A river in Quebec, Canada has become a 'person' in law...

[Scott Mayers]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/rive ... al-person/

I don't know if you guys may get this from your different countries but this is an interesting development that seems potentially troubling. I am skeptical about how our laws place too much freedom to formal incorporation of business companies let alone incorporating land. What's next?


Maybe Incorporate one's toilette so that it no longer has to take shit from anyone?


This recent challenge was made by Indigenous Quebec natives wanting to protect the river from other corporations. I guess this is like the 'tree hugging' idea of environmentalists interpreting them as having a soul? I know as a kid I would have 'incorporated' all my toys this way.

What do you guys think?

Edit addition: From that article, it appears Quebec is not the first to try this:

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

[Age]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/rive ... al-person/

I don't know if you guys may get this from your different countries but this is an interesting development that seems potentially troubling. I am skeptical about how our laws place too much freedom to formal incorporation of business companies let alone incorporating land. What's next?


Maybe Incorporate one's toilette so that it no longer has to take shit from anyone?


This recent challenge was made by Indigenous Quebec natives wanting to protect the river from other corporations. I guess this is like the 'tree hugging' idea of environmentalists interpreting them as having a soul? I know as a kid I would have 'incorporated' all my toys this way.

What do you guys think?

Edit addition: From that article, it appears Quebec is not the first to try this:

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

Do you think it is better to just allow degradation and pollution of rivers and the environment than it is to protect them?

If yes, then WHY do you think this?

[Scott Mayers]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/rive ... al-person/

I don't know if you guys may get this from your different countries but this is an interesting development that seems potentially troubling. I am skeptical about how our laws place too much freedom to formal incorporation of business companies let alone incorporating land. What's next?


Maybe Incorporate one's toilette so that it no longer has to take shit from anyone?


This recent challenge was made by Indigenous Quebec natives wanting to protect the river from other corporations. I guess this is like the 'tree hugging' idea of environmentalists interpreting them as having a soul? I know as a kid I would have 'incorporated' all my toys this way.

What do you guys think?

Edit addition: From that article, it appears Quebec is not the first to try this:

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

Do you think it is better to just allow degradation and pollution of rivers and the environment than it is to protect them?

If yes, then WHY do you think this?

I don't know where I stand on this. I thought it both wise by the Indigenous and yet questionable given the potential for abuse. Thus,....the humorous example of the toilette becoming a person. These are 'precedence' type cases which while effective for some political motives, can and WILL likely backfire when someone else uses the same logic for their own unusual purposes.

Note that incorporation used to ONLY be a temporal means to liquidize the means of trading shares for universal community projects. The government had to 'charter' the companies as a special law meant to do infrastructure related tasks, like building a bridge where the beneficial factors of it tend to favor the wealthy while passing the debt onto the rest of the public. By 'incorporating' the company offering to build the bridge, it enables one to 'monetize' it by creating papers (shares) that are easy to trade and don't require the holder to the liablities should the company fail. Furthermore, only those most interested in the bridge can pay for it more than the taxpayer.

But since its inception, corporations have evolved to be ruthless and abusive. Today, for instance, if one is clever enough, they can 'incorporate' themselves in a way that they can evade liability.

The incorporation of physical properties is a dangerous precedence for the absurd example I gave. Since people have a freedom of religion, for another more rational likelihood, one could possibly propose one's particular religious God as a 'person' and this could lead to a law that commands protection of it without respect to things like free speech, etc.

[Age]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/rive ... al-person/

I don't know if you guys may get this from your different countries but this is an interesting development that seems potentially troubling. I am skeptical about how our laws place too much freedom to formal incorporation of business companies let alone incorporating land. What's next?


Maybe Incorporate one's toilette so that it no longer has to take shit from anyone?


This recent challenge was made by Indigenous Quebec natives wanting to protect the river from other corporations. I guess this is like the 'tree hugging' idea of environmentalists interpreting them as having a soul? I know as a kid I would have 'incorporated' all my toys this way.

What do you guys think?

Edit addition: From that article, it appears Quebec is not the first to try this:

Do you think it is better to just allow degradation and pollution of rivers and the environment than it is to protect them?

If yes, then WHY do you think this?

I don't know where I stand on this. I thought it both wise by the Indigenous and yet questionable given the potential for abuse. Thus,....the humorous example of the toilette becoming a person. These are 'precedence' type cases which while effective for some political motives, can and WILL likely backfire when someone else uses the same logic for their own unusual purposes.

But that is just what "other" people do, or might do.

The 'indigenous' people of the world are just sick and tired of the world being polluted AND degraded.

They have tried MANY things to make the "others" WAKE UP and SEE what is going on. This is just ANOTHER attempt of stopping the continual Wrong being done, and I am pretty sure it will not be the last thing 'we' will try to correct, the incorrectness.

Note that incorporation used to ONLY be a temporal means to liquidize the means of trading shares for universal community projects. The government had to 'charter' the companies as a special law meant to do infrastructure related tasks, like building a bridge where the beneficial factors of it tend to favor the wealthy while passing the debt onto the rest of the public. By 'incorporating' the company offering to build the bridge, it enables one to 'monetize' it by creating papers (shares) that are easy to trade and don't require the holder to the liablities should the company fail. Furthermore, only those most interested in the bridge can pay for it more than the taxpayer.

Note that companies, governments, 'charters', and money are NOT things ACTUALLY NEEDED in Life, and are thee ACTUAL things that created the issues, in the beginning.

But since its inception, corporations have evolved to be ruthless and abusive. Today, for instance, if one is clever enough, they can 'incorporate' themselves in a way that they can evade liability.

Just more proof of the continual ingenuity of the human being.

The incorporation of physical properties is a dangerous precedence for the absurd example I gave.

Only if absurd human beings use it for absurd reasons. But this is exactly what adult human beings are well known for.

Since people have a freedom of religion, for another more rational likelihood, one could possibly propose one's particular religious God as a 'person' and this could lead to a law that commands protection of it without respect to things like free speech, etc.

If there are people who would make up such laws, then WHY do these ones get voted in?

Who are these human beings who would vote for such people? Maybe it would be better if they took a good hard LOOK at "themselves".

[Age]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/rive ... al-person/

I don't know if you guys may get this from your different countries but this is an interesting development that seems potentially troubling. I am skeptical about how our laws place too much freedom to formal incorporation of business companies let alone incorporating land. What's next?


Maybe Incorporate one's toilette so that it no longer has to take shit from anyone?


