Welcome to GTPlanet!
Create Your FREE Account

Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="TenEightyOne, post: 11758863, member: 146813"] There are no rights until somebody else recognises or challenges them, and "humans" are not a biological distinction of sufficient importance to be presumed to have developed a distinct raft of rights in the short time they've existed. "Play" is a subjective abstraction yet animals WILL engage in it without any human input. Everything [I]labelled[/I] abstract is labelled by humans for sure. "Trampled" is strong and subjective but I otherwise agree. Absolutely, they're ridiculous. Some human interpretations of humanly-established rights have been ridiculous though, we should never underestimate the power of human ridiculousness. There are two main problems with that; firstly nobody haswill invented a time machine now or in the future (outside the scope here) and secondly the right against being forcibly transported against one's will is already legislated and recognised. You don't need the specifics of "[I]by time machine[/I]" or "[I]in a red truck[/I]" to enhance it. Challenges to that right have been complex, of course, particularly in the forced migration of settlements for authority-perceived safety grounds. Also out of scope, I suspect. What you're talking about there is [I]offense[/I], I agree that everybody knows if they feel "[I]hard done to[/I]" or that they or an investment they have made is "[I]offended[/I]". That's meaningless until you're able to gain redress. So you shoot the burglar and take your VCR back out of his hands. There are no rights in play until [I]habeus corpus[/I], that's the point where the appointed legislature recognises that rights were challenged by either side and makes a judgement as to who was the naughtiest. Being able to recognise offense against oneself is not proof that rights exist in any context. [/QUOTE]

Verification