|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19007469 - 10/21/13 08:25 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
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.
Please do, because afaik all of your points have been rebutted.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
#19007472 - 10/21/13 08:26 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rsbattle said: 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.
Sure they are, just idea's or thoughts of it aren't natural.
Just because something is unnatural doesn't make it inaccessible.
Being Independent from nature is in reference to the thoughts and ideas you have of yourself.
This carries with it the presupposition that self is but an idea or thought.
A self that owns nature is independent of nature, in thought and concept.
All of this has been shown to be true using various definitions, so I really don't see what you have left to argue about unless you have evidence to provide to the contrary.
Same with FWG, provide evidence to the contrary if you want to contend the points of evidence presented.
Edited by teknix (10/21/13 08:40 AM)
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19008342 - 10/21/13 12:32 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What about the ideas or thoughts that make up the definitions of natural/unnatural? What would you label that?
Is it just that the idea or thought becomes apart from nature once humans begin conceptualizing; but isn't necessarily apart from nature in action/existence, just thought? The mental image of water is apart from nature... but water is natural, however any thoughts or conceptions that build our understanding are unnatural?
The thought of nature is apart from nature so how does that work?
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#19009311 - 10/21/13 04:25 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:Sure they are, just idea's or thoughts of it aren't natural.
According to the definitions, they would be natural, unless a HUMAN thought them.
Quote:
teknix said: Just because something is unnatural doesn't make it inaccessible.
I don't think anyone has posited that.
Quote:
teknix said: Being Independent from nature is in reference to the thoughts and ideas you have of yourself.
Yet, the definitions don't agree with you, and that's not how you originally argued it though, you're changing what you said.
Quote:
teknix said: if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.
Except, that's also wrong. It's only when Humans, do it, that it's "unnatural". If any other animal thought, or, thinks they own something (even if they use the same exact concepts as us), it would be natural. So, why is it unnatural, except for a flawed definition of nature/natural?
Quote:
teknix said: Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.
Except that doesn't follow. It could simply be flawed logic.
This also carries with it the presumption that ownership/to own, is a human creation, and not mimicked behavior, or labeled instinct.
Quote:
teknix said: In nature one object doesn't own another object,
Per the definition of ownership/owning, they do own objects. They just have not labeled it ownership.
Quote:
teknix said: A self that owns nature is independent of nature, in thought and concept.
You're changing the argument, even though the definitions don't agree with you, or their conclusion.
How would ownership make them independent of nature, when their thoughts, and bodies still rely on nature?
Quote:
teknix said: All of this has been shown to be true using various definitions, so I really don't see what you have left to argue about unless you have evidence to provide to the contrary.
Same with FWG, provide evidence to the contrary if you want to contend the points of evidence presented.
We both have provided evidence to the contrary, yet, you've ignored most of it. Just like the post I'm replying to right now, you ignored most of what I said, and picked one thing out (that doesn't even agree with your point).
Edited by rsbattle (10/21/13 05:32 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 1
#19009385 - 10/21/13 04:47 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Seldom have I seen the goalposts moved so much in one debate.
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: johnm214]
#19009599 - 10/21/13 05:34 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Seldom have I seen the goalposts moved so much in one debate.
Even that isn't helping him.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
#19010880 - 10/21/13 09:40 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rsbattle said:
Quote:
teknix said:Sure they are, just idea's or thoughts of it aren't natural.
According to the definitions, they would be natural, unless a HUMAN thought them.
Quote:
teknix said: Just because something is unnatural doesn't make it inaccessible.
I don't think anyone has posited that.
Quote:
teknix said: Being Independent from nature is in reference to the thoughts and ideas you have of yourself.
Yet, the definitions don't agree with you, and that's not how you originally argued it though, you're changing what you said.
Quote:
teknix said: if you think to own anything you are not a part of nature, but an idea that you made up to separate from nature.
Except, that's also wrong. It's only when Humans, do it, that it's "unnatural". If any other animal thought, or, thinks they own something (even if they use the same exact concepts as us), it would be natural. So, why is it unnatural, except for a flawed definition of nature/natural?
Quote:
teknix said: Therefore if you think you are something separate to own parts of nature that owner cannot be nature for nature could not own itself.
Except that doesn't follow. It could simply be flawed logic.
This also carries with it the presumption that ownership/to own, is a human creation, and not mimicked behavior, or labeled instinct.
Quote:
teknix said: In nature one object doesn't own another object,
Per the definition of ownership/owning, they do own objects. They just have not labeled it ownership.
Quote:
teknix said: A self that owns nature is independent of nature, in thought and concept.
You're changing the argument, even though the definitions don't agree with you, or their conclusion.
How would ownership make them independent of nature, when their thoughts, and bodies still rely on nature?
Quote:
teknix said: All of this has been shown to be true using various definitions, so I really don't see what you have left to argue about unless you have evidence to provide to the contrary.
Same with FWG, provide evidence to the contrary if you want to contend the points of evidence presented.