This recent challenge was made by Indigenous Quebec natives wanting to protect the river from other corporations. I guess this is like the 'tree hugging' idea of environmentalists interpreting them as having a soul? I know as a kid I would have 'incorporated' all my toys this way.

What do you guys think?

Edit addition: From that article, it appears Quebec is not the first to try this:

Do you think it is better to just allow degradation and pollution of rivers and the environment than it is to protect them?

If yes, then WHY do you think this?

I don't know where I stand on this. I thought it both wise by the Indigenous and yet questionable given the potential for abuse.

Oh, and by the way, thee True 'indigenous' do NOT abuse.

Only "others" do.

[Scott Mayers]

Do you think it is better to just allow degradation and pollution of rivers and the environment than it is to protect them?

If yes, then WHY do you think this?

I don't know where I stand on this. I thought it both wise by the Indigenous and yet questionable given the potential for abuse. Thus,....the humorous example of the toilette becoming a person. These are 'precedence' type cases which while effective for some political motives, can and WILL likely backfire when someone else uses the same logic for their own unusual purposes.

But that is just what "other" people do, or might do.

The 'indigenous' people of the world are just sick and tired of the world being polluted AND degraded.

They have tried MANY things to make the "others" WAKE UP and SEE what is going on. This is just ANOTHER attempt of stopping the continual Wrong being done, and I am pretty sure it will not be the last thing 'we' will try to correct, the incorrectness.

You are stereotyping the onus of compassion as belonging uniquely to the Indigenous. This is ALL of our concern of whom the Indigenous are just expressing a cause that all people are concerned about. The particular idea was also an intentional backlash against the corporations who are abusing their position as 'persons' to get their own 'rights'; the clever reaction to 'incorporate' the river is just a counter-ploy attempting to assert that if the companies can defend their 'right' as a person just trivially exercising their ownership rights to the be selfishly exploiting the benefits of the free water while simultaneously poisoning it, then the river too can become a person and defend its right not to be poisoned.

I'm not against the clever tactic, only concerned about what it can potentially open up when likely those same companies will find new means to exploit the new law for more dangerous purposes.

Note that incorporation used to ONLY be a temporal means to liquidize the means of trading shares for universal community projects. The government had to 'charter' the companies as a special law meant to do infrastructure related tasks, like building a bridge where the beneficial factors of it tend to favor the wealthy while passing the debt onto the rest of the public. By 'incorporating' the company offering to build the bridge, it enables one to 'monetize' it by creating papers (shares) that are easy to trade and don't require the holder to the liablities should the company fail. Furthermore, only those most interested in the bridge can pay for it more than the taxpayer.

Note that companies, governments, 'charters', and money are NOT things ACTUALLY NEEDED in Life, and are thee ACTUAL things that created the issues, in the beginning.

I'm not arguing against this position.

But since its inception, corporations have evolved to be ruthless and abusive. Today, for instance, if one is clever enough, they can 'incorporate' themselves in a way that they can evade liability.

Just more proof of the continual ingenuity of the human being.

Agreed.

The incorporation of physical properties is a dangerous precedence for the absurd example I gave.

Only if absurd human beings use it for absurd reasons. But this is exactly what adult human beings are well known for.

Since people have a freedom of religion, for another more rational likelihood, one could possibly propose one's particular religious God as a 'person' and this could lead to a law that commands protection of it without respect to things like free speech, etc.

If there are people who would make up such laws, then WHY do these ones get voted in?

Who are these human beings who would vote for such people? Maybe it would be better if they took a good hard LOOK at "themselves".

Simply said but not simply done. The means to do this requires formal regulators with actual money to police these things. But the strong capitalist will believe that all we can deal with is the present world and that to take advantage of it now is the only realistic option given the assumption that if they didn't do it, someone else would.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

[/quote]

That's a bloody joke. Here, the 'indigenous people', who incidentally had themselves only been here for 600 years before the 'evil colonialists' came, and had never had any tradition of coservation or sustainablity, having made many species extinct in the short time they were here, have been busily cutting down all the exotic trees that are on public land that they have been given control of (several urban mountains) for the sole reason that they supposedly represent 'evil colonialism', even though the crappy native stuff that's being planted to 'replace' them are all dying anyway and ironically aren't suited to the present day climate. So we are in a global warming catastrophe and what is this stupid little country doing? Cutting down all of its beautiful, useful, climate moderating trees, and soley for racist reasons. The fucking morons seem to think that trees have human ethnicities. And all supported by self-flagellating wokies who live in mortal terror of ever being called the 'r' word.
So no more spring or autumn leaves for us. Nothing to have a picnic under. No more beautiful oak trees. No joy or beauty. Just drab, dreary Poltical Correctness. Thanks, know-nothing UN wokies and your unscientific bullshit. We don't really have the luxury of waiting 150 years of the PC trees to mature, and the shitty dead tussock grasses and flax bushes aren't going to cut the mustard in the heat of summer.

[Age]

I don't know where I stand on this. I thought it both wise by the Indigenous and yet questionable given the potential for abuse. Thus,....the humorous example of the toilette becoming a person. These are 'precedence' type cases which while effective for some political motives, can and WILL likely backfire when someone else uses the same logic for their own unusual purposes.

But that is just what "other" people do, or might do.

The 'indigenous' people of the world are just sick and tired of the world being polluted AND degraded.

They have tried MANY things to make the "others" WAKE UP and SEE what is going on. This is just ANOTHER attempt of stopping the continual Wrong being done, and I am pretty sure it will not be the last thing 'we' will try to correct, the incorrectness.

You are stereotyping the onus of compassion as belonging uniquely to the Indigenous.

And you are ASSUMING you KNOW what I am ACTUALLY referring to in regards to my use of the word 'indigenous', correct?

When, and if, you EVER discover, and learn, what I am ACTUALLY referring to, then you would NOT have said what you have here.

This is ALL of our concern of whom the Indigenous are just expressing a cause that all people are concerned about.

VERY True.

And, who EXACTLY do you think are the ACTUAL 'indigenous' people, and human beings, of earth?

Or, in other words, who EXACTLY are 'we' ALL ancestors of?

See, what most people do when they LOOK AT 'things', including their heritage, is just go some distance back, and then STOP, LOOKING.

But from thee Truly OPEN perspective, where LOOKING does NOT stop, what is EVERY one's heritage, and who is EVERY one's ancestry?

Is there a human being who is NOT 'indigenous', to earth?

