be preserved, just because something doesn't have rights doesn't then follow that its fine to destroy it. It's like destroying a piece of art, the artwork doesn't have any rights, but it's still a bad thing to do.

A fair point. I just want you to realize that it's a form of taxonomic discrimination that labels Humans as higher animals and anything else as lower. Goes back to the religious idea that humans are special. Just because something is a "lower animal" doesn't mean it's not got it's own rights to live. Same goes to plants.

Think about it, you'd never throw a puppy into a pot of boiling water, a puppy has a face and fur and cries. A lobster though, boil that bastard! The only difference is one it isn't a mammal and can't cry out in pain.

Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning? We can grant "rights," but only to "humans," because "rights" actually means "only humans, and because of their being human?"
I wasn't meaning that all talk of rights means talk of rights as 'human-only', but merely that much justification of human rights for minorities has been along the (perfectly legitimate) lines of "we're humans too, therefore we should share in the rights you guys obtain by the very nature of you being human".

This implies that humans have inherent rights, or at the very least, that we should give rights to individuals on the merit of their human-ness.

So there's got to be a different justification if we wish to assign rights to plants or nonhuman animals. Or, as I suspect, a more flexible method needs to be devised which ensures/demands a decent standard of treatment for humans, plants and nonhuman animals.

I don't know if you can call it active. More like passive defense against bugs. And yeah, we rip off the sex organs from plants all the time and eat them. So do most herbivores. Its nature's way.

Oak trees increase tannin production to respond to insect attack, making the leaves toxic. They also release a chemical to warn other trees to do the same. Pretty active defense. Granted they can't swat the little bastards, but that's a fact of their biology not an indication that they aren't aware of them.

Think about it, you'd never throw a puppy into a pot of boiling water, a puppy has a face and fur and cries. A lobster though, boil that bastard! The only difference is one it isn't a mammal and can't cry out in pain.

That, and puppies don't taste good boiled.

That, and puppies don't taste good boiled.

Dunno, bet they'd be pretty tender.

Yes but you're saying that the reactions are equally as irrational

They are: "Ha ha ha ha, how absurd" is not a rational argument.

They are: "Ha ha ha ha, how absurd" is not a rational argument.

That's because it's not an argument at all but someone expressing their opinion. But from your original post it was implied that it wasn't the actual specific arguments used that seemed irrational, but the very idea of not giving rights to plants that seemed as equally as irrational.

Dunno, bet they'd be pretty tender.

But you'd have to take all the fur off first. That would take a while, and I'm sure the puppy would struggle. Lobster you can pretty much eat as-is.

Then what did you mean by this?

Why, I mean this:

I can't help but think that many people reacted to the idea of giving "rights" to women or black people, in the exact same way that you folks are doing.

What you and Hydesland seem to think I said is this:

I can't help but think that women or black people are exactly like plants.

Spot the difference!

But you'd have to take all the fur off first. That would take a while, and I'm sure the puppy would struggle. Lobster you can pretty much eat as-is.

Be like skinning a squirrel. Just sort of cut around the ankles and peel. Rather like skinning a grape.

Think about it, you'd never throw a puppy into a pot of boiling water, a puppy has a face and fur and cries.

your enjoying this a little too much I think

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KBSOeUCzefQ

What you and Hydesland seem to think I said is this:



Spot the difference!

I never said you said that. I said that you seem to think the idea of not giving rights to plants and the idea of not giving rights to minorities are equally irrational.

And yeah, we rip off the sex organs from plants all the time and eat them. So do most herbivores. Its nature's way.
Yeah. We eat their babies too. Mangoes, anyone?

I like how he also compared plants to women and nobody has batted an eyelid :cool:
There are female plants... :confused:

Be like skinning a squirrel. Just sort of cut around the ankles and peel. Rather like skinning a grape.

http://www.nku.edu/~issues/dogs/wide_eyed_dog

That's because it's not an argument at all but someone expressing their opinion. But from your original post it was implied that it wasn't the actual specific arguments used that seemed irrational, but the very idea of not giving rights to plants that seemed as equally as irrational.

