|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rool Kat]
#18790443 - 09/02/13 03:24 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It doesn't matter because non of what you said is evidence against the statement the ownership infers an independence from nature.
Edited by teknix (11/25/13 03:02 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: kennedy]
#18790451 - 09/02/13 03:27 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kennedy said: Are you trying to get at more than a distinction? Are you implying that because ownership is a conceptual invention of man and apparently nature-independent it is morally wrong, or what? I don't agree with the idea in the first place, but I want to know what the follow up is.
The premise is exactly what was stated, u can read whatever you want into it and believe whatever you want, as you do. Carry on.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18793743 - 09/03/13 10:18 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: So, you're right then, corporations don't actually own things, it is the people and their idea's that are doing the owning . . .
Legally, a corporation can own things, but not in actuality.
If you think legality is the basis for objective truth you have a lot to learn.
Again, the question is whether or not it is natural. Is a corporation natural?
I feel really sorry for your reading comprehension. It's clearly severely malnourished. Thankfully I'll reply once more with a fresh shot of nutrients for it.
The analogy was in response to your reductionism fallacy, through which you were suggesting that, since atoms don't exhibit ownership, humans cannot. It wasn't in response to the question of whether or not ownership itself is natural. Therefore, the analogy doesn't attempt to demonstrate whether or not ownership is natural. Therefore, the question of whether or not a corporation is natural is irrelevant to the analogy. Therefore, suggesting that a corporation is not natural doesn't mean that it is a false analogy.
I never suggested that "legality is the basis for objective truth". You can question whether or not the "ownership" to which I refer in my analogy actually exists, but questioning its actuality doesn't demonstrate that the analogy itself is false. Since you really seem to need this: insomuch that a corporation can be considered to maintain ownership over properties and rights, the fact that its employees cannot be considered to maintain the same ownership over properties and rights doesn't nullify the extent to which said corporation can be considered to maintain said ownership. Therefore, insomuch that a human being can be considered to maintain ownership over properties and rights, the fact that its atoms cannot be considered to maintain the same ownership over properties and rights doesn't nullify the extent to which said human being can be considered to maintain said ownership.
See? It's a two-pronged attack. Confusing one prong for the other and trying to swat it down as if it were the other doesn't work. On one side, we have the refutation of your suggestion that, if ownership isn't exhibited on the atomic level, it doesn't actually exist on the human being level. On the other side, we have the question of whether or not ownership is natural.
The tragedy here, I think, is that you misconstrued the "do atoms own?" line of inquiry as though it were a litmus test to determine the naturalness of a phenomenon. Maybe that's why you conflated my revealing the logical fallacy in the suggestion that, if a trait isn't exhibited by a component of a system, it thereby isn't exhibited by the system itself, with the notion that I was suggesting through analogy that ownership is natural.
That's your error.
It is also your error that you would imagine that "do atoms own?" would be a litmus test for determining the naturalness of phenomenon. It's akin to proclaiming that the fact that trees have bark infers an independence from nature because a tree's atoms themselves don't have bark. Bark isn't an unnatural trait for a tree to have simply because its atoms don't have bark. Similarly, ownership isn't an unnatural trait for humans or animals to exhibit simply because the atoms currently present in their constitution don't exhibit ownership. If ownership truly is unnatural, it certifiably isn't due to the fact that the presumed owner's atomic makeup doesn't own.
Quote:
Is ownership a property of nature (p) ?
In which the answer is a resounding NO!
An answer which would be resoundingly incorrect.
Ownership is a natural phenomenon.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Humans symbolize phenomena that they observe taking place in reality. The concept of ownership evolved as an explanation for a specific kind of behavior that both animals and humans engage in in a certain circumstance. Ownership refers to the circumstance in which an animal or human identifies a certain territory, source of food, or object as something that is of interest to themselves specifically, they seek to communicate this identity to others, and act aggressively or defensively when another human or animal would seek to use that something for themselves.