If no, then this explains WHY, as you so correctly said and pointed out, ALL of 'us' are, instinctively, concerned about the welfare AND well-being of this planet and of 'ourselves'.

The particular idea was also an intentional backlash against the corporations who are abusing their position as 'persons' to get their own 'rights'; the clever reaction to 'incorporate' the river is just a counter-ploy attempting to assert that if the companies can defend their 'right' as a person just trivially exercising their ownership rights to the be selfishly exploiting the benefits of the free water while simultaneously poisoning it, then the river too can become a person and defend its right not to be poisoned.

Thee internal True Self, 'our-indigenous-selves', will ALWAYS be far smarter than ANY human being will EVER think it is.

I'm not against the clever tactic, only concerned about what it can potentially open up when likely those same companies will find new means to exploit the new law for more dangerous purposes.

And that is a GREAT concern to have. But, remember 'companies' are NOT their OWN identities. 'Companies' are run and controlled by adult human beings, alone, and it is adult human beings who have, for the last few thousands years been 'trying' their hardest to obtain as much monetary wealth for "themselves", through new means, whilst exploiting absolutely ANY thing they can. It is also human beings who have made the laws that contribute VERY HEAVILY to the 'money grab' at the expense detriment to the earth, with NO concern AT ALL sometimes, I will add.

But, evolution is just a process, which 'we', human beings, MUST ENDURE, till they True Self is realized AND actualized.

When this occurs, then the reason for WHY the past, and the Wrong path, 'you', human beings, took all becomes VERY CLEAR and COMPLETELY OBVIOUS. Your concerns are very natural, and very correct, but the more Wrong that is allowed to occur "now", when this is being written, the quicker Right eventuates.

Really there is NOTHING to be to concerned about, as it is the True Indigenous within, which is controlling EVERY thing here.

Note that incorporation used to ONLY be a temporal means to liquidize the means of trading shares for universal community projects. The government had to 'charter' the companies as a special law meant to do infrastructure related tasks, like building a bridge where the beneficial factors of it tend to favor the wealthy while passing the debt onto the rest of the public. By 'incorporating' the company offering to build the bridge, it enables one to 'monetize' it by creating papers (shares) that are easy to trade and don't require the holder to the liablities should the company fail. Furthermore, only those most interested in the bridge can pay for it more than the taxpayer.

Note that companies, governments, 'charters', and money are NOT things ACTUALLY NEEDED in Life, and are thee ACTUAL things that created the issues, in the beginning.

I'm not arguing against this position.

But since its inception, corporations have evolved to be ruthless and abusive. Today, for instance, if one is clever enough, they can 'incorporate' themselves in a way that they can evade liability.

Just more proof of the continual ingenuity of the human being.

Agreed.

The incorporation of physical properties is a dangerous precedence for the absurd example I gave.

Only if absurd human beings use it for absurd reasons. But this is exactly what adult human beings are well known for.

Since people have a freedom of religion, for another more rational likelihood, one could possibly propose one's particular religious God as a 'person' and this could lead to a law that commands protection of it without respect to things like free speech, etc.

If there are people who would make up such laws, then WHY do these ones get voted in?

Who are these human beings who would vote for such people? Maybe it would be better if they took a good hard LOOK at "themselves".

Simply said but not simply done.

VERY True, and VERY SIMPLE expressed.

The means to do this requires formal regulators with actual money to police these things.

I have a severe issue with expressing things ACCURATELY and CLEARLY.

What I meant was it would be better if the ones who voted, were the ones that took a good hard LOOK AT "themselves".

In other words if ALL adult, human beings, each LOOKED AT "them selfs" Honestly and OPENLY, instead of LOOKING AT "others", judgmentally, then things COULD improve AND get better.

Just adding more 'formalities', 'regulators', 'money', and 'policing' would only create MORE of the issues in the world.

The issues, after all, were ALL caused by things such as 'formalities', 'regulators', money, 'policing', and 'policitizing'.

But the strong capitalist will believe that all we can deal with is the present world and that to take advantage of it now is the only realistic option given the assumption that if they didn't do it, someone else would.

EVERY human being have DIFFERENT views. Views and BELIEFS like this are OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN Wrong, False, AND Incorrect. There is NO human being who could ACTUALLY nor LOGICALLY "justify" NOR "rationalize" these type of views to ANY one other than "their" OWN 'self'.

[Age]

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

That's a bloody joke. [/quote]

So, degrading and polluting thee ACTUAL things NEEDED for continued survival is NOT "a bloody joke", BUT, doing what it takes to PREVENT and STOP degradation and pollution IS "a bloody joke", to you, correct?

Here, the 'indigenous people', who incidentally had themselves only been here for 600 years before the 'evil colonialists' came, and had never had any tradition of coservation or sustainablity, having made many species extinct in the short time they were here, have been busily cutting down all the exotic trees that are on public land that they have been given control of (several urban mountains) for the sole reason that they supposedly represent 'evil colonialism', even though the crappy native stuff that's being planted to 'replace' them are all dying anyway and ironically aren't suited to the present day climate.

Where to start here;

1. WHY do you call "them" 'indigenous people', if they are not? And, what does the word 'indigenous' actually mean, or refer to, to you?

2. How long do human beings have to live on one parcel of land before they are 'indigenous', to you?

3. If "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then who IS? And, if "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then what are they?

4. How do you KNOW what ACTUALLY happened for 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" "arrived"?

5. How do you KNOW there was NEVER ANY "tradition of conservation or sustainability", for ALL of those 600 years before 'you' arrived?

6. How do you KNOW MANY species became extinct in the LOL "short time they were there"? And, if 600 years is a "short time", then how long is that 200 or so years that 'you', "evil colonists" have been there? Also, how MANY actual species became extinct in the 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" arrived? And then how many actual species have become extinct since 'you', "colonialists" had arrived.

7. Have absolutely ALL of the exotic trees, that are on public land that the 'indigenous' have been given control of, REALLY been "busily" cut down? If yes, then WHY was there a "rush"?

8. And, are they "busily" cutting down ALL of the 'exotic trees' just because 'exotic trees' on 'public land' represents 'evil colonization'? I thought 'evil colonization' would be represented by just the simple behavior of human beings colonizing "others" homes/lands, and being 'evil' while they were taking those homes/lands from "others". But maybe I am just WRONG. Is it NOT possible that "they" are just removing what was just 'imported' and not a naturally occurring plant?

