human rights?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Hey, Empty, if your Queen gives the swans all those "rights", does that mean that Americans have to abide by that rule in the USA? And if we don't? ...will the Queen sends up to jail if we show up in England? How does that work?

In the USA, for example, you can't kill a grizzly bear unless he attacks you, and to prove that he attacked, you have to have horrendous wounds ...such as one arm ripped off or a leg half eaten. Can you kill grizzly bears in the UK?

Baron Max

we dont have bears in the uk, i think we used to along with wolves like way back,

i have no idea what would happen to an american that harms a swan, most likely nothing. you guys are allowed to hunt over there right?

and that defence law about the bear is stupid. so you have to basicaly die before you can protect yourself? i think the best way to deal with a bear is play dead isnt it? i wouldent chance anything though personaly, a bear is a predator and can kill a human, (granted it eats fish mostly) so i would eliminate the threat asap,


whats the charge on killing a bear?

peace.

 

[Baron Max]

i have no idea what would happen to an american that harms a swan, most likely nothing. you guys are allowed to hunt over there right?

But your Queen gave the swans "rights", right? So if swans have "rights", then don't swans in the USA have those same "rights"? How can she give swans "rights" in just England? If swans have rights, then they have rights, right?

Don't we make that claim about humans? ...that all humans have rights, yet why isn't it the same with the swans? Duh, I don't get this shit about "rights". It seems to me that someone can assign rights without giving a shit about anyone or anything else. Duh?

Baron Max

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

But your Queen gave the swans "rights", right? So if swans have "rights", then don't swans in the USA have those same "rights"? How can she give swans "rights" in just England? If swans have rights, then they have rights, right?

Don't we make that claim about humans? ...that all humans have rights, yet why isn't it the same with the swans? Duh, I don't get this shit about "rights". It seems to me that someone can assign rights without giving a shit about anyone or anything else. Duh?

Baron Max

i dont know, why do americans have different rights to people in africa? maybe the swans are members of our society and get english rights.


just like people in america can be killed for crimes, people in england cant, different laws for different people,

its a stupid law made by a stupid person,


peace.

 

[andbna]

It seems to me that someone can assign rights without giving a shit about anyone or anything else."

Bingo. All rights are created and assinged by humans (albiet some beleive in certain rights which their god(s) have created/given however it makes no true difference)

The only time one can actualy have rights is if they are actualy enforced. No human has controll over the entire world, but some (or groups of some) can controll an area. If said person however doesnt give a shit about anyone else, then enforcing these rights could be problematic for them (they must be able to persuade people in order to have control.)
Hitler is a wonderfull example of persuading a nation, and not giving a shit about anyone else (or specificaly, the Jew's and Communists.) Resaulting in something we now beleive was an attrociouse violation of human rights. Of course, are documentaries of Germans from those years who describe his regime as the best times of their lives, so it appears 'rights' are truly relative.

Thus (in this case) the Queen can assign the swan's rights (because she feels like it) and they will be enforced because people obay her (to an extent of course.) But she only has dominion over England (with some influence perhaps with previouse colonies, ie Canada, Australia etc... however negligable for this argument.) And thus, the swans have these 'rights' in England, but not in the US.

As for your bear, Baron, it appears like it's slightly exagerated. While true no doubt that one may only kill a bear if in self defence, being mamed first isnt the only way of assuring this, im sure the enforcement would understand that you shot it before it tore your limbs off...

PS. Your descriptions, Chi, sound amazing, now i should really like to try some real camping. (alas I fear I'l have no such opportunity for some time yet...)

-Andrew

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Bingo. All rights are created and assinged by humans (albiet some beleive in certain rights which their god(s) have created/given however it makes no true difference)

The only time one can actualy have rights is if they are actualy enforced. No human has controll over the entire world, but some (or groups of some) can controll an area. If said person however doesnt give a shit about anyone else, then enforcing these rights could be problematic for them (they must be able to persuade people in order to have control.)
Hitler is a wonderfull example of persuading a nation, and not giving a shit about anyone else (or specificaly, the Jew's and Communists.) Resaulting in something we now beleive was an attrociouse violation of human rights. Of course, are documentaries of Germans from those years who describe his regime as the best times of their lives, so it appears 'rights' are truly relative.

Thus (in this case) the Queen can assing the swan's rights (because she feels like it) and they will be enforced because people obay her (to an extent of course.) But she only has dominion over England (with some influence perhaps with previouse colonies, ie Canada, Australia etc... however negligable for this argument.) And thus, the swans have these 'rights' in England, but not in the US.

As for your bear Baron, it appears like it's slightly exagerated. While true no doubt that one may only kill a bear if in self defence, being mamed first isnt the only way of assuring this, im sure the enforcement would understand that you shot it before it tore your limbs off...