Not exactly - it was implied that the underlying reasoning people used to come to the conclusion plants should not have rights is practically identical to the one used to not give women or black people rights.

It does not imply the conclusion that plants should not have rights is wrong, just that the reasoning used to come to that conclusion may be somewhat questionable.

So Ms/Mr Swiss Citizen goes into his/her garden to cut roses for the dinner table only to find a rosy rebellion on their hands as all the roses bring suit for gross violations of their civil rights. Soon, the roses unite with the other perennials and rise in revolution taking over the Swiss government. Soon, humans, having been overthrown as "Lords of Creation," are established in their rightful place as slaves of the plants. No longer allowed to eat plants or burn wood for warmth (or use petroleum - a plant product and therefore having civil rights), they die off of malnutrition and exposure. The plants take over Switzerland - from there - the World! mwah-hah-hah.

I'm better now.

<piccy snip>
And this is why you should never give your dog amphetamines.

Not exactly - it was implied that the underlying reasoning people used to come to the conslusion plants should not have rights is practically identical to the one used to not give women or black people rights.
It does not imply the conclusion that plants should not have rights is wrong, just that the reasoning used to come to that conclusion may be somewhat questionable.

But GT in his examples didn't cite any lines of reasoning, he cited only the conclusions, as in "haha it's so absurd".

So Ms/Mr Swiss Citizen goes into his/her garden to cut roses for the dinner table only to find a rosy rebellion on their hands as all the roses bring suit for gross violations of their civil rights. Soon, the roses unite with the other perennials and rise in revolution taking over the Swiss government. Soon, humans, having been overthrown as "Lords of Creation," are established in their rightful place as slaves of the plants. No longer allowed to eat plants or burn wood for warmth (or use petroleum - a plant product and therefore having civil rights), they die off of malnutrition and exposure. The plants take over Switzerland - from there - the World! mwah-hah-hah.

I'm better now.
lol, funny. :)

So Ms/Mr Swiss Citizen goes into his/her garden to cut roses for the dinner table only to find a rosy rebellion on their hands as all the roses bring suit for gross violations of their civil rights. Soon, the roses unite with the other perennials and rise in revolution taking over the Swiss government. Soon, humans, having been overthrown as "Lords of Creation," are established in their rightful place as slaves of the plants. No longer allowed to eat plants or burn wood for warmth (or use petroleum - a plant product and therefore having civil rights), they die off of malnutrition and exposure. The plants take over Switzerland - from there - the World! mwah-hah-hah.

I'm better now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids

We need to put you on Jeopardy. You know the most random stuff.

But GT in his examples didn't cite any lines of reasoning, he cited only the conclusions, as in "haha it's so absurd".

Nope - the haha-it is so absurd IS the reasoning - not the conclusion.

That's because it's not an argument at all but someone expressing their opinion.

Opinions can be irrational too. And since those opinions are OBVIOUSLY against the concept, I am treating them as IF they were arguments.
And I am mocking them.

But from your original post it was implied that it wasn't the actual specific arguments used that seemed irrational, but the very idea of not giving rights to plants that seemed as equally as irrational.


I never said you said that. I said that you seem to think the idea of not giving rights to plants and the idea of not giving rights to minorities are equally irrational.

They are irrational in this case for the same reason.

People get it into their heads: "Rights apply only to men. Therefore, 'women rights' is a contradiction in terms, impossible and silly besides! Haw haw haw!"

Or now, "Rights apply only to humans. Therefore, 'plant rights' is a contradiction in terms, impossible, and silly besides! Haw haw haw!"

So yeah, these are both equally irrational positions. Which I will continue to mock.

We need to put you on Jeopardy. You know the most random stuff.

My brain is a packrat's heaven of useless trivia.

Nope - the haha-it is so absurd IS the reasoning - not the conclusion.

:confused:

How could that possibly be reasoning. It's just an 'is' statement: "this is x" not "this is x because....".

My brain is a packrat's heaven of useless trivia.

Like how to skin puppies?

Opinions can be irrational too. And since those opinions are OBVIOUSLY against the concept, I am treating them as IF they were arguments.
And I am mocking them.


