|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 1
#18987317 - 10/16/13 05:45 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So I'm assuming you would conclude eating infers an independence from nature then?
"There needs to be an eater, and an eaten
For there to be eating there has to be both an eater (self) and an eaten (other than self).
Eating being a manifestation of behavior is not eating, but behavior . . . But for there really to be eating there has to be an eater, so you are just using eating synonymously with feeding, in which feeding does a much better job of describing the behavior than eating. As I said before, and animal doesn't need to think it is eating anything to be feeding, and I also said that it was a behavior and called feeding, then you take my argument and change the word from feeding to be synonymous with eating, in which it is not, because eating requires something to be the eater and something separate to be eaten."
I think this is a pretty good analogy, although it doesn't deal with the human part/an "ultimate source"...
"Animals can't eat, as they can't conceptualize eating, they simply feed, they are simply following their instinct to feed, (which is an evolutionary attribute that keeps them alive) what does that have to do with eating?"
These words, as people have tried to explain, and have said multiple times, are the conceptualization of these behaviors, and not the behaviors themselves.
Does a beaver own his dam? He displays the behaviors of ownership of the dam, and according to our definitions/concept of ownership, the beaver owns does it (regardless of what the beaver thinks (or doesn't think)).
Edited by rsbattle (10/16/13 06:16 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]
#18989768 - 10/17/13 07:36 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: It's not a misguided attempt, the point is proven unless you provide conflicting evidence to the contrary.
Do you suffer from narcolepsy? If you provide a note from a doctor, you'll be excused from the debate. I ask because you really dozed off there.
Let's wake you back up.
Your statement: "It's not a misguided attempt, the point is proven unless you provide conflicting evidence to the contrary" is only a response to this part of my contention:
"No, I only see how you cherry-picked the definition of the word ownership in a misguided attempt to prove your point. "
Now, if that would have been all I said, your response would have been legitimate and acceptable.
But, and I think this is the part where you conked out, I continued:
"The legal right of ownership is an abstraction that exists within the social conventions of humans used as a means to facilitate their interactions that pertain to their acts of ownership. Ownership itself exists with or without it. I think it'd be useful if you paid attention to the rest of the definition and spent some time mulling over what it means and how this particular part of the definition fits in with and was derived from the rest of it. And, as always, for the intents and purposes of this debate, it should be clarified if this will be a point of contention that you abandon. "
That was my line of reasoning provided as evidence. You didn't clarify if you would abandon this point of contention, but, you abandoned it by not addressing it. It's invalid to abandon a point of contention under the guise that evidence wasn't provided. That isn't kosher in an ideological debate. 
Quote:
Contending the argument requires evidence to the contrary, or there is not a true contention to the argument (premise) presented.
Repeating what you previously said is not how one responds to a point of contention. Doing so is abandoning the point of contention. You did not respond to what I said regarding this point of contention. This is what I said:
"Whether or not you accept what I've presented as evidence and the line of reasoning provided with it as valid has absolutely no bearing on the definition of contention. Contention in debate means to dispute. That is how the word is defined. Whether or not you feel my contention is substantiated doesn't change that I disputed what you said; thereby, I contended a set of points that you raised. Furthermore, you abandoned those points of contention.
Is this another point of contention that you will abandon - your assertion that I didn't offer a line of reasoning in contention of what you've presented? Will you explain how the commonly accepted definition of the word contention doesn't apply to what has happened here? Would you prefer it if they slipped by, unaccounted for? "
You abandoned the point of contention. Will you do so again?
Furthermore, there were multiple points of contention that you abandoned, beyond these two. I could quote each and every single one of them, in an effort to keep you honest, but it seems redundant as they are still waiting just a few posts upthread. Sweeping them underneath the rug is not a clever debate tactic. Will you participate in this debate in a manner that befits intellectual honesty?
--------------------
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: rsbattle]
#19001241 - 10/19/13 07:55 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rsbattle said: So I'm assuming you would conclude eating infers an independence from nature then?
"There needs to be an eater, and an eaten
For there to be eating there has to be both an eater (self) and an eaten (other than self).
Exactly. Once you start considering what it is you are doing, then you are creating an entity independent of nature. Eating would imply that there is both an eater and an eaten, but this is all within the preponderance of the action rather than the action in and of itself.
Quote:
Eating being a manifestation of behavior is not eating, but behavior . . . But for there really to be eating there has to be an eater, so you are just using eating synonymously with feeding, in which feeding does a much better job of describing the behavior than eating. As I said before, and animal doesn't need to think it is eating anything to be feeding, and I also said that it was a behavior and called feeding, then you take my argument and change the word from feeding to be synonymous with eating, in which it is not, because eating requires something to be the eater and something separate to be eaten."
Quote:
Yes, but it still takes you to consider what it is doing in relation to what you are doing or describe what it is doing.
I think this is a pretty good analogy, although it doesn't deal with the human part/an "ultimate source"...
"Animals can't eat, as they can't conceptualize eating, they simply feed, they are simply following their instinct to feed, (which is an evolutionary attribute that keeps them alive) what does that have to do with eating?"