Humans, in their clever ingenuity, both to protect themselves from harm from others who behave possessively in regards to a particular object, and in communicating their own possessiveness to others, represented this natural, instinctual phenomenon with a symbol - the concept of ownership. As humans have evolved, the concept has evolved.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18794467 - 09/03/13 01:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The analogy was in response to your reductionism fallacy, through which you were suggesting that, since atoms don't exhibit ownership, humans cannot.
Oh, you're talking about:
"Atoms do not own one another, and if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature."
Atoms are a part of nature, humans are not.
^.^
Good try, but your drawing inference to conclude that is what I was suggesting.
Nice try with the Strawman.
I'll admit it could have been better written, but it really doesn't matter.
You aren't the atoms, you is just a thought.
Unless of course you realize that you are really just atoms, then your another part of nature that can't own anything ^.^
You write way too much and say way too little imo.
Edited by teknix (09/03/13 02:00 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18798029 - 09/04/13 05:01 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Atoms are a part of nature, humans are not.
You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.  Either all atoms, and, therefore, all humans are natural, or, most atoms are part of a nature, but humans, as well as the atoms of which they are comprised, are unnatural.
Quote:
Nice try with the Strawman.
There's no straw man, just like there wasn't last time, which, at least concerning this debate, you accepted. Are you sure you aren't wrong about the straw man again?
You specifically expressed the notion that the question of ownership as exhibited by humans hinged on whether or not it is exhibited by the atoms themselves. In other words, no straw, man.
Quote:
You aren't the atoms, you is just a thought.
Yeah, that's not true. The definition of human being isn't "the thought" of a human being. Regardless of whether or not we've conceptualized what a human being is, the human being itself still exists as a human being, otherwise there'd be nothing to conceptualize.
Quote:
Unless of course you realize that you are really just atoms, then your another part of nature that can't own anything ^.^
Sorry, but the definition of nature that you're using to declare humans and subsequently ownership unnatural doesn't refer to the possibility of humans becoming natural if they "realize" that they "are just atoms". 

Quote:
You write way too much and say way too little imo.
The degree to which I write is the degree to which the ideas you've expressed in the course of the debate are lacking in thought structure. If, in effect, I said way too little with too much writing, it's merely because that gap in ideological order in the thoughts you've presented for debate is chasmic. To revert back to analogy, it's the difference in physical effort between pushing a car that won't start and steering one that's running smoothly. It requires a lot more physical expenditure to travel 100 yards if the situation calls on you to push.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18798256 - 09/04/13 07:29 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This is all down to meaningless semantics as I see it. Someone can say they don't own anything yet they will try and possess things. If you try to take their computer, food, clothes, shelter, mate etc. they will fight to possess them. This is the bottom line as far as the reality of the situation goes. The rest is mental masturbation imo.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18798279 - 09/04/13 07:42 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: Atoms are a part of nature, humans are not.
You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.  Either all atoms, and, therefore, all humans are natural, or, most atoms are part of a nature, but humans, as well as the atoms of which they are comprised, are unnatural.
Quote:
Nice try with the Strawman.
There's no straw man, just like there wasn't last time, which, at least concerning this debate, you accepted. Are you sure you aren't wrong about the straw man again?
You specifically expressed the notion that the question of ownership as exhibited by humans hinged on whether or not it is exhibited by the atoms themselves. In other words, no straw, man.
Quote:
You aren't the atoms, you is just a thought.
Yeah, that's not true. The definition of human being isn't "the thought" of a human being. Regardless of whether or not we've conceptualized what a human being is, the human being itself still exists as a human being, otherwise there'd be nothing to conceptualize.
Quote:
Unless of course you realize that you are really just atoms, then your another part of nature that can't own anything ^.^
Sorry, but the definition of nature that you're using to declare humans and subsequently ownership unnatural doesn't refer to the possibility of humans becoming natural if they "realize" that they "are just atoms". 

Quote:
You write way too much and say way too little imo.
The degree to which I write is the degree to which the ideas you've expressed in the course of the debate are lacking in thought structure. If, in effect, I said way too little with too much writing, it's merely because that gap in ideological order in the thoughts you've presented for debate is chasmic. To revert back to analogy, it's the difference in physical effort between pushing a car that won't start and steering one that's running smoothly. It requires a lot more physical expenditure to travel 100 yards if the situation calls on you to push. 
