2

5/7/2008 6:41:23 AM

hooksaw what do you do in your classes? Seriously?

How is it you're not capable of reading a single internet thread and formulating a cogent reply?

5/7/2008 12:46:08 PM

LiusClues I tried to explain to you why a lot of people would think this concept of plants rights is silly, since they dont have brains or a nervous system, etc...apparently the majority of people think its silly

5/7/2008 12:50:32 PM

AND AS ALWAYS

THE MAJORITY IS CORRECT

5/7/2008 12:57:23 PM

look 392, i try to be nice about this stupid fucking topic and actually listen to what you guys who support plants rights have to say, but then you come in with your rolly eyes and strawmen and its not even fucking worth it

OMG PLANTS HAVE FEELINGS TOO

give me a fucking break, this whole topic is a big joke, why the fuck did i even bother attempting to rationally discuss it, jesus christ

5/7/2008 12:59:17 PM

I guess it is laudable that you put forth an effort

but really, if you can't even see the worth in birds or horses, then how could you for plants?

5/7/2008 1:18:04 PM

again, if i dont say horses and birds have the exact same value as a human, you twist that into me going out and killing birds and horses for fun

and now you want blades of grass and wildflowers to have "rights"

i'm done with this topic, its completely insane

5/7/2008 1:21:01 PM

nah

I think you were clear:

humans > animals > plants

right?


I think the problem is the tone that some of those who've posted in this thread (hooksaw)

also, you could be less absolute in your approaching the subject

you made some good points about nervous systems and such

but you (and others) seem to jump to conclusions and immediately refute those [false] conclusions

then you seem to get frustrated and simply laugh and what is, on the surface, certainly a somewhat silly topic


I'm not even sure it should be viewed as plant rights as much as a sort of respect for biological life in general

as was pointed out, many current laws already address much of the issue of ecological or biological protection

but you can always have different ways to reach the philosophical backing of society's laws

(sometimes our laws evolve to what's needed without our understanding -- only later do we philosophically frame it)


killing a plant, "arbitrarily," (up to much interpretation) may not need be a violation of that flower's individual right

but rather that the flower is part of a larger ecological system, which is part of an even larger one, and so on

so that by destroying parts of nature, we could view that as violating the rights of every human, collectively

or something


either way, it's a very interesting topic that will likely be revisited here in the states

5/7/2008 1:39:35 PM

I hope y'all realize this is an issue of bioethics and directly relates to genetic engineering and not me killing a nightshade for the hell of it.

5/7/2008 1:49:03 PM

^^ Um. . .yeah, except the argument as put forth by the panel wasn't about the "larger ecological system." You should read the OP before commenting.

Quote :

"A 'clear majority' of the panel adopted what it called a 'biocentric' moral view, meaning that 'living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive.' Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim 'absolute ownership' over plants and, moreover, that 'individual plants have an inherent worth.' This means that 'we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily.' The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually 'decapitates' some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why. The report states, opaquely: At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves."

^ I was wondering how long it would take some of you to realize that the position of the panel at issue is more about being against plant biotechnology than it is being for plant "dignity."

5/7/2008 5:34:45 PM

Quote :

"At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves"

is what I was getting at

but yeah

Quote :

"the position of the panel at issue is more about being against plant biotechnology than it is being for plant "dignity"

great

I'm generally opposed to plant biotechnology (as everyone should be)

5/7/2008 6:09:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad to see the Swiss understand moral equivalence. This is the reason I've never apologized for eating any food--meat or other. Lettuce, I point out in the grocery store, is perfectly content to remain alive and unmolested until a machine yanks it out of the ground. I wonder what an ethicist with a moral imperative actually eats."

5/7/2008 6:51:21 PM

Quote :

"Anybody who doesn't realize who LiusClues is should be taken out back and shot."

5/7/2008 7:21:27 PM

If someone ever told me to my face that it was immoral to uproot a flower just for the hell of it, I would find the nearest flower and yank it out of the ground and then laugh at them for being that fucking stupid.

5/7/2008 9:36:24 PM

Okay, could we get chalk outlines around the victims?

5/8/2008 4:42:02 AM