These words, as people have tried to explain, and have said multiple times, are the conceptualization of these behaviors, and not the behaviors themselves.
Does a beaver own his dam? He displays the behaviors of ownership of the dam, and according to our definitions/concept of ownership, the beaver owns does it (regardless of what the beaver thinks (or doesn't think)).
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19001936 - 10/19/13 10:42 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Exactly. Once you start considering what it is you are doing, then you are creating an entity independent of nature. Eating would imply that there is both an eater and an eaten, but this is all within the preponderance of the action rather than the action in and of itself.
So, your whole argument comes down to... "Thinking is unnatural".
Edited by rsbattle (10/19/13 10:42 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: rsbattle]
#19002459 - 10/20/13 01:57 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "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: Icelander]
#19003143 - 10/20/13 09:31 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So many abandoned points of contention.
--------------------
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: rsbattle]
#19003444 - 10/20/13 11:21 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rsbattle said:
Quote:
teknix said: Exactly. Once you start considering what it is you are doing, then you are creating an entity independent of nature. Eating would imply that there is both an eater and an eaten, but this is all within the preponderance of the action rather than the action in and of itself.
So, your whole argument comes down to... "Thinking is unnatural".
The concept of thinking, or thinking about thinking isn't natural.
There is a subtle difference between doing and thinking about doing, or considering what was done.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19003452 - 10/20/13 11:24 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: So many abandoned points of contention.

If you truly feel that I neglected your post and you wanted it to be considered more in depthly, or you think I missed your point then argue to the point. I'm not wading through your endless and monotonous squabble with you.
IE; prove it.
I rebutted all your points of contention.
Edited by teknix (10/20/13 11:38 AM)
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19004039 - 10/20/13 01:37 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Now your argument is "Thinking is natural, unless you think about certain things"
Quote:
teknix said: The concept of thinking, or thinking about thinking isn't natural.
There is a subtle difference between doing and thinking about doing, or considering what was done.
So, how does that differ from what I said your argument is ("Thinking is unnatural")?
If thinking is natural, then anything we think about is "natural" in the sense that, thinking is natural... If thinking about thinking isn't natural, how is it "unnatural", and why would thinking be natural?
Here, I'll use your own example again... "For there to be thinking there has to be both a thinker (self) and a thought (other than self)."
Quote:
teknix said: If you truly feel that I neglected your post and you wanted it to be considered more in depthly, or you think I missed your point then argue to the point. I'm not wading through your endless and monotonous squabble with you.
IE; prove it.
I rebutted all your points of contention.
Well, you've contended certain points in some of his posts, yet, completely ignored others, how is that not "neglecting his post"?
He's already argued the points, yet, you ignored them, now you want him to argue them again... Does that have a point though? Will you not ignore the arguments again? If not, why did you ignore them the first time?
You want him to prove it, yet, that's not how it is for anything else, so why should it be here? IE: Random guy: God exists... Random guy2: I don't believe he does Random guy: prove he doesn't!!11
Edited by rsbattle (10/20/13 03:34 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]
#19004338 - 10/20/13 03:08 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: I rebutted all your points of contention.
Then where's your rebuttal, then? Empty attitude isn't a rebuttal. Whatever happens in your imagination isn't actually a rebuttal. Would you prefer it if I provided a numbering system to assist you in identifying points of contention and ensuring you actually stick with them? I thought I was already pretty generous when I reminded you, point by point, that it falls onto you to either stick with that particular point of contention or acknowledge that you're abandoning it. Want me to number them so we can officially monitor them?
--------------------
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]
#19004638 - 10/20/13 04:17 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If you don't see a rebuttal immediately following your supposed points of contention then it was probably already rebutted in the previous pages.
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19004663 - 10/20/13 04:24 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: If you don't see a rebuttal immediately following your supposed points of contention then it was probably already rebutted in the previous pages.
So, like I said several posts back...
How is your argument (now that you've changed it) anything other than
"Thinking is natural, unless you think about certain things"?
"If thinking is natural, then anything we think about is "natural" in the sense that, thinking is natural... If thinking about thinking isn't natural, how is it "unnatural", and why would thinking be natural?"
What do you have to say about that?
So, you're saying nature can produce unnatural things?
Also, why would any of this infer an "independence" from nature?
Quote:
Merriam-Webster said: inΒ·deΒ·penΒ·dence noun \Λin-dΙ-Λpen-dΙn(t)s\
: freedom from outside control or support : the state of being independent
Everything we do is supported from/by nature, we couldn't live without it's (natures) support... Even your OP contradicts this, as, without the %1 that nature provided us, we wouldn't be alive, or able to own... Therefore, without nature, we couldn't own, and are thus dependent on nature.
%1: food, shelter, land, proteins, dna, senses, a livable environment, etc, etc, etc
Edited by rsbattle (10/20/13 04:44 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
#19004694 - 10/20/13 04:29 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That's not my argument, thoughts are definitely not considered as natural in my argument.