Seems like someone is getting a bit agitated and feeling that the end of their argument is neigh!
Humans with a "self" who think they are that self, (the self is not made of atoms) are not a part of nature, the organism is. (made of atoms)
Edited by teknix (11/25/13 03:06 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18798288 - 09/04/13 07:49 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: This is all down to meaningless semantics as I see it. Someone can say they don't own anything yet they will try and possess things. If you try to take their computer, food, clothes, shelter, mate etc. they will fight to possess them. This is the bottom line as far as the reality of the situation goes. The rest is mental masturbation imo.
I think your probably right for most cases, but i don't think it is true in every situation. I personally haven't transcended it in my dreams. Just last night I had 3 dreams that was all about ownership and every time someone stole "my stuff" or destroyed "my stuff" stuff I got pissed and took action, but I do believe it is a great concept to work towards, and even do it in my dreams.
One was about a tent my friend was loaned and he ripped so I took it back, another was with my brother working as a ups man stole a bunch of money from me, and the third someone screwed up my car, and each time I reacted, but it doesn't mean that it will always be so.
In the past I was flying around up out of a subway and some dude grabbed my shoes, and I didn't care, because I was flying.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18798295 - 09/04/13 07:54 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe you guys think that I think that i am holier or better than you, but that's your delusion, and not really me.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18798296 - 09/04/13 07:55 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Like I said in a much earlier post, it might be beneficial to ask ourselves why we choose to own/possess the things we do. The more you "own" the more you have to lose and worry over and keep track of. Keeping it to a minimum is a kind of freedom at least in some cases.
One of the few great things about getting older is you tend to begin to lose attachment to material things. I own a lot of shit but most of it now I can let go of fairly easily compared to how I was in the past.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 2
#18798396 - 09/04/13 08:52 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Seems like someone is getting a bit agitated and feeling that the end of their argument is neigh!
You don't need to project your personal state of being onto me. Is the end of your argument really a sound a horse makes?
Quote:
Humans with a "self" who think they are that self, (the self is made of atoms) are not a part of nature, the organism is. (made of atoms)
By no definition of the word nature are you right.
Quote:
I've said the same thing this whole thread, not hard.
Obviously you've been saying the same thing this whole thread, along with a bunch of periphery statements. No news flash there. In case you're just now tuning in, you've been debating this "same thing" the whole time, and I've been hacking progressively through everything else you've postulated along with it to snuff it out. You're not repeating it now because I was somehow unaware of it; you're repeating it now because, in terms of this debate, it's the only thing you've been left with. Everything else was challenged by me and then abandoned by you.
Quote:
(P.S. I can get my point across in 2-3 sentences when you take 10+ to say absolutely nothing, hilarious)
There's a big difference between getting a point across and successfully completing, in one's favor, ideological debate. It's the difference between alleging that something is the case and effectively sustaining its basis in the face of ideological criticism. If you fail in the service of your ideas, you don't get an honorable mention because you kept a low word count. 
Your argument at its essence: A sense of self is unnatural because I say so. Not, mind you, because of the meaning of the word nature, since its definition does not support my specification that its only the sense of self that is unnatural. It says that nature excludes humans as a whole, not just their sense of self. That doesn't work for me, because I consider atoms to be natural, and, well, I certainly have to draw the natural/unnatural line somewhere in order to be right, now don't I? So, let it be henceforth known to all that I've now decided on my own good will that "nature" means everything but the sense of self that humans have. Subsequently, I will also reject the definition of the word ownership and proclaim to all that ownership needs a sense of self in order for it to exist. Since I've decided that a human's sense of self is unnatural, then ownership, requiring a sense of self, must be considered unnatural, too.
I only ask myself which purpose such a convoluted and fatally flawed line of reasoning serves. Baffling.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18798793 - 09/04/13 11:20 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: Seems like someone is getting a bit agitated and feeling that the end of their argument is neigh!
