Vegetarian Discussion: More On The Leftist Idiocy Of "plant Rights"

More On The Leftist Idiocy Of "plant Rights"
Posts: 65

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Ron Hamilton
2008-12-08 22:58:49 EST
Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights

By GAUTAM NAIK

ZURICH -- For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically
modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just
how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?

That's a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine
nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without
trampling on a plant's dignity.

"Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously," Beat Keller, a molecular
biologist at the University of Zurich. "It's one more constraint on
doing genetic research."

Dr. Keller recently sought government permission to do a field trial of
genetically modified wheat that has been bred to resist a fungus. He
first had to debate the finer points of plant dignity with university
ethicists. Then, in a written application to the government, he tried to
explain why the planned trial wouldn't "disturb the vital functions or
lifestyle" of the plants. He eventually got the green light.

The rule, based on a constitutional amendment, came into being after the
Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and
theologians to establish the meaning of flora's dignity.

"We couldn't start laughing and tell the government we're not going to
do anything about it," says Markus Schefer, a member of the ethics panel
and a professor of law at the University of Basel. "The constitution
requires it."

In April, the team published a 22-page treatise on "the moral
consideration of plants for their own sake." It stated that vegetation
has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants
by, say, "decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational
reason."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ron Hamilton
2008-12-09 01:12:44 EST
. tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! . . wrote:
> "Ron Hamilton" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5pGdnYYOu-hmcaDUnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights
>>
>> By GAUTAM NAIK
>>
>> ZURICH -- For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically
>> modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just
>> how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?
>
> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
> research.

No, it's not comparable at all.

Rupert
2008-12-09 01:50:33 EST
On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
> > research.
>
> No, it's not comparable at all.

It's fully comparable, stupid clown, and it's idiotic to call this
kind of thing "leftist" or "rightist". Why do you keep impersonating
other people, Jonathan Ball, you bizarre clown?

Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
with regard to Plants":

http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf

"Since its establishment by the Federal
Council in April 1998, the ECNH
has been expected to make proposals
from an ethical perspective to concretise
the constitutional term dignity of
living beings with regard to plants. Although
previous discussion of Würde
der Kreatur was marked by the context
of the legal interpretation of the constitution
an ethical discussion should
be carried out independently of this."

They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
made clear in the first chapter.

You ask the judges what the correct interpretation of the constitution
is. I expect someone will probably take it to court before long.

No-one is talking about "plant rights".

Ron Hamilton
2008-12-09 01:58:31 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
>>> research.
>> No, it's not comparable at all.
>
> It's fully comparable,

It is not comparable in any way.


> Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
> with regard to Plants":
>
> http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf
>
> "Since its establishment by the Federal
> Council in April 1998, the ECNH
> has been expected to make proposals
> from an ethical perspective to concretise
> the constitutional term dignity of
> living beings with regard to plants. Although
> previous discussion of Würde
> der Kreatur was marked by the context
> of the legal interpretation of the constitution
> an ethical discussion should
> be carried out independently of this."
>
> They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
> set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
> made clear in the first chapter.

The implication is that plants have a "right" to have their "dignity"
respected.

"Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the
laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne.
"Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"

Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss
ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr.
Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional
plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as
seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed
that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.

Panel members believed plants have feelings - in other words, they
believe plants have rights that must be respected.

This bullshit gets worse elsewhere:

In another unusual move, the people of Ecuador last month voted for a
new constitution that is the first to recognize ecosystem rights
enforceable in a court of law. Thus, the nation's rivers, forests and
air are no longer mere property, but right-bearing entities with "the
right to exist, persist and...regenerate."

This stuff is dangerous crap.

Rupert
2008-12-09 02:22:22 EST
On Dec 9, 2:58 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
> >>> research.
> >> No, it's not comparable at all.
>
> > It's fully comparable,
>
> It is not comparable in any way.
>

Why not, clown?

