I saw an article in a local magazine the other day which showed a recent acreage that was going to be developed and the developer had clear cut every tree and bit of wood from it. Someone had complained to the city council in HRM and their representative had said, “That developer had every right to cut the wood off his property. The double entendre of that phrase “every right” stuck in me like a malignant lump. Why doe the developer have “every” right? Shouldn’t Mother nature have a right too? —JL
This article appears in Jul 18-24, 2013.
They can also dig really big holes on their undeveloped properties. Nature can’t do that!
I guess the OB doesn’t understand the word development. Unless the OB thinks the developer is going to construct tree houses.
Just because Mother Nature didn’t move faster to cut down those trees is no excuse to complain. She had her shot!
You must mean Boscobel off of Purcell’s Cove Rd. Yeah, that developer is an ass and for some reason managed to 1. get water and sewer (in area where no one wanted it) 2. tore down centuries old walls and gates 3. built a road almost on top of a cementary 4. held a public meeting in an auditorium named after him
Op you live in a city and rely on the development you’re bemoaning. I doubt you’re able to go even one day without your phone, internet connection or latte fix. Maybe lower your sense of entitlement before you start bitching about the hand that feeds you.
Also, you think humans are the first animals to practice clear-cutting? This IS mother nature, my dear. You honestly think this puny species is really OUTSIDE of nature? Sure we adapt it. Foolishly and stupidly sometimes. But we are doing what is natural to us just like any other animal.
Mother nature doesn’t give a fuck what you do. Mother nature is just a fancy word that roughly translates to “making the planet suitable for me and other things with eyelashes” – the earth will survive anything we do to it. WE may not. But the earth will be just fine until the sun finally swallows it.
These are bigger thoughts and while i appreciate your sense of conservation, you also have to remember that without any urban development whatsoever, most of us wouldn’t be alive. That likely includes yourself.
Not divine rights, no.
tree lickers
Buy a lot or two and save some trees! Lots range from 280k to 1.2mil, maybe get a friend or two to go in on it with you. Hmm, and since the place has already been clearcut, maybe get some slackers to plant some trees on it.
“They can also dig really big holes… Nature can’t do that!”
-Ahem…
http://www.dvhardware.net/news/guatemala_s…
That sinkhole was caused by man. Albeit indirectly, but the cause was leaking water mains and drainage systems.
Oh rly? Must of been one hell of a leaky tap.
How about this one..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
I’m missing the point you’re trying to make. I also did not say leaky tap. Please look up water erosion. It is responsible for the giant sinkhole and the Grand Canyon.
Developers don’t have every right, thanks to the arsehole view from the hill and heritage trust tossers, otherwise Bugtussle HRM would have some fucking skyscrapers.
WHAT IS A RIGHT?
“That developer had every right to cut the wood off his property. The double entendre of that phrase ‘every right’ stuck in me like a malignant lump. Why doe (sic) the developer have ‘every right’? Shouldn’t Mother nature (sic) have a right too?” JL
“right, n. justification, fair claim, being entitled to privilege or immunity, thing one is entitled to” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Two points: (1) The origin of the poster’s difficulties might lie in his understanding of common language usage. Why does he suppose that the developer’s “every right to cut the wood off his property” is a “double entendre”? A “double entendre” – French for something having two meanings, one of the normal sort and the other usually of a more risqué nature – has no application in the present case. The claim that it is a “double entendre” to say that the developer having every right to cut the wood off his property is therefore incoherent.
(2) In order to possess a right, in order to have a just or fair claim or be entitled to something presupposes that the one who claims that right is a person. A right, in other words, is a justification enshrined in law and law, by definition, is that which enshrines the rights of humans. Where there no human, there is no law. In other words, there is a reciprocal relationship between human beings and law such that it is incoherent to speak of non-human entities like Mother Nature having “rights”. (Non-human entities may certainly be granted respect, compassion, fair treatment and so on but it is only in an extended and metaphorical sense that they can be said to have a “right”.)