You don't need to project your personal state of being onto me. Is the end of your argument really a sound a horse makes?
Quote:
Humans with a "self" who think they are that self, (the self is made of atoms) are not a part of nature, the organism is. (made of atoms)
By no definition of the word nature are you right.
Quote:
I've said the same thing this whole thread, not hard.
Obviously you've been saying the same thing this whole thread, along with a bunch of periphery statements. No news flash there. In case you're just now tuning in, you've been debating this "same thing" the whole time, and I've been hacking progressively through everything else you've postulated along with it to snuff it out. You're not repeating it now because I was somehow unaware of it; you're repeating it now because, in terms of this debate, it's the only thing you've been left with. Everything else was challenged by me and then abandoned by you.
Quote:
(P.S. I can get my point across in 2-3 sentences when you take 10+ to say absolutely nothing, hilarious)
There's a big difference between getting a point across and successfully completing, in one's favor, ideological debate. It's the difference between alleging that something is the case and effectively sustaining its basis in the face of ideological criticism. If you fail in the service of your ideas, you don't get an honorable mention because you kept a low word count. 
Your argument at its essence: A sense of self is unnatural because I say so. Not, mind you, because of the meaning of the word nature, since its definition does not support my specification that its only the sense of self that is unnatural. It says that nature excludes humans as a whole, not just their sense of self. That doesn't work for me, because I consider atoms to be natural, and, well, I certainly have to draw the natural/unnatural line somewhere in order to be right, now don't I? So, let it be henceforth known to all that I've now decided on my own good will that "nature" means everything but the sense of self that humans have. Subsequently, I will also reject the definition of the word ownership and proclaim to all that ownership needs a sense of self in order for it to exist. Since I've decided that a human's sense of self is unnatural, then ownership, requiring a sense of self, must be considered unnatural, too.
I only ask myself which purpose such a convoluted and fatally flawed line of reasoning serves. Baffling. 
naΒ·ture ΛnΔCHΙr/Submit noun noun: nature;βplural noun: natures 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. "the breathtaking beauty of nature" synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment
You lost the debate a long time ago, what are you still babbling about?
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18798814 - 09/04/13 11:25 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Here, let me lay it out for you plain and simple, because it seems you have having difficulty grasping the logic behind this.
If ownership is an idea or concept created by man, then it doesn't fall into the above definition. That is because ownership is a creation of man, made by the mind of man, rather than existing without man. ezpz.
Edited by teknix (11/25/13 03:08 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18798983 - 09/04/13 12:12 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe this entire thread was created for you to get over yourself, suck it up, and swim in humility rather than drown in your pride.
Would you say this might also apply to you? Just askin.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18799051 - 09/04/13 12:35 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It's possible, but for some reason it seems doubtful.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18799276 - 09/04/13 01:34 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
But for sure the other guy has the problem.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18799286 - 09/04/13 01:37 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Think about it, I'm pointing to the delusion of self, how could I point at it if I haven't seen it?

|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18799322 - 09/04/13 01:48 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: But for sure the other guy has the problem. 
Did I say for sure or is that a strawman?

I said maybe It was created for you, including you!
I find it amusing how well we get along until you start making stupid ass accusations and assumptions, it's as if you feed off discontentment and even sabotage yourself.
Edited by teknix (09/04/13 01:56 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18800019 - 09/04/13 04:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Think about it, I'm pointing to the delusion of self, how could I point at it if I haven't seen it?

You could be wrong about it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18800030 - 09/04/13 04:48 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Icelander said: But for sure the other guy has the problem. 
Did I say for sure or is that a strawman?

I said maybe It was created for you, including you!
I find it amusing how well we get along until you start making stupid ass accusations and assumptions, it's as if you feed off discontentment and even sabotage yourself.
It's all good as long as everyone agrees with you. But once someone disagrees you turn sour and think they're out to get you. I can feel the resentment oozing out of your posts.
Like most everyone who's posted in this thread I think you are wrong. FWG did a very good job explaining it imo.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (09/04/13 05:01 PM)
|
|