9. So, to you, the 'native plants' of that country/area are just "crappy" anyway, and the planing of those "crappy" 'native plants' of a country/area, back into the country/area where it naturally came from, are just dying anyway because of the current climate. Could this 'climate change' thing you mention here be created and caused because of 'human beings', ironically? If yes, then what do you think would be MORE productive here? Changing your ways, which is contributing to 'climate change', or just not cutting down the 'noxious weeds' of a country and not replacing that with MORE natural flora?

So we are in a global warming catastrophe and what is this stupid little country doing? Cutting down all of its beautiful, useful, climate moderating trees, and soley for racist reasons.

LOL

I thought you just said that the native flora was being PLANTED?

Does it REALLY matter how much flora is cut down, as long as the EXACT SAME amount, or MORE, flora is being planted in its place?

Also, just because some 'thing' is "beautiful" to you, this does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY 'beautiful', relative to ANY thing else.

Using the word "useful" is useless if you do not include HOW and WHY 'it' is, supposedly and allegedly, "useful".

What study have you used to discern that the "exotic/imported trees" are 'climate moderating trees' and the 'native/natural trees' are not?

Also, your use of the "catastrophe" word is noted.

The fucking morons seem to think that trees have human ethnicities.

Who, exactly, are the, so called, "fucking morons" here? Or, do you not have the courage to say?

And, do 'you', humans "yourselves", have, so called, "human ethnicity"?

If yes, then what, exactly, is your "human ethnicity"?

And all supported by self-flagellating wokies who live in mortal terror of ever being called the 'r' word.

EVERY adult human being is racist. So, WHY would ANY one be in ANY 'terror' AT ALL about this FACT?

We all just have to be wary of those types of people, which the less than human, "vegetariantaxidermy", is clearly one of. These types of people are NOT worth even listening to, let alone being concerned about the way they think. They obviously live lives NOT worth living, and are just useless things "themselves". This is just thee Truth, of which these types of things should become fully aware of.

"vegetariantaxidermy" and its, so called, "people" should be cut down themselves and culled out, and replaced by 'us' better and real people.

So no more spring or autumn leaves for us.

Oh, your poor little thing. Just put up with it, and shut up, okay?

You and your views are NOTHING anyway.

Nothing to have a picnic under.

You type of people really are just a bunch of whingers and criers.

What you want should be replaced with concrete and steel anyway, and you should just accept that change and live with it, okay?

Your way of life and living is nothing but ridiculous and stupid anyway. You NEED to change your ways, if you want to live in our world.

No more beautiful oak trees.

REALLY, WHEN will you just SHUT UP and put up with whatever we do to you and to your way of life. Your ways are going, so again, just accept that this is what is going to happen.

No joy or beauty.

LOL Your way of life is NOT joy NOR beautiful. Your way of life is disgusting and terrible, which NEEDS to be completely gotten rid of, for your own good. When will you ever learn what is good and right for you?

Just drab, dreary Poltical Correctness.

SHUT UP I TOLD you. You HAVE TO put up with what we say and do, to you.

We have taken over now, and this is our land now, and we can do whatever we want to it. You, after all, are just a very dirty, horrible race, which NEEDS changing anyway. You REALLY do NEED to learn how to live the BETTER and PROPER life, "vegatariantaxidermy".

You, and your type, really are to primitive to really understand what is happening to you.

Thanks, know-nothing UN wokies and your unscientific bullshit.

But it is you and your type of people, "vegetariantaxidermy", who are Truly unscientific and just plain DUMB. Your way of life is DISTORTED and TOTALLY IMMORAL. You really do NEED to learn the PROPER and BETTER way you subhuman thing you are.

We don't really have the luxury of waiting 150 years of the PC trees to mature, and the shitty dead tussock grasses and flax bushes aren't going to cut the mustard in the heat of summer.

Good. We REALLY do NOT want you, nor your type, around anymore. Your way of life DISGUSTS 'us' and 'we' are here to get rid of you ALL.

WHEN will you LEARN and UNDERSTAND this FACT. You people really DISGUST us. Why can you not just become civilized, like us, you dirty, horrible, disgusting thing?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It’s a new tool that communities and Indigenous groups around the world are employing to stop environmental degradation and combat climate change. In just the last 15 years, forests, rivers and lakes from New Zealand to Colombia have been granted the same legal standing as a person. Closer to home, Lake Erie was granted legal personhood by residents in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 after toxic algae blooms threatened their drinking water.

That's a bloody joke.

So, degrading and polluting thee ACTUAL things NEEDED for continued survival is NOT "a bloody joke", BUT, doing what it takes to PREVENT and STOP degradation and pollution IS "a bloody joke", to you, correct?

Here, the 'indigenous people', who incidentally had themselves only been here for 600 years before the 'evil colonialists' came, and had never had any tradition of coservation or sustainablity, having made many species extinct in the short time they were here, have been busily cutting down all the exotic trees that are on public land that they have been given control of (several urban mountains) for the sole reason that they supposedly represent 'evil colonialism', even though the crappy native stuff that's being planted to 'replace' them are all dying anyway and ironically aren't suited to the present day climate.

Where to start here;

1. WHY do you call "them" 'indigenous people', if they are not? And, what does the word 'indigenous' actually mean, or refer to, to you?

2. How long do human beings have to live on one parcel of land before they are 'indigenous', to you?

3. If "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then who IS? And, if "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then what are they?

4. How do you KNOW what ACTUALLY happened for 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" "arrived"?

5. How do you KNOW there was NEVER ANY "tradition of conservation or sustainability", for ALL of those 600 years before 'you' arrived?

6. How do you KNOW MANY species became extinct in the LOL "short time they were there"? And, if 600 years is a "short time", then how long is that 200 or so years that 'you', "evil colonists" have been there? Also, how MANY actual species became extinct in the 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" arrived? And then how many actual species have become extinct since 'you', "colonialists" had arrived.

7. Have absolutely ALL of the exotic trees, that are on public land that the 'indigenous' have been given control of, REALLY been "busily" cut down? If yes, then WHY was there a "rush"?

8. And, are they "busily" cutting down ALL of the 'exotic trees' just because 'exotic trees' on 'public land' represents 'evil colonization'? I thought 'evil colonization' would be represented by just the simple behavior of human beings colonizing "others" homes/lands, and being 'evil' while they were taking those homes/lands from "others". But maybe I am just WRONG. Is it NOT possible that "they" are just removing what was just 'imported' and not a naturally occurring plant?