We both have provided evidence to the contrary, yet, you've ignored most of it. Just like the post I'm replying to right now, you ignored most of what I said, and picked one thing out (that doesn't even agree with your point).
If you define nature it should become apparent as to why thoughts, ideas and concepts are not considered natural.
I haven't changed the argument, I've said the same thing many different ways.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#19010887 - 10/21/13 09:42 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sse said: What about the ideas or thoughts that make up the definitions of natural/unnatural? What would you label that?
Is it just that the idea or thought becomes apart from nature once humans begin conceptualizing; but isn't necessarily apart from nature in action/existence, just thought? The mental image of water is apart from nature... but water is natural, however any thoughts or conceptions that build our understanding are unnatural?
The thought of nature is apart from nature so how does that work?
It would still be unnatural.
Maybe you feel unnatural has negative connotations or something?
It's not really that big of a deal for thoughts to be unnatural.
I mean what are you guys really defending here? ("Your" thoughts.)
|
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]
#19011620 - 10/22/13 12:27 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So your position on all this is unnatural because you thought it up?
-------------------- "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]
#19012496 - 10/22/13 08:12 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, I wasn't born with this position.
|
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]
#19012565 - 10/22/13 08:35 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you're saying anything one thinks is unnatural? It's an odd position to take on life. How is it useful to think of it in this fashion?
-------------------- "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]
#19012737 - 10/22/13 09:28 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Please do, because afaik all of your points have been rebutted.
It's obviously the narcolepsy then.
#1
Quote:
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. 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?
Your response:
Quote:
Contending the argument requires evidence to the contrary, or there is not a true contention to the argument (premise) presented.
My response:
Quote:
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.
You failed to respond.
I've suggested you abandoned the point of contention because, when challenged on your point of view regarding it, you did not actually respond to what I presented; you simply repeated the exact same thing. I specifically asked you to explain the discrepancy between the common definition of the word "contend" and the way in which you were using it. You didn't do that. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#2
Quote:
Yes I have [shown ownership to be more than an idea or concept, and as such, that it fits the definition of natural]. A state of denial on your part doesn't change the fact that I've presented lines of reasoning and evidence. It's not my fault if you cannot follow through and actually demonstrate that they are invalid. It isn't my fault if you abandon the points of contention. Your claim that I'm "arguing by assertion" and that I haven't shown it to be more isn't based in the facts of how this debate has progressed. If it were, you'd clearly be able to demonstrate it ideologically.
You failed to respond.
I contented your suggestion that I haven't presented evidence and lines of reasoning for my point of view on the matter, and asserted that, if your claim were correct, then you'd be capable of demonstrating it in ideological terms. You never responded back. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#3
Quote:
There's no connection between the notion that ownership necessitates both an owner and that which is owned and your "if the owner is only in thought". Ownership is defined and measured through the act of possession, not through the presence of a thought in the owner's head that says "I am owning". Therefore, it doesn't matter.
You failed to respond.
I proclaimed that there is no connection between what you were saying and the actual definition of ownership, explaining my line of reasoning for my claim. You never responded to this line of reasoning. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#4
Quote:
Naturally, I have provided at every turn lines of reasoning that support my point of view, and I have presented what I consider to be evidence for these lines of reasoning. It's one thing to claim that i have asserted this without any rational justification; however, it's of a different matter entirely to demonstrate it. A judgment as to the rationality or irrationality of a particular assertion exists entirely within the domain of ideological thought, so, clearly, it's possible to demonstrate in ideological discussion that lack of rational justification, of course, if that lack exists in the first place. Will this be another point of contention that you abandon?
You failed to respond.
You had made the claim that the entirety of my actions in regards to your point of view on the matter was to merely assert that you were wrong without any rational justification. I followed up by pointing out that judgment as to rationality is solely an ideological act, therefore the judgment is capable of being demonstrated in ideological discussion. You did not substantiate your claim as to the irrationality of my justification for my claims. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#5
Quote:
Yes, ownership as a manifestation of behavior is behavior. Ownership is an act as ownership is the state of being an owner, which is defined as someone who owns, which is defined as having or holding for oneself. Therefore, an owner possesses something, by which he is considered to be an owner, therefore he is engaging in ownership.
That is the definition. Territoriality in animals and ownership in humans, as behavior, are indistinguishable from each other. Not synonymous - indistinguishable. The question of how humans have symbolized this action that they witnessed in both animals and themselves through conceptualization, while interesting in its own right, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not ownership actually exists or if it is natural. Therefore, your assertion that ownership requires thought in order to exist is clearly invalid, as the common definition of the word ownership bases itself on this behavior and not the presence of thoughts. Should I expect that you will abandon this point of contention?
You failed to respond.
You had claimed that ownership requires thought and that, as such, I was incorrectly suggesting that territoriality and ownership were synonymous. I cited the dictionary to demonstrate what ownership is, and, subsequently, how your claim that it requires thought is not relevant to the concept of ownership. As you did not respond, you provided no insight how your claim bears relevance to the concept of ownership. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#6
Quote:
Show me one instance in which I repeated your argument as if it were in contention of your argument. Unless, of course, you intend to abandon this point of contention as well.