Exactly, so it's the very opinion you are comparing, not the reasoning behind the opinion.


They are irrational in this case for the same reason.

People get it into their heads: "Rights apply only to men. Therefore, 'women rights' is a contradiction in terms, impossible and silly besides! Haw haw haw!"

Or now, "Rights apply only to humans. Therefore, 'plant rights' is a contradiction in terms, impossible, and silly besides! Haw haw haw!"

So yeah, these are both equally irrational positions. Which I will continue to mock.

Except that is one massive strawman, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that rights "only apply to humans".

There are female plants... :confused:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDIQGmglFW8

SNIP

technically they would be much more efficient due to being producers in the food chain so its all for the best :)

:confused:

How could that possibly be reasoning. It's just an 'is' statement: "this is x" not "this is x because....".

Exactly. Which is why it is pathetic reasoning. "It is silly because it is silly".

Exactly. Which is why it is pathetic reasoning. "It is silly because it is silly".

But you're assuming that this is actually the persons reasoning, which it obviously isn't. Anyone who made a post saying it is absurd did so to express an opinion, not to present their reasoning.

Exactly, so it's the very opinion you are comparing, not the reasoning behind the opinion.


I am comparing both


Except that is one massive strawman, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that rights "only apply to humans".

I haven't seen anyone say "Ha ha ha ha" either. Also, Snide Clyde is a fictional character. I hope you don't think that actually addresses the point I've made, which has not only flown over your head but has circumnavigated the globe several times by now.

I haven't seen anyone say "Ha ha ha ha" either. Also, Snide Clyde is a fictional character. I hope you don't think that actually addresses the point I've made, which has not only flown over your head but has circumnavigated the globe several times by now.

What is your point then?

But you're assuming that this is actually the persons reasoning, which it obviously isn't.

Is it obvious ? Let's be honest - most people don't bother to think about their own opinions. I have seen no reason whatsoever to assume the people merely posting "it is silly" have pondered this in great depth.

Just like the "considering women/blacks should have rights is silly" people didn't.

But you're assuming that this is actually the persons reasoning, which it obviously isn't. Anyone who made a post saying it is absurd did so to express an opinion, not to present their reasoning.

They DISAGREE. Based on SILLINESS.

At least, we assume they disagree. Maybe you can show that dismissing the concept of 'plant rights' as silly and worthy of mockery, is actually supporting and agreeing with said concept.

They DISAGREE. Based on SILLINESS.


If all they are saying is that they disagree then you cannot know if the bold is true or not, because they haven't told what they base their opinion on.

Is it obvious ? Let's be honest - most people don't bother to think about their own opinions. I have seen no reason whatsoever to assume the people merely posting "it is silly" have pondered this in great depth.


Why? Most of the people on NSG are reasonably smart, and most people have come across the concept of plant rights before.

If all they are saying is that they disagree then you cannot know if the bold is true or not, because they haven't told what they base their opinion on.

Right. They had incredibly well-thought out, well-reasoned, logical, point-by-point arguments. WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO BE INVISIBLE.

Right. They had incredibly well-thought out, well-reasoned, logical, point-by-point arguments. WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO BE INVISIBLE.

I don't think many people at all have actually come into the thread saying simply its absurd and nothing else. And anyone who did were able to present some sort of argument when challenged.

I don't think many people at all have actually come into the thread saying simply its absurd and nothing else.

Enough have displayed the kind of reaction I'm talking about.

And anyone who did were able to present some sort of argument when challenged.

Patently untrue, but whatever. You either have the ability and willingness to read or you don't.

Enough have displayed the kind of reaction I'm talking about.



Patently untrue, but whatever. You either have the ability and willingness to read or you don't.

This will lead no where, I just want to know one thing: do you believe that the very idea of not giving rights to minorities is as irrational as not giving rights to plants or not?

This will lead no where, I just want to know one thing: do you believe that the very idea of not giving rights to minorities is as irrational as not giving rights to plants or not?

