What's new
By:
Filters
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hypothetical question regarding wild plants and trespassing

  • #41
Thread opened. Very good discussion, except for the people who were wrong. :)

Please, everybody, this needs to remain as civil as possible. I personally haven't ever seen much of a problem with Paul and John's posts in the past, so question/insult them at your peril, because I'm not going to close this thread because someone doesn't like to be proven wrong.

Unless a blue person comes in, of course.....
 
  • #42
eithan0693 said:
Living things deserve some respect, more so then the dirt they grow in :) that's all lol
Click to expand...

Guess what? Bacteria are alive as well, I don't see you saying that they deserve respect. Feel free to respond and tell me why your statement is correct.
 
  • #43
I do actually respect bacteria? It's a very valuable part of the ecosystem. It helps break down nutrients so that my aquatic plants can absorb them again. It's essential to any digestion by humans , essential to proper water health .. all living things deserve respect. Even viruses play a role in culling out the weak organisms making for a stronger gene pool.
 
  • #44
Let's look at the nature of force first. First of all let's get our definitions straight, we're talking about physical force brought to bear upon one person by another, or group of others.Within this framework there are 3 distinct types of force.

Type#1, initiatory force. Example: you're walking down the street, and someone out of the blue hits you, let's say in an attempt to steal your wallet. You have done absolutely nothing wrong, and in no way deserve this to happen. In fact there is no instance whatsoever in which initiatory force is justifiable. If the perpetrator is caught and convicted he goes to jail and rightly so.

Type #2, defensive force. Example : the guy who hit you to take your wallet is a pansy, and his blow has little effect upon you. You turn and break his jaw with a left hook, dropping him like a bad habit. Bravo! Well done, because defensive force in this, and any other instance in which it is warranted (by having force initiated upon you) is not just acceptable, it is a moral imperative, assuming you value your own life and well being above that of your attacker. On a personal note, if you don't value your life and well being above his, seek professional help!

Type #3, retaliatory force. Example : the guy knocks you out and gets your wallet, but you recognized him and know where he lives. As soon as your head clears, you head over, kick in his door, and catching him off guard you knock him out and retrieve your wallet. This type of force is a bit tricky, because while it is a natural right to do this, as members of a society built upon laws and due process we have delegated the right to this type of force to governmental agencies, ie, police, prisons, armed forces, etc. We haven't given up the right, but in the interests of societal harmony we have these systems in place . So since within the confines of a civilized society retaliatory force is the exclusive province of the government, if you get caught you go to jail and rightly so.

Applying this to the situation of a landowner, what is the justification for bringing force to bear against someone who has done nothing wrong except buy a piece of property that someone for some reason considers choice in some way?
 
Last edited:
  • #45
eithan0693 said:
Emotion and pain are just electrical impulses perceived by your brain. This "awareness of self" you speak of can't even be proved due to that not every human responds to emotional stimulus the same so there for plants due to their ability to react the same to the same stimulus actually have a more advanced understanding of perception then some human beings.
Click to expand...

You need proof outside of your own self that you're self aware?
 
  • #46
Yes I'm a scientist. I need proof for anything. That is my opinion that I need that proof to call it an absolute fact. I also understand proving that we are conscious is difficult. So is proving a plant is sentient , nemjones understood what I ment. By definition plants are sentient but by perception they are not since they do not have brains and we perceive that as different then our level of conscious. Im not arguing that the fact that plants can't think, they can't as far as am aware there is no proof to the instantaneous decision making process of a plant. In humans there is, this is how I would define what you call conscious which then I can concede that is proof to that humans are conscious. Again it's all about perception tho, that isn't necessarily physical evidence and I don't feel like arguing the nuances of the English language and metaphysics and philosophy of nature itself. Plants can't think and they do not feel the same way we do. They respond. I am merely stating that as a fact and I'm sorry that I'm been mistaken as a Crazy plant nut who thinks plants talk to him ( I don't ).

Treaspassing is wrong stealing is wrong there's not much to that.

Yes I stand by respecting everything , there is no harm in living a respectful life, and I'm sorry if I've acted disrespectful in any way as it seems some people don't like my opinions [emoji14] cheers everyone enjoy your day.
 
  • #47
The nature of rights. There are two kinds of rights, natural rights and legal rights. Strictly speaking there is one natural right, but the actual nature of human life creates ancillary rights. The fundamental natural right is the right to one's own life. But as I said the nature of that life creates several other rights, because you are given a life, but not the means to sustain it. Sustaining your life requires that you act. Doing nothing but sitting on your duff thinking about your life will get you dead in short order. So we need to have the right to take the actions necessary to sustain the life we have a right to. But it isn't really the actions that sustain us. You can plant all the food in the world, but if you don't harvest and eat it, you're just as dead as the guy sitting around pondering it all. So we have the right to keep the consequences or products of our actions. This by implication creates the last natural right, the right of self defense. Of course we have the right to defend out persons, but a right to keep the results of our actions is meaningless without the right to defend them. Now lest anyone use the "A" word to describe this state of affairs, in a just societal situation everyone has the same rights, and nobody is supposed to be allowed to violate the rights of others. Maintaining this balance is what we pay taxes for.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Interesting analysis of force, John, but without more I don't buy the analogy. Not all of what we call 'force' is qualitatively homogenous, nor is all we call 'property'. And even from a 'natural' rights perspective, property rights are arguably much more derived and socially constructed than are rights to bodily integrity.
 