9. So, to you, the 'native plants' of that country/area are just "crappy" anyway, and the planing of those "crappy" 'native plants' of a country/area, back into the country/area where it naturally came from, are just dying anyway because of the current climate. Could this 'climate change' thing you mention here be created and caused because of 'human beings', ironically? If yes, then what do you think would be MORE productive here? Changing your ways, which is contributing to 'climate change', or just not cutting down the 'noxious weeds' of a country and not replacing that with MORE natural flora?

So we are in a global warming catastrophe and what is this stupid little country doing? Cutting down all of its beautiful, useful, climate moderating trees, and soley for racist reasons.

LOL

I thought you just said that the native flora was being PLANTED?

Does it REALLY matter how much flora is cut down, as long as the EXACT SAME amount, or MORE, flora is being planted in its place?

Also, just because some 'thing' is "beautiful" to you, this does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY 'beautiful', relative to ANY thing else.

Using the word "useful" is useless if you do not include HOW and WHY 'it' is, supposedly and allegedly, "useful".

What study have you used to discern that the "exotic/imported trees" are 'climate moderating trees' and the 'native/natural trees' are not?

Also, your use of the "catastrophe" word is noted.

The fucking morons seem to think that trees have human ethnicities.

Who, exactly, are the, so called, "fucking morons" here? Or, do you not have the courage to say?

And, do 'you', humans "yourselves", have, so called, "human ethnicity"?

If yes, then what, exactly, is your "human ethnicity"?

And all supported by self-flagellating wokies who live in mortal terror of ever being called the 'r' word.

EVERY adult human being is racist. So, WHY would ANY one be in ANY 'terror' AT ALL about this FACT?

We all just have to be wary of those types of people, which the less than human, "vegetariantaxidermy", is clearly one of. These types of people are NOT worth even listening to, let alone being concerned about the way they think. They obviously live lives NOT worth living, and are just useless things "themselves". This is just thee Truth, of which these types of things should become fully aware of.

"vegetariantaxidermy" and its, so called, "people" should be cut down themselves and culled out, and replaced by 'us' better and real people.

So no more spring or autumn leaves for us.

Oh, your poor little thing. Just put up with it, and shut up, okay?

You and your views are NOTHING anyway.

Nothing to have a picnic under.

You type of people really are just a bunch of whingers and criers.

What you want should be replaced with concrete and steel anyway, and you should just accept that change and live with it, okay?

Your way of life and living is nothing but ridiculous and stupid anyway. You NEED to change your ways, if you want to live in our world.

No more beautiful oak trees.

REALLY, WHEN will you just SHUT UP and put up with whatever we do to you and to your way of life. Your ways are going, so again, just accept that this is what is going to happen.

No joy or beauty.

LOL Your way of life is NOT joy NOR beautiful. Your way of life is disgusting and terrible, which NEEDS to be completely gotten rid of, for your own good. When will you ever learn what is good and right for you?

Just drab, dreary Poltical Correctness.

SHUT UP I TOLD you. You HAVE TO put up with what we say and do, to you.

We have taken over now, and this is our land now, and we can do whatever we want to it. You, after all, are just a very dirty, horrible race, which NEEDS changing anyway. You REALLY do NEED to learn how to live the BETTER and PROPER life, "vegatariantaxidermy".

You, and your type, really are to primitive to really understand what is happening to you.

Thanks, know-nothing UN wokies and your unscientific bullshit.

But it is you and your type of people, "vegetariantaxidermy", who are Truly unscientific and just plain DUMB. Your way of life is DISTORTED and TOTALLY IMMORAL. You really do NEED to learn the PROPER and BETTER way you subhuman thing you are.

We don't really have the luxury of waiting 150 years of the PC trees to mature, and the shitty dead tussock grasses and flax bushes aren't going to cut the mustard in the heat of summer.

Good. We REALLY do NOT want you, nor your type, around anymore. Your way of life DISGUSTS 'us' and 'we' are here to get rid of you ALL.

WHEN will you LEARN and UNDERSTAND this FACT. You people really DISGUST us. Why can you not just become civilized, like us, you dirty, horrible, disgusting thing?
[/quote]

I have no idea what you are rambling about. If you think some dead tussock grass is a suitable replacement for 100 year old trees then there's nothing more to be said. This is tens of thousands of mature trees we are talking about. If they gave a shit about 'sacred native' shrubs then they would leave the 'evil oak trees' alone because they create a protective canopy that the 'sacred natives' need to protect them as they grow. The mountains have never, at any time in recorded history, been covered in native bush. It's volcanic soil, which natives don't thrive on. Besides, you really have to live in a country to understand it and what goes on there. It's complicated and about self-serving political interests rather than any genuine conservation efforts. What are the birds supposed to do with flax and tussock? You can't have birds without trees. No humans are native here. We are ALL recent 'colonists'. And you can't get much more racist than hating a tree just because it 'might' have been planted by English people.
As a matter of fact it's a cynical arsehole of a lawyer who is exploiting the 'self flagellators' who came up with this 'offensive trees' bullshit because he 'just happens' to be a wealthy property developer. See what I mean about it being 'complicated'? Then the UN had to go and poke its big fat nose in which played right into his and his wealthy cronies' hands.
Deciduous trees in the autumn and spring are objectively beautiful. Anyone who finds them ugly or offensive is mentally ill and fucked in the head and their 'opinion' should not be taken into consideration. PC is a poison that even trees aren't safe from. If they are so offended by 'non natives' then they should just fuck off back to the tiny part of Africa where humans evolved from--the only place where humans are actually 'native', or at least stop buying milk, fruit, vegetables, wine, meat... because none of it iss native, in fact our entire economy is 'non native'. There there are their pet dogs and cats..........

[Age]

That's a bloody joke.

So, degrading and polluting thee ACTUAL things NEEDED for continued survival is NOT "a bloody joke", BUT, doing what it takes to PREVENT and STOP degradation and pollution IS "a bloody joke", to you, correct?

Here, the 'indigenous people', who incidentally had themselves only been here for 600 years before the 'evil colonialists' came, and had never had any tradition of coservation or sustainablity, having made many species extinct in the short time they were here, have been busily cutting down all the exotic trees that are on public land that they have been given control of (several urban mountains) for the sole reason that they supposedly represent 'evil colonialism', even though the crappy native stuff that's being planted to 'replace' them are all dying anyway and ironically aren't suited to the present day climate.

Where to start here;

1. WHY do you call "them" 'indigenous people', if they are not? And, what does the word 'indigenous' actually mean, or refer to, to you?