>
>
> > Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
> > with regard to Plants":
>
> >http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008...
>
> > "Since its establishment by the Federal
> > Council in April 1998, the ECNH
> > has been expected to make proposals
> > from an ethical perspective to concretise
> > the constitutional term dignity of
> > living beings with regard to plants. Although
> > previous discussion of Würde
> > der Kreatur was marked by the context
> > of the legal interpretation of the constitution
> > an ethical discussion should
> > be carried out independently of this."
>
> > They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
> > set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
> > made clear in the first chapter.
>
> The implication is that plants have a "right" to have their "dignity"
> respected.
>

You're the one who says that nonhuman animals deserve *some* moral
consideration for their own sake and yet don't have any rights.

>     "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the
>     laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne.
>     "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"
>
>     Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss
>     ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr.
>     Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional
>     plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as
>     seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed
>     that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.
>
> Panel members believed plants have feelings - in other words, they
> believe plants have rights that must be respected.
>

Yes, some of them do believe that plants are sentient. Why don't you
download the report and read it? I linked to it.

> This bullshit gets worse elsewhere:
>
>     In another unusual move, the people of Ecuador last month voted for a
>     new constitution that is the first to recognize ecosystem rights
>     enforceable in a court of law. Thus, the nation's rivers, forests and
>     air are no longer mere property, but right-bearing entities with "the
>     right to exist, persist and...regenerate."
>
> This stuff is dangerous crap.

Why? What's so dangerous about it? Might be quite a good idea to take
some measures to protect ecosystems. We do depend on them for our
survival, you know.

Why are you impersonating Ron Hamilton, you weirdo?

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-09 02:42:04 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2:58 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
>>>>> research.
>>>> No, it's not comparable at all.
>>> It's fully comparable,
>> It is not comparable in any way.
>>
>
> Why not

In what way would it be? There are plenty of grounds to oppose stem
cell research that don't involve any "rights" for fetuses. But that's
not the topic. Stay on topic, stupid prick.


>>> Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
>>> with regard to Plants":
>>> http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008...
>>> "Since its establishment by the Federal
>>> Council in April 1998, the ECNH
>>> has been expected to make proposals
>>> from an ethical perspective to concretise
>>> the constitutional term dignity of
>>> living beings with regard to plants. Although
>>> previous discussion of Würde
>>> der Kreatur was marked by the context
>>> of the legal interpretation of the constitution
>>> an ethical discussion should
>>> be carried out independently of this."
>>> They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
>>> set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
>>> made clear in the first chapter.
>> The implication is that plants have a "right" to have their "dignity"
>> respected.
>>
>
> You're the one who says that nonhuman animals deserve *some* moral
> consideration for their own sake and yet don't have any rights.

So? They do deserve some moral consideration, but that certainly
doesn't translate to animals having "rights". They do not.


>> "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the
>> laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne.
>> "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"
>>
>> Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss
>> ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr.
>> Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional
>> plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as
>> seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed
>> that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.
>>
>> Panel members believed plants have feelings - in other words, they
>> believe plants have rights that must be respected.
>>
>
> Yes, some of them do believe that plants are sentient.

So, you lied.


>> This bullshit gets worse elsewhere:
>>
>> In another unusual move, the people of Ecuador last month voted for a
>> new constitution that is the first to recognize ecosystem rights
>> enforceable in a court of law. Thus, the nation's rivers, forests and
>> air are no longer mere property, but right-bearing entities with "the
>> right to exist, persist and...regenerate."
>>
>> This stuff is dangerous crap.
>
> Why? What's so dangerous about it?

It's misanthropic in the extreme. It's also horribly tainted by
far-left collectivism. "The green tree has red roots."

The Tragedy Of Balding Men With Long Hair
2008-12-09 04:53:15 EST
On Dec 8, 7:58 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights
>
> By GAUTAM NAIK
>
> ZURICH -- For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically
> modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just
> how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?
>
> That's a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine
> nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without
> trampling on a plant's dignity.
>
> "Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously," Beat Keller, a molecular
> biologist at the University of Zurich. "It's one more constraint on
> doing genetic research."
>
> Dr. Keller recently sought government permission to do a field trial of
> genetically modified wheat that has been bred to resist a fungus. He
> first had to debate the finer points of plant dignity with university
> ethicists. Then, in a written application to the government, he tried to
> explain why the planned trial wouldn't "disturb the vital functions or
> lifestyle" of the plants. He eventually got the green light.
>
> The rule, based on a constitutional amendment, came into being after the
> Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and
> theologians to establish the meaning of flora's dignity.
>
> "We couldn't start laughing and tell the government we're not going to
> do anything about it," says Markus Schefer, a member of the ethics panel
> and a professor of law at the University of Basel. "The constitution
> requires it."
>
> In April, the team published a 22-page treatise on "the moral
> consideration of plants for their own sake." It stated that vegetation
> has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants
> by, say, "decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational
> reason."
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html?mod=googlenew...