I was pointing out the difference between a concept and an action, which concepts as words are often used to describe the actions, although the words are not the action.
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19004763 - 10/20/13 04:48 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: That's not my argument, thoughts are definitely not considered as natural in my argument.
I was pointing out the difference between a concept and an action, which concepts as words are often used to describe the actions, although the words are not the action.
Obviously the words aren't the action, and only describe the action, people have pointed this out over and over, yet, you didn't agree.
You say it isn't your argument, because they're not considered natural in your argument.
So it's a flawed argument, based on a flawed premise.
Quote:
Flawed Argument: "Water is not a liquid"
"mass posts trying to explain how it's a liquid"
"No it's not a liquid, because, it's not considered a liquid in my argument"
Thus, we can consider anything, anything (regardless of definitions, science, etc, etc), because, it's a premise of the argument.
Edited by rsbattle (10/20/13 04:51 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
#19004773 - 10/20/13 04:50 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rsbattle said:
Quote:
teknix said: That's not my argument, thoughts are definitely not considered as natural in my argument.
I was pointing out the difference between a concept and an action, which concepts as words are often used to describe the actions, although the words are not the action.
Obviously the words aren't the action, and only describe the action, people have pointed this out over and over, yet, you didn't agree.
You say it isn't your argument, because they're not considered natural in your argument.
So it's a flawed argument, based on a flawed premise.
Nope, I've been saying the same thing all along, lol . . .
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19004785 - 10/20/13 04:52 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Nope, I've been saying the same thing all along, lol . . .
So it's a flawed argument, based on a flawed premise.
Quote:
Flawed Argument: "Water is not a liquid"
"mass posts trying to explain how it's a liquid"
"No it's not a liquid, because, it's not considered a liquid in my argument"
Thus, we can consider anything, anything (regardless of definitions, science, etc, etc). We can come to any conclusion, even if it flies in the face of objective fact, because it's a premise of the argument.
Edited by rsbattle (10/20/13 04:54 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
#19004798 - 10/20/13 04:54 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thus, we can consider anything, anything (regardless of definitions, science, etc, etc). We can come to any conclusion, even if it flies in the face of objective fact, because it's a premise of the argument.
Do you understand the definition of natural? The object itself could be natural, the descriptions of it would not be considered as natural.
The words can only ever be a representation of that which they are intended to describe, they are never being that which they are meant to describe.

Edited by teknix (10/20/13 04:59 PM)
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19004851 - 10/20/13 05:10 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quit dodging, and answer the question.
Quote:
The question: How can anything be independent of nature, per the definition of independent/independence?
Can nature create/cause unnatural things? Per the definition of nature, it can't, only humans can produce unnatural things.
Here is an examples of why I believe the definition of the word (nature) is flawed:
Quote:
Example one: If an <insert creature/or what you want here> created society, thought the exact same thing as humans, built structures exactly like humans, and were human-like in every possible way, it's natural.
Therefore, if an <insert creature/or what you want here> made the concept of ownership, it would be "natural"... If humans do it though, it's unnatural. Why (besides a flawed definition)?
Independence of nature is a contradiction in itself.
Quote:
Definitions:
Quote:
Definition of Nature: naΒ·ture 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.
Quote:
Definition of Independent:
inΒ·deΒ·pendΒ·ent 1. free from outside control; 2. not requiring or relying on something else
We rely on the earth, and we rely on the Sun, we rely on naturally produced molecules, proteins, and dna. Unless you're saying, those things aren't nature/natural? It's the same thing with owning/to own, you're still reliant on nature, because without nature, you wouldn't be here, or be able to produce a concept of ownership, or own anything, still depending on nature. The only way we could be independent of nature, is if we were able to produce "free" energy, and produce the needed amount of physical matter (and some would argue that wouldn't be independent as, you still relied on nature to produce it (and you now are dependent on something else)), to satiate our needs.
Edited by rsbattle (10/20/13 07:13 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]
#19007015 - 10/21/13 03:01 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: If you don't see a rebuttal immediately following your supposed points of contention then it was probably already rebutted in the previous pages.
at the words italicized.
We could likewise say that the lines of reasoning I put forth regarding these points of contention were in response to comments you made that were probably already presented in the previous pages, so why didn't that stop you from posting them now, eh?
Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. You invested time in following a set of points of contention. You then abandoned them. Making a shoddy excuse about how they were probably already rebutted doesn't fly. It's intellectually dishonest.
My two posts are still there, and I made it easier for you to identify which parts of them are ongoing points of contention by pointing them out for you. If you need me to, in order to ensure that you're not abandoning points of contention and being intellectually dishonest about doing so, I can initiate a numbering system, and present each and every one of them for you, with a corresponding number, along with the context for each in which you were involved in debating them.
Bad excuses can't do the hard work of sticking with your ideas in the face of criticism, my friend.
--------------------
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]
#19007371 - 10/21/13 07:34 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Seems like a reasonable request. I seriously doubt he's going to be up for it however. (speaking of addressing each point by number)
-------------------- "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
|
|