2. How long do human beings have to live on one parcel of land before they are 'indigenous', to you?

3. If "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then who IS? And, if "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then what are they?

4. How do you KNOW what ACTUALLY happened for 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" "arrived"?

5. How do you KNOW there was NEVER ANY "tradition of conservation or sustainability", for ALL of those 600 years before 'you' arrived?

6. How do you KNOW MANY species became extinct in the LOL "short time they were there"? And, if 600 years is a "short time", then how long is that 200 or so years that 'you', "evil colonists" have been there? Also, how MANY actual species became extinct in the 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" arrived? And then how many actual species have become extinct since 'you', "colonialists" had arrived.

7. Have absolutely ALL of the exotic trees, that are on public land that the 'indigenous' have been given control of, REALLY been "busily" cut down? If yes, then WHY was there a "rush"?

8. And, are they "busily" cutting down ALL of the 'exotic trees' just because 'exotic trees' on 'public land' represents 'evil colonization'? I thought 'evil colonization' would be represented by just the simple behavior of human beings colonizing "others" homes/lands, and being 'evil' while they were taking those homes/lands from "others". But maybe I am just WRONG. Is it NOT possible that "they" are just removing what was just 'imported' and not a naturally occurring plant?

9. So, to you, the 'native plants' of that country/area are just "crappy" anyway, and the planing of those "crappy" 'native plants' of a country/area, back into the country/area where it naturally came from, are just dying anyway because of the current climate. Could this 'climate change' thing you mention here be created and caused because of 'human beings', ironically? If yes, then what do you think would be MORE productive here? Changing your ways, which is contributing to 'climate change', or just not cutting down the 'noxious weeds' of a country and not replacing that with MORE natural flora?

So we are in a global warming catastrophe and what is this stupid little country doing? Cutting down all of its beautiful, useful, climate moderating trees, and soley for racist reasons.

LOL

I thought you just said that the native flora was being PLANTED?

Does it REALLY matter how much flora is cut down, as long as the EXACT SAME amount, or MORE, flora is being planted in its place?

Also, just because some 'thing' is "beautiful" to you, this does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY 'beautiful', relative to ANY thing else.

Using the word "useful" is useless if you do not include HOW and WHY 'it' is, supposedly and allegedly, "useful".

What study have you used to discern that the "exotic/imported trees" are 'climate moderating trees' and the 'native/natural trees' are not?

Also, your use of the "catastrophe" word is noted.

The fucking morons seem to think that trees have human ethnicities.

Who, exactly, are the, so called, "fucking morons" here? Or, do you not have the courage to say?

And, do 'you', humans "yourselves", have, so called, "human ethnicity"?

If yes, then what, exactly, is your "human ethnicity"?

And all supported by self-flagellating wokies who live in mortal terror of ever being called the 'r' word.

EVERY adult human being is racist. So, WHY would ANY one be in ANY 'terror' AT ALL about this FACT?

We all just have to be wary of those types of people, which the less than human, "vegetariantaxidermy", is clearly one of. These types of people are NOT worth even listening to, let alone being concerned about the way they think. They obviously live lives NOT worth living, and are just useless things "themselves". This is just thee Truth, of which these types of things should become fully aware of.

"vegetariantaxidermy" and its, so called, "people" should be cut down themselves and culled out, and replaced by 'us' better and real people.

So no more spring or autumn leaves for us.

Oh, your poor little thing. Just put up with it, and shut up, okay?

You and your views are NOTHING anyway.

Nothing to have a picnic under.

You type of people really are just a bunch of whingers and criers.

What you want should be replaced with concrete and steel anyway, and you should just accept that change and live with it, okay?

Your way of life and living is nothing but ridiculous and stupid anyway. You NEED to change your ways, if you want to live in our world.

No more beautiful oak trees.

REALLY, WHEN will you just SHUT UP and put up with whatever we do to you and to your way of life. Your ways are going, so again, just accept that this is what is going to happen.

No joy or beauty.

LOL Your way of life is NOT joy NOR beautiful. Your way of life is disgusting and terrible, which NEEDS to be completely gotten rid of, for your own good. When will you ever learn what is good and right for you?

Just drab, dreary Poltical Correctness.

SHUT UP I TOLD you. You HAVE TO put up with what we say and do, to you.

We have taken over now, and this is our land now, and we can do whatever we want to it. You, after all, are just a very dirty, horrible race, which NEEDS changing anyway. You REALLY do NEED to learn how to live the BETTER and PROPER life, "vegatariantaxidermy".

You, and your type, really are to primitive to really understand what is happening to you.

Thanks, know-nothing UN wokies and your unscientific bullshit.

But it is you and your type of people, "vegetariantaxidermy", who are Truly unscientific and just plain DUMB. Your way of life is DISTORTED and TOTALLY IMMORAL. You really do NEED to learn the PROPER and BETTER way you subhuman thing you are.

We don't really have the luxury of waiting 150 years of the PC trees to mature, and the shitty dead tussock grasses and flax bushes aren't going to cut the mustard in the heat of summer.

Good. We REALLY do NOT want you, nor your type, around anymore. Your way of life DISGUSTS 'us' and 'we' are here to get rid of you ALL.

WHEN will you LEARN and UNDERSTAND this FACT. You people really DISGUST us. Why can you not just become civilized, like us, you dirty, horrible, disgusting thing?

I have no idea what you are rambling about.[/quote]

Okay. That suits me PERFECTLY.

If you think some dead tussock grass is a suitable replacement for 100 year old trees then there's nothing more to be said.

But, if you REALLY had NO idea what I wrote above, then WHAT, exactly, made you come to this sort of ASSUMPTION?

Which, by the way, is a VERY ABSURD and Wrong ASSUMPTION you made.

This is tens of thousands of mature trees we are talking about.

So what?

Just replace it with some tens of thousands of seedlings.

As long as 'you', human beings, replace what you take, then all is good.

If they gave a shit about 'sacred native' shrubs then they would leave the 'evil oak trees' because they create a protective canopy that the 'sacred natives' need to protect them as they grow.

And if you REALLY cared about the environment, then you would NOT be doing what you are now.

Seems VERY HYPOCRITICAL to be LOOKING, JUDGING, and DISCUSSING what "others" are doing, when you are doing the EXACT SAME thing, just in another way.

The mountains have never, at any time in recorded history, been covered in native bush.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Well this is about one of the most ABSURD and HILARIOUS things that I have observes on this site.