lol

Speaking as a leftest idiot, I gotta say this is one of the most
hilarious bits of news I've ever read. I had to check to see if this
was a legitimate article. It is. Thanks. Good laughs.

I put it on the same level of hilarity as the rich news journalists
trying to tell us how hard life is for the ultrarich.

Rupert
2008-12-09 06:35:27 EST
On Dec 9, 7:42 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2:58 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
> >>>>> research.
> >>>> No, it's not comparable at all.
> >>> It's fully comparable,
> >> It is not comparable in any way.
>
> > Why not
>
> In what way would it be? There are plenty of grounds to oppose stem
> cell research that don't involve any "rights" for fetuses.

And what would those be?

> But that's
> not the topic. Stay on topic, stupid prick.
>

I'm responding to something you said, clown. I didn't introduce the
topic of stem cell research.

>
>
> >>> Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
> >>> with regard to Plants":
> >>>http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008...
> >>> "Since its establishment by the Federal
> >>> Council in April 1998, the ECNH
> >>> has been expected to make proposals
> >>> from an ethical perspective to concretise
> >>> the constitutional term dignity of
> >>> living beings with regard to plants. Although
> >>> previous discussion of Würde
> >>> der Kreatur was marked by the context
> >>> of the legal interpretation of the constitution
> >>> an ethical discussion should
> >>> be carried out independently of this."
> >>> They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
> >>> set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
> >>> made clear in the first chapter.
> >> The implication is that plants have a "right" to have their "dignity"
> >> respected.
>
> > You're the one who says that nonhuman animals deserve *some* moral
> > consideration for their own sake and yet don't have any rights.
>
> So? They do deserve some moral consideration, but that certainly
> doesn't translate to animals having "rights". They do not.
>

Exactly. And the people who wrote that report think that plants
deserve some moral consideration for their own sake (although neither
you nor I agree) and that doesn't necessarily translate to their
having "rights", either. No-one's demonstrated by means of citations
from the report that any of the authors of that report believe that
plants have rights. So you are babbling on about "plant rights" when
that is a meaningless journalistic soundbite, instead of actually
looking what people have written about the topic. Comprendo?

>
>
> >> "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the
> >> laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne.
> >> "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"
>
> >> Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss
> >> ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr.
> >> Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional
> >> plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as
> >> seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed
> >> that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.
>
> >> Panel members believed plants have feelings - in other words, they
> >> believe plants have rights that must be respected.
>
> > Yes, some of them do believe that plants are sentient.
>
> So, you lied.
>

Er, nonsense and utter non sequitur. What's supposed to be the lie? I
never denied that some of them believe that plants are sentient, I
never made any comment on the matter until just then when I
forthrightly conceded that some of them believe that plants are
sentient. Stupid clown.

> >> This bullshit gets worse elsewhere:
>
> >> In another unusual move, the people of Ecuador last month voted for a
> >> new constitution that is the first to recognize ecosystem rights
> >> enforceable in a court of law. Thus, the nation's rivers, forests and
> >> air are no longer mere property, but right-bearing entities with "the
> >> right to exist, persist and...regenerate."
>
> >> This stuff is dangerous crap.
>
> > Why? What's so dangerous about it?
>
> It's misanthropic in the extreme. It's also horribly tainted by
> far-left collectivism. "The green tree has red roots."

Meaningless babble. Say something sensible. Why is it dangerous to
legislate to grant ecosystems some protections?

