Rivers have rights? Who Da Thunk:

Don’t forget the rights trees, forests have.
But, if such happens, then the fish, animals obtain rights, which leads to problems.
 
Existing federal and state laws that seem like they were intended to protect the environment generally don't. What they more often do is require the proponent of an action (developer, for instance) to fill out a lot of paperwork (environmental checklist or impact statement) and then legally degrade the environment. You want proof? State and federal environmental protection acts have existed for over 50 years, yet somehow the environment is substantially more degraded today than it was then. Quite clearly the environmental protection laws were not really intended to protect the environment, but to just slow the rate of environmental degradation.
 
After the judge rules on rivers having rights he's going to rule on my penis being a separate entity and if I can actually be held accountable for decisions it's made on my behalf.

I figure my case will set just as much useful precedence as the later and way more relevant The earth justice movement in the legal realm is way more absurd than my penis emancipation case.
 
Dustin is on a role the last few days. :ROFLMAO:

I've voted green my whole life. Having said that, rivers or lakes or forests or your favorite pet rock do not have have legal rights.
WE have rights and are, therefore, responsible for enforcing the actual laws passed that protect rivers and lakes. We haven't done a great job of that. We can do better, but it's not by giving the Snohomish river rights.
This will lead to complete legal chaos that won't end up protecting the resource. And, most likely, make it even tougher for people in poverty.

Ok, I'll step off my political soap box now. How about them Huskies! 😁
 
Well the trees have the lorax,
The rivers have the river keepers. Maybe they can speak for this river ?
 
Rivers do speak out loudly and proudly.

When mad they flood. When enough is enough they dry up and become just a small creek to a trickle. Just to mess with you, new channels and gravel bars change wiping out our favorite holes.

Now the legal rights they have will only make it worse especially when supported by external organizations.

You do realize rivers are a child of Mother Nature. Do not piss off rivers nor Mother Nature...
 
Last edited:
FishyJere said:
If corporations have rights, why not rivers?
Click to expand...
Corporations are people. Rivers are inanimate objects.
All fir protecting them but the fact that anyone could consider
them to actually have rights shows how insane things are getting.
 
Salmo_g said:
Existing federal and state laws that seem like they were intended to protect the environment generally don't. What they more often do is require the proponent of an action (developer, for instance) to fill out a lot of paperwork (environmental checklist or impact statement) and then legally degrade the environment. You want proof? State and federal environmental protection acts have existed for over 50 years, yet somehow the environment is substantially more degraded today than it was then. Quite clearly the environmental protection laws were not really intended to protect the environment, but to just slow the rate of environmental degradation.
Click to expand...
And take people's money...
All laws are about tyranny or taxation literally!
Just a question of how much freedom and money we want to give the government which is no longer "We the people "
Laws don't empower the people, it empowers the government.
 
Rob Allen said:
Corporations are people. Rivers are inanimate objects.
All fir protecting them but the fact that anyone could consider
them to actually have rights shows how insane things are getting.
Click to expand...
Regardless of one's position on whether rivers have rights, corporations are certainly not people, they are legal structures with no corporal existence. And a dead river may be inanimate, but the rivers I frequent are full of life that would not exist outside the river, and it is no stretch in my mind to call that a living system, a pretty good definition of 'animate'. Insanity is that we have so little regard for protecting the systems (like rivers) that support our very existence.
 
boltej said:
Regardless of one's position on whether rivers have rights, corporations are certainly not people, they are legal structures with no corporal existence. And a dead river may be inanimate, but the rivers I frequent are full of life that would not exist outside the river, and it is no stretch in my mind to call that a living system, a pretty good definition of 'animate'. Insanity is that we have so little regard for protecting the systems (like rivers) that support our very existence.
Click to expand...
I was going to try and write a response about rivers being inanimate - I suppose by the real definition they are but I like your argument that rivers are a living system. Thanks.
 
Zak said:
A great idea and not a new one. From 1972:
View attachment 171184
Click to expand...
It's being tested in South America right now with rivers. For the record I don't think corporations or companies should have the same rights as people nor do I think trees, rivers, or any other inanimate non human object should have rights the same as a person. I say this even with my casual interest and exposure to Shinto teachings and definitely feel like some inanimate things have a sort of lifelike energy to them rivers included.

That said my penis is currently seeking representation in it's emancipation case. It honestly might be a good thing for me personally as it can be a liability with it's reckless decision making and arrogant attitude. It insists on being called Dr. Schwanger because and I quote, "didn't spend eight years in evil gynecology school to be called Mister, thank you very much "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
Dustin Chromers said:
It's being tested in South America right now with rivers. For the record I don't think corporations or companies should have the same rights as people nor do I think trees, rivers, or any other inanimate non human object should have rights the same as a person. I say this even with my casual interest and exposure to Shinto teachings and definitely feel like some inanimate things have a sort of lifelike energy to them rivers included.

That said my penis is currently seeking representation in it's emancipation case. It honestly might be a good thing for me personally as it can be a liability with it's reckless decision making and arrogant attitude. It insists on being called Dr. Schwanger because and I quote, "didn't spend eight years in evil gynecology school to be called Mister, thank you very much "
Click to expand...
I think the only fair resolution of your case is complete physical separation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top