The whole earth has ALWAYS been covered in 'native bush', and, NEVER NOT been covered in 'native bush'.

But you and I might have VERY DIFFERENT definitions for what the 'native' word means or refers to.

It's volcanic soil, which natives don't thrive on.

So, until 'you', "evil colonizers", arrived at that place, are you suggesting that there was NO 'native bush'?

Besides, you really have to live in a country to understand it and what goes on there.

Are you now 'trying to' say that 'you' "evil colonized people, who have been there for about 200 or so years understand MORE than the one who have lived there for about 800 years or so?

If yes, then okay. But the CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here is BLINDING.

It's complicated and about self-serving political interests rather than any genuine conservation efforts.

What is, supposedly, "complicated"?

If you tell us what 'it' is, then we might be able to make things simple and straightforward for you here.

What are the birds supposed to do with flax and tussock? You can't have birds without trees. No humans are native here. We are ALL recent 'colonists'. And you can't get much more racist than hating a tree just because it 'might' have been planted by English people.

So, if we bring our weeds over from afganistan and plant them all over that country, then you will be perfectly fine with this?

After all you can not get more racist than hating these "trees" because it 'might' have been planted by us "afghanistan" people, correct?

As a matter of fact it's a cynical arsehole of a lawyer who is exploiting the 'self flagellators' who came up with this 'offensive trees' bullshit because he 'just happens' to be a wealthy property developer. See what I mean about it being 'complicated'?

No, NOT AT ALL.

'you', greedy adult human beings, will do just about absolutely ANY thing you can get away to expand your love of money.

Just look at "yourself" you are not even a native of that place, yet you remain there continually polluting and degrading that place, just for your love of money and greedy, selfish ways. You are just like that "lawyer", "vegatariantaxidermy".

Then the UN had to go and poke its big fat nose in which played right into his and his wealthy cronies' hands.
Deciduous trees in the autumn and spring are objectively beautiful.

To who, exactly?

And, what are you basing 'objectively' and 'beautiful' on, exactly?

Anyone who finds them ugly or offensive is mentally ill and fucked in the head and their 'opinion' should not be taken into consideration.

And, ANY one who does not find 'you', and your breed, ugly or offensive are mentally ill and fucked in the head also. In fact, you and your breed are truly mentally ill and fucked in the head and should just be wiped out, completely.

PC is a poison that even trees aren't safe from.

And people like you should be poisoned as well. Your breed "vegetariantaxidermy" disgusts me.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's a bloody joke.

So, degrading and polluting thee ACTUAL things NEEDED for continued survival is NOT "a bloody joke", BUT, doing what it takes to PREVENT and STOP degradation and pollution IS "a bloody joke", to you, correct?

Here, the 'indigenous people', who incidentally had themselves only been here for 600 years before the 'evil colonialists' came, and had never had any tradition of coservation or sustainablity, having made many species extinct in the short time they were here, have been busily cutting down all the exotic trees that are on public land that they have been given control of (several urban mountains) for the sole reason that they supposedly represent 'evil colonialism', even though the crappy native stuff that's being planted to 'replace' them are all dying anyway and ironically aren't suited to the present day climate.

Where to start here;

1. WHY do you call "them" 'indigenous people', if they are not? And, what does the word 'indigenous' actually mean, or refer to, to you?

2. How long do human beings have to live on one parcel of land before they are 'indigenous', to you?

3. If "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then who IS? And, if "colonialists" are NOT 'evil', then what are they?

4. How do you KNOW what ACTUALLY happened for 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" "arrived"?

5. How do you KNOW there was NEVER ANY "tradition of conservation or sustainability", for ALL of those 600 years before 'you' arrived?

6. How do you KNOW MANY species became extinct in the LOL "short time they were there"? And, if 600 years is a "short time", then how long is that 200 or so years that 'you', "evil colonists" have been there? Also, how MANY actual species became extinct in the 600 years before 'you', "colonialists" arrived? And then how many actual species have become extinct since 'you', "colonialists" had arrived.

7. Have absolutely ALL of the exotic trees, that are on public land that the 'indigenous' have been given control of, REALLY been "busily" cut down? If yes, then WHY was there a "rush"?

8. And, are they "busily" cutting down ALL of the 'exotic trees' just because 'exotic trees' on 'public land' represents 'evil colonization'? I thought 'evil colonization' would be represented by just the simple behavior of human beings colonizing "others" homes/lands, and being 'evil' while they were taking those homes/lands from "others". But maybe I am just WRONG. Is it NOT possible that "they" are just removing what was just 'imported' and not a naturally occurring plant?

9. So, to you, the 'native plants' of that country/area are just "crappy" anyway, and the planing of those "crappy" 'native plants' of a country/area, back into the country/area where it naturally came from, are just dying anyway because of the current climate. Could this 'climate change' thing you mention here be created and caused because of 'human beings', ironically? If yes, then what do you think would be MORE productive here? Changing your ways, which is contributing to 'climate change', or just not cutting down the 'noxious weeds' of a country and not replacing that with MORE natural flora?

So we are in a global warming catastrophe and what is this stupid little country doing? Cutting down all of its beautiful, useful, climate moderating trees, and soley for racist reasons.

LOL

I thought you just said that the native flora was being PLANTED?

Does it REALLY matter how much flora is cut down, as long as the EXACT SAME amount, or MORE, flora is being planted in its place?

Also, just because some 'thing' is "beautiful" to you, this does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY 'beautiful', relative to ANY thing else.

Using the word "useful" is useless if you do not include HOW and WHY 'it' is, supposedly and allegedly, "useful".

What study have you used to discern that the "exotic/imported trees" are 'climate moderating trees' and the 'native/natural trees' are not?

Also, your use of the "catastrophe" word is noted.

The fucking morons seem to think that trees have human ethnicities.

Who, exactly, are the, so called, "fucking morons" here? Or, do you not have the courage to say?

And, do 'you', humans "yourselves", have, so called, "human ethnicity"?

If yes, then what, exactly, is your "human ethnicity"?

And all supported by self-flagellating wokies who live in mortal terror of ever being called the 'r' word.

EVERY adult human being is racist. So, WHY would ANY one be in ANY 'terror' AT ALL about this FACT?

We all just have to be wary of those types of people, which the less than human, "vegetariantaxidermy", is clearly one of. These types of people are NOT worth even listening to, let alone being concerned about the way they think. They obviously live lives NOT worth living, and are just useless things "themselves". This is just thee Truth, of which these types of things should become fully aware of.

