Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (79324)	12/1/2003 5:55:47 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"A river has the right to remain unpoluted from the neglect or deliberate malice of its keepers" I am trying to follow you: You seem to be saying that the right of a river is the obligation of a person. A river does not have consciousness, does it? So are you talking about the supposed rights of insentient matter??? or are you talking about the supposed obligations of humans to rocks, mud, and water??? How is the nature of a river helped or hindered by pollution? Is the river conscious?? "Although the greatest wrong is done to your own soul" What are you talking about? Has any university or medical facility ever recognized a "soul"? If you get cancer do we operate on your "soul"??

To: one_less who wrote (79324)	12/1/2003 7:33:37 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

An assumption that all creations have rights. A river has the right to remain unpoluted from the neglect or deliberate malice of its keepers. A tree has the right to remain free of contamination and degradation caused by neglect or deliberate disregard for its flourishing health. That does not mean that we can't dam up the river or cut down the tree. However, it means we should maintain responsibility for keeping the environment in a clean and healthy condition as we determine to manage these resources. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me as a philosophy. The basic fallacy, as I see it, is that you are taking on the absolute power and right of determining what the "rights" of a river are and are not. A river has the right not to be polluted, but not the right not to be damned. On what possible basis do you make this distinction for the river, and give it no voice in what rights it wants to assert for itself? If a river did have rights, I would think the right to run free and true to its nature would be one of its most basic rights. That is, the right not to be dammed for human convenience, and forced to live in slavery rather than freedom. And what is pollution? Is human waste pollution? Fish, deer, bears defecate in water; why shouldn't humans? It all seems so totally arbitrary that it makes no intellectual sense, at least to me.