PS. Your descriptions, Chi, sound amazing, now i should really like to try some real camping. (alas I fear I'l have no such opportunity for some time yet...)

-Andrew

no human has control over the entire world, but allied forces are going for the gusto

and yes i think thats about how the law stands with the swan thing, i cant see how it can be enforced overseas to be honest, the bear thing i thought was a little unfair on the human lol, i will shoot you when you finish tearing my hands off.


and yes i strongly suggest for everyone to live out in nature, if not alone then with some good company, but go out into the real world not on a camp site, its a wonderful experience, i love bieng surrounded byn woodlands mountains lakes and streams, the fresh air, the natural sounds of nature, no cars no noisey rude people for a change of pace.

i always bring some books with me, theres no better place to read a book than out on a riverbank, or sat up against a huge tree on a sunny day with no distractions, or just sitting back and taking in the scenary, sounds and natural smells, i bring some back up rations and watr sometimes, but i mainly head out for a spot with known hunting game and food at hand to forage,

the experience is not bad when you dont hunt, i do it because its part of my training, but it has become a hobby to me aswell now. fishing is great when your doing it for food. i dont ever fish for fun or hunt. what i kill i eat. but i always have a problem with fishing because sometimes i wonder to myself "hmm is this poisonous, should i eat this"


i love scotland and the lake district for just camping outside in natue in the UK,


best place in england to camp in nature.

peace.

 

[andbna]

Those are some of the most beautiful pictures I'v seen. Ever.
That settles any issue: after university im moving to Scotland...
Now I'm pretty much jealous, and what more can I say?

-Andrew

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Those are some of the most beautiful pictures I'v seen. Ever.
That settles any issue: after university im moving to Scotland...
Now I'm pretty much jealous, and what more can I say?

-Andrew

those pctures are actualy of england, its the lake district, but it is right underneath scotland,

i would say some parts of scotland are even nicer than that, especialy the ilse of skye. some parts of the isle of skye look like another planet though. very rocky terrain,


peace.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Wow! Beautiful pics!

I've always loved Scotish scenerie...

 

[Tiassa]

Rights are derivative of a social contract. When other species can assert their place at the table, that's an important standard. Teach a cow sign language, for instance. If I can have a conversation with it--as I can with certain primates--I certainly won't want to eat it.

We agree to certain rights among human beings for a number of reasons. Chiefly, there is simple greed. What we cannot do to others, for law or ethics or morals, we do not wish for ourselves. Maybe some people think our laws about sexual consent are too strict and convoluted. Convoluted, yes; it's a mess. But I have a daughter: the idea that I should subscribe to a social contract that diminishes her human status is appalling to me. Sure, it makes it harder to get laid, but the trade-off is worth it. I would like a say in who sticks their genitals inside me, and I demand the same right of self-governance for my daughter. In the end, it's just greed styled in altruism.

Beyond that, we're reaching after a protective characteristic of the species. We are a social species that functions better in groups than as individuals. Human rights, as such, not only serve our immediate comfort but also the perpetuity of our species. It is seemingly natural that our first considerations of rights should have to do with our own species. To the other, when we finally figure that out, maybe we can work on the rest of the living Universe in a manner other than sentimentalist piecework.

Rights are a convention of the participants, and limited by nature. My assertion of human/living rights defies our species' current ability to ensure those rights. This does not strike down the legitimacy of such principles, but only their practicality. In the meantime, it does well enough to worry about those rights that are within our capability that we continue to reject for reasons of inconvenience or bigotry.

 

[Baron Max]

and yes i strongly suggest for everyone to live out in nature, if not alone then with some good company, but go out into the real world not on a camp site, its a wonderful experience, ...

Is it a wonderful experience if there are rains, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, monsoons, freezing temperatures, hailstorms, snowstorms,.....?

I wonder what all this has to do with "human rights"?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Rights are a convention of the participants, and limited by nature. My assertion of human/living rights defies our species' current ability to ensure those rights. This does not strike down the legitimacy of such principles, but only their practicality. In the meantime, it does well enough to worry about those rights that are within our capability that we continue to reject for reasons of inconvenience or bigotry.

Interesting, Tiassa. I've read that over three times now trying to determine exactly what you mean by it, and still come out with the same conclusion ...Might makes right

If one very strong group of people decide on a "human right", then it seems that you've allowed that they can enforce that "human right" onto others, even if the others don't agree on that "human right".

As I see it, you, like everyone else, seems oddly hung up on the idea, the term, "we" as if the entire world of humans have made some agreement. But that's not the case, is it? Nope, your "we" works ONLY if "we" have the power to enforce the "human rights" onto others. And in saying that, "we" practically approve of the "human rights" that Hilter tried to assign. Might makes right ...even if for only a short time.