  • #49
eithan0693 said:
I do actually respect bacteria? It's a very valuable part of the ecosystem. It helps break down nutrients so that my aquatic plants can absorb them again. It's essential to any digestion by humans , essential to proper water health .. all living things deserve respect. Even viruses play a role in culling out the weak organisms making for a stronger gene pool.
Click to expand...

Very good. What constitutes "respect"? What do you mean when you say you "respect" something? I respect plants, in that I think they are useful, but I don't consider them to have rights, or that they somehow deserve to be treated well. My dogs obviously feel and process pain, happiness, sadness, aggression-- my plants don't. Though they are living things, they are not "intelligent" in their basic processes.
 
  • #50
I think that living beings deserve some kind of rights wether or not they feel doesn't change the fact that they are useful. Thus laws against killing endangered species exist. The respect isn't because they have feeling it's just I respect all life, and In fact I respect a lot of non living things too and whole heartedly support not polluting our world, which is based on a respect for the land we live on and a duty to preserve my for further generation. Feel free to ask my opinions all you want but note that they are nothing more then an opinion and I would not force you to not walk on the grass for example :)
 
  • #51
eithan0693 said:
Treaspassing is wrong stealing is wrong there's not much to that.
Click to expand...

This is what I wanted to hear when I created the thread. You seem like a very reasonable person; don't think I'm trying to insult you or that I have something against you, I am merely dissecting the posts I see and trying to find logical conclusion to the statements made.

Everyone agrees that plants respond; Dionaea respond in a most obvious manner. When I saw your original posts, I got the impression that you thought that plants could feel pain, and therefore deserved to be treated well. Your subsequent posts made me realize that this was not your intention.
 
  • #53
Not at all I felt I was slightly misunderstood and at one point auto correct even took over and made it seem like I was being snotty, any time I've said thank you I've been being truely sincere. Thank you katya_dog1 for taking a further look. At first I was merely pointing out plants are more "aware" then rocks but that's a lose term mainly directed at the response factor of a plant.. which obviously isn't something we argue about. We all love our Venus fly traps, but if I saw one being bulldozed I'm not going to give my life for it. I would go out of my way to save an endangered species, propagate it and return it to its natural habitat. I'm not a radicalist by any means and I don't think hugging a tree would really help ( although you show me some evidence of it.. lol ), but the world we live in In my opinion does deserve to be kept healthy to say the least. No one wants to run out of clean water.
 
  • #54
I don't think the arguable conclusion that plants could have 'rights' (to live, to exist, to be free from wasteful exploitation, etc.) necessarily relies on a premise that plants are 'sentient' or feel pain. There are a variety of ways to reach that conclusion without such a premise.
 
  • #55
gnathaniel said:
Interesting analysis of force, John, but without more I don't buy the analogy. Not all of what we call 'force' is qualitatively homogenous, nor is all we call 'property'. And even from a 'natural' rights perspective, property rights are arguably much more derived and socially constructed than are rights to bodily integrity.
Click to expand...

Derived is the wrong word to use in terms of property rights Nat. The right to own property is a natural right, either respected and protected by a government or not. The "right" to property granted by government, such as in the case of the Kelo decision is an overreach. But in light of Wickard v. Filburn it pales in comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Yeah I never said that was the case just that because they are living they desere some respect?

I don't see the issue with saying I like to respect things so thanks katya_dog1 for understanding.

Just so y'all are aware there actually isn't an argument going on here Idk why everyone just started taking pokes at me but I didn't say that.
 
  • #57
I never said that they have rights because they are sentient, I just said they have rights because they are
A. Living
B. Part of an ecosystem
C. Endangered?

Just to clarify.

Because I do feel that all living things deserve respect because they are living** lol just trying to clear
 
  • #58
eithan0693 said:
I never said that they have rights because they are sentient, I just said they have rights because they are
A. Living
B. Part of an ecosystem
C. Endangered?

Just to clarify.

Because I do feel that all living things deserve respect because they are living** lol just trying to clear
Click to expand...

So does a cat violate the rights of the mice it kills? What if the mouse is an endangered species? What if the cat is? What if they both are?
 
Last edited:
  • #59
No..? But I'm not gunna kill a mouse for no reason.. I think we discussed briefly the right to sustain your own life? I mean it's the cycle of life which I also respect and I'm not going to disrupt.

Ask my opinion all you want :) just be serious about it , no need to make pokes I'm not a crazy nature fanatic ;)
 
  • #60
eithan0693 said:
No..? But I'm not gunna kill a mouse for no reason.. I think we discussed briefly the right to sustain your own life? I mean it's the cycle of life which I also respect and I'm not going to disrupt.

Ask my opinion all you want :) just be serious about it , no need to make pokes I'm not a crazy nature fanatic ;)
Click to expand...

Have you perceived anything I have directed towards you as a "poke"? If so allow me to poke you by saying you are mistaken. We agree that all creatures have the right to kill for their basic needs. Good. Let's consider a weasel. Are you familiar with the basic nature of a weasel? As someone who's first job was working on a chicken farm I am well acquainted with it. If a weasel gets into a chicken house, it kills every chicken it can get its teeth into. It will kill more chickens than it could possibly carry, or even eat in a year. Is the weasel violating the rights of the chickens it kills beyond its needs as you claim a person is. If not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top