Originally posted by whodeyPlease actually read my answers in the future. A "rational reason" does not equate to "whims and desires". And read the report if you really have any interest in the subject (which I doubt).
It then begs the question as to why? Are weeds of less value than the other plants? Perhaps to us, but then again, if that is the case then people should be allowed to value plants individually based upon their own whims and desires.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOur best scientific analysis confirms our assumption. There's no nerve tissue or brain.
We assume "Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort."
The bottom line is they are living organisms. That we know. They might have feelings, they might feel distress, pain, etc.
O forest of pine trees were attacked by some sort of cockroaches. The outer trees sustained the most damage but somehow the inner trees started producing a re ...[text shortened]... try to think for a sec and put a "It is thought" or "maybe" in front of those statements.
Some trees are protected by law in the United States of America? Maybe that is protected status and not legal rights. I think that plants do not have legal rights. Do animals have legal rights? If you were to kill your own dog you could be prosecuted in a court of law.
Originally posted by FMF
Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
please explain that. because as it is it sounds too stupid;
Does it? Are you sure?
You have never come across the whole concept of rights and responsibilities being interlocked and inseparable?
Originally posted by FMFSo babies don't have rights? Or do they have rights because they are likely to be able to assume responsibilities in the future? In that case, what about severely disabled people?
Originally posted by FMF
[b]Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
please explain that. because as it is it sounds too stupid;
Does it? Are you sure?
You have never come across the whole concept of rights and responsibilities being interlocked and inseparable?[/b]
Does a two thousand year old Redwood have the same amount of intrinsic value as a piece of Lego? It seems Wesley J. Smith reckons they're about on a par.
No-one is suggesting that competing rights of humans and plants have equal value just that plants have some intrinsic value. Perhaps it's clearer if we compare 'plant rights' to those of other plants. For instance, should an introduced species that has invaded the wild and become highly successful (thus threatening biodiversity) be accorded the same rights as an endemic species?
Originally posted by NordlysParents. Legal guardians. The whole thing is very legally precise and deeply rooted in precedent.
So babies don't have rights? Or do they have rights because they are likely to be able to assume responsibilities in the future? In that case, what about severely disabled people?
It sounds like a pretty mighty leap to make from plants having moral value to having rights. I'm cynical of rights theory even as it's applied to humans, let alone the absurd notion of animal or plant rights. The tendancy seems to be to jump from "I shouldn't kill X" to "X has a right to life." But there's quite a bit of space in between there. I hope that what this Swiss panel meant was something like the former rather than the latter. I wouldn't put it passed the Weekly Standard to exaggerate this sort of thing.
Originally posted by FMFBut that means you don't have to be able to assume responsibilities to have rights. And even a baby who has been left somewhere without parents and without a legal guardian has rights.
Parents. Legal guardians. The whole thing is very legally precise and deeply rooted in precedent.
Originally posted by NordlysBut I was talking about grown up plants, trees and Lego™. I suppose that, on reflection, baby plants, trees and Lego™ should have rights because nobody can be absolutely sure they won't grow up to be able to assume responsibilities. But, as is often the way with plants, trees and Lego™, they let their advocates down and turn out to be - not so much irresponsible - as rather oblivious to not only their responsibilities but their rights too. Thusly, those rights are stripped from them. Controversial, I know. Even I have my doubts.
But that means you don't have to be able to assume responsibilities to have rights. And even a baby who has been left somewhere without parents and without a legal guardian has rights.
Originally posted by FMFYour argument is just plain wrong; people don't have rights because they can assume responsibilities. There are people who never can assume responsibilities (such as the mentally impaired), but who have the same natural rights as anybody else.
But I was talking about grown up plants, trees and Lego™. I suppose that, on reflection, baby plants, trees and Lego™ should have rights because nobody can be absolutely sure they won't grow up to be able to assume responsibilities. But, as is often the way with plants, trees and Lego™, they let their advocates down and turn out to be - not so much irresponsible ...[text shortened]... too. Thusly, those rights are stripped from them. Controversial, I know. Even I have my doubts.