Baron Max

 

[Jeff 152]

the answer is nobody really cares enough. you are right, people shouldn't be allowed to kill animals doing them no harm, but people only care enough about select animals to enact laws. People like dogs and cats and have emotional attachments to them. Thus, they care enough to instate a law. If enough people cared about fish, it would me made a law too. I dont think anyone would disagree that a fish and a bird and a cat and a dog all have a right to live, but nobody cares, we have real problems to deal with.

 

[andbna]

Well, since you brought up the idea of what should have a right to live, I'l pose some other questions.
First, you say a fish has as much a right to live as a cat, and as a human. So what about smaller things? Let's say mice? do they have the same right to live? now even smaller (brain size-wize), a lobster how about it? a spider? how about a flea? a hydra? an amoeba? bacteria? virus?

My real question is thus: when do we draw the line? Both in what constitutes life and what has a right to live and when can we kill it?

Just something to get you thinking
-Andrew

 

[Baron Max]

the answer is nobody really cares enough.

Well, actually it's that some people care too much, and some people don't care enough, and some people are right in the middle between the two.

And that's exactly like everything else in the world of humans ...there is no consensus, no agreement, and there never will be ....without someone of strength and power to force the issue. And once again, just like it's been throughout history, .....Might makes right!

Baron Max

 

[TruthSeeker]

My real question is thus: when do we draw the line? Both in what constitutes life and what has a right to live and when can we kill it?

We have a right to kill whenever we need to eat. Of course, that excludes humans.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Oh, and, of course, if a species is in danger of extinction, we must protect it.

 

[Baron Max]

We have a right to kill whenever we need to eat. Of course, that excludes humans.

Why exclude humans? What's your rationale for that?

And just curious, ....why can't we eat just vegatables and plants? Humans don't need meat in order to live. I'm anxious to read your rationale.

Oh, and, of course, if a species is in danger of extinction, we must protect it.

Why? If the polar bear goes extinct, what possible difference could it make to anyone on the face of the Earth? Or any other specie for that matter.

Baron Max

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why exclude humans? What's your rationale for that?

You want to live in fear and violence?

And just curious, ....why can't we eat just vegatables and plants? Humans don't need meat in order to live. I'm anxious to read your rationale.

Sure. Why not? As long as we have enough protein. But plants are alive to. Did you know that?

Why? If the polar bear goes extinct, what possible difference could it make to anyone on the face of the Earth? Or any other specie for that matter.

Baron Max

Everye species is important to the whole ecossystem. Hence the mess we are in right now.

 

[Baron Max]

You want to live in fear and violence?

Pretty hard to eat a steak or piece of chicken without someone doing violence! Or did you just convienently forget that bad part of it all?

Everye species is important to the whole ecossystem. Hence the mess we are in right now.

Huh? So it's all the dinosaurs' fault that we're in such a mess??? Damn, now I know who to blame for all this bullshit! Thanks, TS,

Baron Max

 

[andbna]

Pretty hard to eat a steak or piece of chicken without someone doing violence! Or did you just convienently forget that bad part of it all?

Ah but is it? For I would wager the chicken knows little of its fate, and neither the farmer nor the consumer are afraid of it, So i dont see the fear part here. As for the violence, there is little concerning the simple slaughter of one animal, wheras humans, being highly sociable and intelligent, would group together, and resist another attmepting to consume them. This would then lead the creation of mobs, and anarchy and the return to a social structure similar to more ancient times. A step backward. No need for this as there is plenty of food where we live (and by 'we' Baron, I mean anyone posting on this board, and if they are having troubles obtaining food, then they should be buying electricity, a computer, and the internet.)

Huh? So it's all the dinosaurs' fault that we're in such a mess??? Damn, now I know who to blame for all this bullshit! Thanks, TS,

First, the dinosaurs aren't part of our ecosystem. What he is reffering too is that humans have the power to easily and darasticaly change ecosystems, such as we have done. It would be quite easy for us as a species to destroy the planet if we wanted to, no other species is capable of this. Thus, as we are both the creators and enforcers of ethics, and as we have the desire to live, we must be weary of our actions and take care of our ecosystem. Such things include laws that prevent one from hunting another animal too extinction. So no, we are the ones responsible for the mess we are in now. Infact, we are responsible for almost everything that happens on earth.

We have a right to kill whenever we need to eat.

Furthurmore then, what constitutes the necessity to eat? For I could indeed live on a single meal of veggies per day, drinking solely water. And how about preventing disease, can I kill viruses? Or can I kill their carriers, ex. mosquitos? How about other things that cause discomfort, algae in pools for example, can I chlorinate my pool?
What about housing, Is it right to destroy ecosystems so I can build a house which is more comfortablem though as Chi demonstrated, one can survive on allot less? Then we have cars and electricity and industrial factories, producing pollutants, leading to acid rains, killing more things, should we rid ourselves of these infrastructures?

-Andrew