I hope that pointing out this double incoherence will dissolve JL’s malignant lump.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hey MM, OMG, you just made me so wet with those book words. Thanks.
OB, once you have hugged a logger, you will never go back to trees.
RSVP
: Nukka (07/24, 9:53AM)
You’re welcome Nukka, but won’t your girlfriend be upset?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I made her up, but if I did have one I’d tell her about you.
“Where(sic) there no human, there is no law”
The law of gravity would still apply… it might not have been named, but it did apply pre-human-ers and will still long after we’ve eradicated ourselves.
laws of magnetism, newton’s laws of motion, etc…
Something tells me philosophy is less of a science than I thought.
RSVPS
: Nukka (07/25, 9:26AM)
What would you tell her about me, Nukka? Would you tell her about my ferocious intelligence and my profound insight into the rule of law? I think that might be a good start, Nukka.
: Benny (12:03PM)
Well Benny, what can I say that will help you to understand? You have to make a fundamental distinction between the “laws of nature” and the “laws governing human society”. You see, Benny, while the word “laws” is used in both formulations, they are in fact unrelated. The one is a human creation and the other emerges from natural forces. I hope you can understand this, Benny.
But you’re right about philosophy being “less of a science” than you thought because – wait for it Benny – philosophy and science are two completely different realms of human reflection. In fact, Benny, they correspond to the distinction I made above in respect to the word “laws”. Can you guess what that might be, Benny? Take your time, Benny.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hold on MM, this is all hypothetical right? What can I tell a person that does not exist?
Basil Fawlty loves great big erections, even when there is no demand for the space. He has self esteem issues. Must be a hick from some outpost on the road to Pleasantville.
RSVPS
: Nukka (07/25, &:00PM)
Well Nukka, in view of the fact your girlfriend does not exist one can say that, yes, all this is hypothetical. Two options then crop up: (1) We can discuss the role of hypothetical propositions in those cases where their ontological referent does not exist – one thinks of the meaning of propositions employing terms such as “unicorns” for example – or; (2) You can reflect on those reasons why you do not have a girlfriend. Is your deficiency physical, psychological or intellectual? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on either or both of these options and am prepared to offer assistance where possible.
: joeblow (07/26, 12:17AM)
An interesting observation, Joe. It has been my experience that, rather that “great big erections,” he prefers comments on this site to be very small and limp, even in a state of complete detumescence. I would be prepared to discuss this further if you so desire.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“You have to make a fundamental distinction between the “laws of nature” and the “laws governing human society”. You see, Benny, while the word “laws” is used in both formulations, they are in fact unrelated.”
Actually, since YOU just used the word ‘laws’ in your statement… it is up to YOU to make the fundamental distinction… use your verbiage to tell us what you mean.
I know you’re not usually shy about it… you blather on and on and on for several walls of useless text.
You of all people shouldn’t let us ‘assume’ something… in your self-asserted and completely false sense of superiority.
jerk
MM, unicorns are for real. The North Koreans found a 2,000 year old unicorn lair. Now for the rest of what you typed, way too many big words for me.
May we continue this on another thread in the future?
Holy shit MM, I get it. You just called me a loser. Well guess what, I have two cats that love me. I only like one them though because the other was adopted.
I think you may have heard wrong. It’s not ‘Every Right’ it’s “As of Right”, in accordance with its area-specific Land Use By-Law.
RSVPS
: Benny (07/26, 11:11AM)
I have already made the distinction, Benny. Note that the word “laws” is in quotation marks. This means that while the word is the same in both the “laws of nature” and “the laws of man”, their meanings are different. Now Benny, you mustn’t become agitated. The mind does not function well when one is agitated and, as we all know, you don’t have much to work with in the first place. You must calm down, Benny.
: Nukka (6:05PM)
Whatever you like Nukka. Remember I am at your service.
(6:07PM)
I would never call you a “loser,” Nukka. It’s not the sort of language I habitually use. For that go to Benny (see above). You must try to cultivate affection for the adopted cat, Nukka, Think of its feelings.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!