Bold: Did I say that? Nope. I didn't. I ASKED "Isn't it the governments job to take care of such a river?"
And i answered it, no, it is not the government that is being given the job. It is in fact a dual role.
Underlined: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
People should also understand what it is they are asking.
Rest: Again...I could care less about any treaty or anything else. A river is nothing more than water. It is NOT a person. Anyone that says otherwise should be thrown in the looney bin because thinking that water is a person is a sure sign of insanity.
Then you have no right to speak about a river in that has been given person hood. Because it has not being converted into a person. You still have no clue as to the difference between the two.
They could have easily done that without claiming that water is a person. Most countries take care of their water supply without once referring to it as a "person".
Fine for many countries. But no country but nz has a treaty of waitangi. So what happens in other countries should be of no concern here.
Do try to keep in mind that the OP states quite clearly in bold and enlarged.
New Zealand declares a river a person
If the op stated only that a river had person hood then you can bring in what other countries are doing. But it does not. It questions one specific country. One that you have no idea about. I doubt that you have even heard of the treaty let alone have a clue what it says or why it is so relevant to the creation of person hood status.
I find this highly hypocritical. if i tried to bring a nz attitude or cultural understanding to any topic of america and if i especially went out of my way to say that i did not care what the american constitution might have to say on a subject concerning america, there would be no end of americans telling me i had no right to comment and openly sneer at my ignorance of what is important in america.
Yet here you are daring to comment on something that has happened in my country. Something that concerns our treaty and all you can do is say you do not care about any treaty.
Pure hypocrisy.
From your own links: Personhood is the status of being a person. and n. 1) a human being.
Quote mining now that is the most lowest of fallacies. What the quote from my link actually says and you deliberately try to hide.
In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
No corporation or tract of water cannot have "personhood" bestowed upon it without sane people thinking you're bat **** crazy.
A view that would be dismissed easily as it happens all the time.
Again. Don't care. If I told you that all mosquitoes and flies are persons you'd laugh your face off at me. Why the hell would you expect others to not laugh at the notion that water is to be considered a "person"? Do as I say, not as I do mantra? pfft.
I understand that all you can do is argue by fallacy, this time Reductio ad absurdum. The best you can do is pretend that you said something sensible.
The fact is there are good reasons for person hood to bestowed on that river where as you could not come up with a good reason for your absurd example. All you mange to do is display real ignorance about the culture and laws of another country. nort surprising when americans usually do display their xenophobia openly.