I don't think that's relevant, and I think you're being sufficiently vague that I cannot completely disagree or agree. It CAN be. I am making fun of it when it IS. You're right as to leading nowhere though. You've gone and completely sucked whatever humor value there was when I made my ever-so-controversial post.

I don't think that's relevant, and I think you're being sufficiently vague that I cannot completely disagree or agree. It CAN be. I am making fun of it when it IS.

How is it vague?


You're right as to leading nowhere though. You've gone and completely sucked whatever humor value there was when I made my ever-so-controversial post.

Boo hoo, you obviously do think that the two situations are the same any way, other wise you would never have made such a comparison to point out that some people are not presenting any arguments, because the link would have been incredibly tenuous.

Yeah. We eat their babies too. Mangoes, anyone?


This is like that PETA campaign where they compared barbecuing pork to incinerating the Jews. I think it was called "Holocaust on your Plate"

This is like that PETA campaign where they compared barbecuing pork to incinerating the Jews. I think it was called "Holocaust on your Plate"
Actually I dislike PETA. They run weird, outrageous, and/or stupid campaigns...

Actually I dislike PETA. They run weird, outrageous, and/or stupid campaigns...

Without organizations like PETA and Budweiser, commercials would have no humor value whatsoever.

Without organizations like PETA and Budweiser, commercials would have no humor value whatsoever.

Don't forget about good ole government advertising (http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/)

Without organizations like PETA and Budweiser, commercials would have no humor value whatsoever.
I have a broken humor detector, and I don't watch TV anyway. :(

Don't forget about good ole government advertising (http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/)

Oh yeah, those are on the radio here. One about a kid who was "addicted" to pot, and how it made him violent, and this one time, he stole a golf club.

TEH HORROR!!!! spelling intentional

Oh yeah, those are on the radio here. One about a kid who was "addicted" to pot, and how it made him violent, and this one time, he stole a golf club.

TEH HORROR!!!! spelling intentional

Pot is no joke. The first time I did pot, I was just screaming and pulling my hair out for hours. It took 3 guys to restrain me and that was only after I tried to slit my wrists with a cell phone.

Pot is no joke. The first time I did pot, I was just screaming and pulling my hair out for hours. It took 3 guys to restrain me and that was only after I tried to slit my wrists with a cell phone.

Emo kid!

Pot is no joke. The first time I did pot, I was just screaming and pulling my hair out for hours. It took 3 guys to restrain me and that was only after I tried to slit my wrists with a cell phone.

I'm trying to figure out how that would work...

dear readers,

- i personally feel that it is perfectly acceptable that now the Swiss government has obtained its plants.
- this will only bring good for the people of Switzerland in the way that now regular check-ups will be placed hopefully so that they can increase thier plan, like everyone elses to become a "green" nation.
- at first i was a little sceptical, but the benifits outway the negatives
- the Swiss government does have the right idea..they may need to fine tune some things in the earlyer stages of this new development but in time it will be smooth sailing
- the EU, in my opinion will not adopt this

thank you,

Kakkovian Leader
Nikos Sillekas

Will killing poison ivy be considered self defence?

Pot is no joke. The first time I did pot, I was just screaming and pulling my hair out for hours. It took 3 guys to restrain me and that was only after I tried to slit my wrists with a cell phone.

Please dont reproduce. If pot is kicking your ass that badly, could i gently suggest you take a genetic pass this time around?

How is it vague?


It's vague. And instead of reading what I write, you're demanding an easy, oversimplified 'yes or no NOW!' answer. There isn't one.

Boo hoo, you obviously do think that the two situations are the same

Okay, your delusions and assumptions =/= "obvious"

To anyone but you that is.

And hey, if what I say is so "obvious" and you already assume what I think, there's not much point in asking is there? In fact, there's not much point in holding a dialogue either, and you may as well just STFU.

any way, other wise you would never have made such a comparison to point out that some people are not presenting any arguments, because the link would have been incredibly tenuous.

Some people are indeed not presenting any arguments. You yourself said this. "They're just opinions," you more or less pleaded, as if being an opinion means it's incontrovertible.

The link between your commentary and the relevance of anything I've said, let alone the thread subject, is what's becoming tenuous.