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-09 10:37:54 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 9, 7:42 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 2:58 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 9, 2:12 pm, Ron Hamilton <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem cell
>>>>>>> research.
>>>>>> No, it's not comparable at all.
>>>>> It's fully comparable,
>>>> It is not comparable in any way.
>>> Why not
>> In what way would it be? There are plenty of grounds to oppose stem
>> cell research that don't involve any "rights" for fetuses.
>
> And what would those be?
>
>> But that's
>> not the topic. Stay on topic, stupid prick.
>>
>
> I'm responding to something you said, clown. I didn't introduce the
> topic of stem cell research.
>
>>
>>>>> Here is a quotation from the document "The Dignity of Living Beings
>>>>> with regard to Plants":
>>>>> http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008...
>>>>> "Since its establishment by the Federal
>>>>> Council in April 1998, the ECNH
>>>>> has been expected to make proposals
>>>>> from an ethical perspective to concretise
>>>>> the constitutional term dignity of
>>>>> living beings with regard to plants. Although
>>>>> previous discussion of Würde
>>>>> der Kreatur was marked by the context
>>>>> of the legal interpretation of the constitution
>>>>> an ethical discussion should
>>>>> be carried out independently of this."
>>>>> They are not interpreting the constitution. They're putting forward a
>>>>> set of ethical views, and it's a diverse set of ethical views. That is
>>>>> made clear in the first chapter.
>>>> The implication is that plants have a "right" to have their "dignity"
>>>> respected.
>>> You're the one who says that nonhuman animals deserve *some* moral
>>> consideration for their own sake and yet don't have any rights.
>> So? They do deserve some moral consideration, but that certainly
>> doesn't translate to animals having "rights". They do not.
>>
>
> Exactly. And the people who wrote that report think that plants
> deserve some moral consideration for their own sake (although neither
> you nor I agree) and that doesn't necessarily translate to their
> having "rights", either. No-one's demonstrated by means of citations
> from the report that any of the authors of that report believe that
> plants have rights. So you are babbling on about "plant rights" when
> that is a meaningless journalistic soundbite, instead of actually
> looking what people have written about the topic. Comprendo?
>
>>
>>>> "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the
>>>> laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne.
>>>> "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"
>>>> Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss
>>>> ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr.
>>>> Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional
>>>> plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as
>>>> seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed
>>>> that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.
>>>> Panel members believed plants have feelings - in other words, they
>>>> believe plants have rights that must be respected.
>>> Yes, some of them do believe that plants are sentient.
>> So, you lied.
>>
>
> Er, nonsense and utter non sequitur.

No.


>>>> This bullshit gets worse elsewhere:
>>>> In another unusual move, the people of Ecuador last month voted for a
>>>> new constitution that is the first to recognize ecosystem rights
>>>> enforceable in a court of law. Thus, the nation's rivers, forests and
>>>> air are no longer mere property, but right-bearing entities with "the
>>>> right to exist, persist and...regenerate."
>>>> This stuff is dangerous crap.
>>> Why? What's so dangerous about it?
>> It's misanthropic in the extreme. It's also horribly tainted by
>> far-left collectivism. "The green tree has red roots."
>
> Meaningless babble.

No, it isn't. You, and the rest of that mob, are irresponsible and
misanthropic terrorists. You're going to go to prison for it some day.

Rudy Canoza
2008-12-09 11:54:48 EST
. tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! . . wrote:
> "Ron Hamilton" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ieCdnREBg4LAkaPUnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> . tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! . . wrote:
>>> "Ron Hamilton" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5pGdnYYOu-hmcaDUnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights
>>>>
>>>> By GAUTAM NAIK
>>>>
>>>> ZURICH -- For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically
>>>> modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just
>>>> how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?
>>> Gee, that's right up there with the right's absurd opposition to stem
>>> cell research.
>> No, it's not comparable at all.
>
> Okay, Im ready to listen to your argument.

First of all, there is nothing inherently "right wing" about opposition
to stem cell research, as that research used to have to be done. Plenty
of people far away from the political right were opposed to it.
Secondly, none of the opposition was inherently based on any new
conception of "rights", as this bullshit leftist support for "plant
rights" is.

There you go - the comparison you posited was invalid: QED
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron