XPost: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
   From: dereknash@groupmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:05:15 -0800, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >On 2019-12-07 1:51 a.m., Derek wrote:   
   >>> t those rights, that you say that river holds, are not "human" rights,   
   >>> so you and he are not talking about the same thing.   
   >> I didn't say they were human rights. I never said animal rights are human   
   >> rights, either.   
   >   
   >I never said that you did.   
   >   
   >  However, having said that, "...in 2017, the State of   
   >> Uttarakhand’s high court in northern India ruled the Ganges and Yamuna   
   >> Rivers are “legal persons” with “all corresponding rights, duties and   
   >> liabilities of a living person.”   
   >   
   >So these rivers have "duties"?   
      
   And rights, too, as legal persons. All your efforts are lost. Corporations,   
   ships and even rivers are regarded as legal persons and "possess rights,   
   including but not limited to, rights to naturally exist, flourish,   
   regenerate, evolve and restoration; the right to carry out their natural   
   function; the right to abundant, pure, unpolluted water, the right to   
   natural groundwater recharge and surface water recharge; the right to   
   natural water flow; the right to a healthy, natural, biodiverse environment;   
   and the right to be free of activities or practices, as well as   
   obstructions, that interfere with or infringe upon these rights."   
      
   Animal rights are just round the corner. But you already know they have   
   rights anyway, so there's no point trying to discuss that with you.   
      
   >That's not helpful.   
      
   Not to you, no.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)