"vegetariantaxidermy" and its, so called, "people" should be cut down themselves and culled out, and replaced by 'us' better and real people.

So no more spring or autumn leaves for us.

Oh, your poor little thing. Just put up with it, and shut up, okay?

You and your views are NOTHING anyway.

Nothing to have a picnic under.

You type of people really are just a bunch of whingers and criers.

What you want should be replaced with concrete and steel anyway, and you should just accept that change and live with it, okay?

Your way of life and living is nothing but ridiculous and stupid anyway. You NEED to change your ways, if you want to live in our world.

No more beautiful oak trees.

REALLY, WHEN will you just SHUT UP and put up with whatever we do to you and to your way of life. Your ways are going, so again, just accept that this is what is going to happen.

No joy or beauty.

LOL Your way of life is NOT joy NOR beautiful. Your way of life is disgusting and terrible, which NEEDS to be completely gotten rid of, for your own good. When will you ever learn what is good and right for you?

Just drab, dreary Poltical Correctness.

SHUT UP I TOLD you. You HAVE TO put up with what we say and do, to you.

We have taken over now, and this is our land now, and we can do whatever we want to it. You, after all, are just a very dirty, horrible race, which NEEDS changing anyway. You REALLY do NEED to learn how to live the BETTER and PROPER life, "vegatariantaxidermy".

You, and your type, really are to primitive to really understand what is happening to you.

Thanks, know-nothing UN wokies and your unscientific bullshit.

But it is you and your type of people, "vegetariantaxidermy", who are Truly unscientific and just plain DUMB. Your way of life is DISTORTED and TOTALLY IMMORAL. You really do NEED to learn the PROPER and BETTER way you subhuman thing you are.

We don't really have the luxury of waiting 150 years of the PC trees to mature, and the shitty dead tussock grasses and flax bushes aren't going to cut the mustard in the heat of summer.

Good. We REALLY do NOT want you, nor your type, around anymore. Your way of life DISGUSTS 'us' and 'we' are here to get rid of you ALL.

WHEN will you LEARN and UNDERSTAND this FACT. You people really DISGUST us. Why can you not just become civilized, like us, you dirty, horrible, disgusting thing?

I have no idea what you are rambling about.

Okay. That suits me PERFECTLY.

If you think some dead tussock grass is a suitable replacement for 100 year old trees then there's nothing more to be said.

But, if you REALLY had NO idea what I wrote above, then WHAT, exactly, made you come to this sort of ASSUMPTION?

Which, by the way, is a VERY ABSURD and Wrong ASSUMPTION you made.

This is tens of thousands of mature trees we are talking about.

So what?

Just replace it with some tens of thousands of seedlings.

As long as 'you', human beings, replace what you take, then all is good.

If they gave a shit about 'sacred native' shrubs then they would leave the 'evil oak trees' because they create a protective canopy that the 'sacred natives' need to protect them as they grow.

And if you REALLY cared about the environment, then you would NOT be doing what you are now.

Seems VERY HYPOCRITICAL to be LOOKING, JUDGING, and DISCUSSING what "others" are doing, when you are doing the EXACT SAME thing, just in another way.

The mountains have never, at any time in recorded history, been covered in native bush.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Well this is about one of the most ABSURD and HILARIOUS things that I have observes on this site.

The whole earth has ALWAYS been covered in 'native bush', and, NEVER NOT been covered in 'native bush'.

But you and I might have VERY DIFFERENT definitions for what the 'native' word means or refers to.

It's volcanic soil, which natives don't thrive on.

So, until 'you', "evil colonizers", arrived at that place, are you suggesting that there was NO 'native bush'?

Besides, you really have to live in a country to understand it and what goes on there.

Are you now 'trying to' say that 'you' "evil colonized people, who have been there for about 200 or so years understand MORE than the one who have lived there for about 800 years or so?

If yes, then okay. But the CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here is BLINDING.

It's complicated and about self-serving political interests rather than any genuine conservation efforts.

What is, supposedly, "complicated"?

If you tell us what 'it' is, then we might be able to make things simple and straightforward for you here.

What are the birds supposed to do with flax and tussock? You can't have birds without trees. No humans are native here. We are ALL recent 'colonists'. And you can't get much more racist than hating a tree just because it 'might' have been planted by English people.

So, if we bring our weeds over from afganistan and plant them all over that country, then you will be perfectly fine with this?

After all you can not get more racist than hating these "trees" because it 'might' have been planted by us "afghanistan" people, correct?

As a matter of fact it's a cynical arsehole of a lawyer who is exploiting the 'self flagellators' who came up with this 'offensive trees' bullshit because he 'just happens' to be a wealthy property developer. See what I mean about it being 'complicated'?

No, NOT AT ALL.

'you', greedy adult human beings, will do just about absolutely ANY thing you can get away to expand your love of money.

Just look at "yourself" you are not even a native of that place, yet you remain there continually polluting and degrading that place, just for your love of money and greedy, selfish ways. You are just like that "lawyer", "vegatariantaxidermy".

Then the UN had to go and poke its big fat nose in which played right into his and his wealthy cronies' hands.
Deciduous trees in the autumn and spring are objectively beautiful.

To who, exactly?

And, what are you basing 'objectively' and 'beautiful' on, exactly?

Anyone who finds them ugly or offensive is mentally ill and fucked in the head and their 'opinion' should not be taken into consideration.

And, ANY one who does not find 'you', and your breed, ugly or offensive are mentally ill and fucked in the head also. In fact, you and your breed are truly mentally ill and fucked in the head and should just be wiped out, completely.

PC is a poison that even trees aren't safe from.

And people like you should be poisoned as well. Your breed "vegetariantaxidermy" disgusts me.
[/quote]

You seem to be TRYING to be terribly clever and 'postmodern' but again, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You just come across as narcissistic and deranged.
The trees I'm talking about are certainly not 'weeds'. Why are cows not 'offensive'? Or sheep? Or grape vines? Or apple/pear/avocado/orange/mandarin/lemon....trees? Pretty much NOTHING about this country is 'native', including the humans, buildings, flowers, pets, cars... Not even the weather.
And I'm sure if there was money to be made from 'plants from Afghanistan' (weird example. What do you have against Afghan flora?) then I'm sure they would be 'planted all over the place'.
Destroying tens of thousands of mature trees when the planet is heating up (our 'winter' this year barely qualified for the name) couldn't be considered wise by anyone's standards.

[Age]

Okay.