You failed to respond.
You had specifically I claimed that I was only repeating your argument as though it were actually a contention of your argument. I asked you to show me where. You didn't. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#7
Quote:
No, I simply reiterated my claims as they remained unaddressed by you. As to your claim that they "have already been found to be illogical", I think it falls unto you to substantiate this claim by pointing to the part of the thread in which they were demonstrated to be illogical. Once again, a question of rationality or irrationality expresses itself through a line of reasoning, which needs to be present within the ideological debate. So, it's either time for substantiation or another abandonment of a point of contention.
You failed to respond.
You said that I was only rehashing claims that had already been proven to be illogical. I asked you for substantiation of this by actually pointing to the part of the thread where they were found to be irrational, so we could analyze if it were actually the case. You didn't respond back... Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#8
Quote:
No, I only see how you cherry-picked the definition of the word ownership in a misguided attempt to prove your point. 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.
Your response:
Quote:
It's not a misguided attempt, the point is proven unless you provide conflicting evidence to the contrary.
My response:
Quote:
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.
You failed to respond.
You had tried to demonstrate that ownership is unnatural through highlighting the definition of the legal right of ownership. I responded back with reasoning as to the difference of this legal right and ownership itself. You responded back by claiming that your point was proven until I provided evidence. I then demonstrated to you which part of my post constituted the evidence that I provided for my criticism of your point. You never addressed that evidence. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#9
Quote:
Legal rights concerning ownership are an abstraction formulated by humans to regulate within themselves their acts of ownership. It is only applicable in defining notions like "stealing" or "theft" to the extent that it makes itself applicable. Ownership itself exists by its own right regardless. Abandon or no?
You failed to respond.
You had posed a set of questions pertaining to scenarios in which something is taken from nature, and if it constituted theft. I, in turn, explained to you the difference between the legal right of ownership, from which concepts such as stealing and theft are derived, and ownership itself, which exists regardless of these abstractions. You never commented. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
So, there you have it, nine points of contention that you abandoned. As to your claim that they were proactively rebutted in the past, it'll be necessary for you to demonstrate this by finding and quoting what you consider to be the rebuttal to the corresponding point of contention, as numbered here, as well as an explanation for how you feel it rebuts the present point of contention you're referring to.
Sounds a lot like heavy lifting, but that's what happens when you abandon points of contention and have to play catch up.
--------------------
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] 1
#19012969 - 10/22/13 10:36 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I admire your tenacity.
-------------------- "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
|
rsbattle
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19013458 - 10/22/13 12:16 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: If you define nature it should become apparent as to why thoughts, ideas and concepts are not considered natural.
I haven't changed the argument, I've said the same thing many different ways.
I didn't argue that those things aren't unnatural, for HUMANS, they're natural for any animals/things that aren't human, or human made/created.
Therefore, thoughts, ideas, and concepts can be natural, even if humans think about them, as long as humans didn't create them.
Prove that humans created, or caused them.
You still dodged most of it though, so I'll ask this simple question, that will either debunk your whole point, or prove it. Will you answer the question though, given that you've dodged it multiple times already?
Quote:
teknix said: How can anything be independent of nature, per the definition of independent/independence, unless you're arguing for the supernatural?
Edited by rsbattle (10/22/13 01:23 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19025756 - 10/24/13 01:36 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: Please do, because afaik all of your points have been rebutted.
It's obviously the narcolepsy then.
#1
Quote:
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. 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?
Your response:
Quote:
Contending the argument requires evidence to the contrary, or there is not a true contention to the argument (premise) presented.
My response:
Quote:
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.
You failed to respond.
I've suggested you abandoned the point of contention because, when challenged on your point of view regarding it, you did not actually respond to what I presented; you simply repeated the exact same thing. I specifically asked you to explain the discrepancy between the common definition of the word "contend" and the way in which you were using it. You didn't do that. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#2
Quote:
Yes I have [shown ownership to be more than an idea or concept, and as such, that it fits the definition of natural]. A state of denial on your part doesn't change the fact that I've presented lines of reasoning and evidence. It's not my fault if you cannot follow through and actually demonstrate that they are invalid. It isn't my fault if you abandon the points of contention. Your claim that I'm "arguing by assertion" and that I haven't shown it to be more isn't based in the facts of how this debate has progressed. If it were, you'd clearly be able to demonstrate it ideologically.
You failed to respond.
I contented your suggestion that I haven't presented evidence and lines of reasoning for my point of view on the matter, and asserted that, if your claim were correct, then you'd be capable of demonstrating it in ideological terms. You never responded back. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#3
Quote:
There's no connection between the notion that ownership necessitates both an owner and that which is owned and your "if the owner is only in thought". Ownership is defined and measured through the act of possession, not through the presence of a thought in the owner's head that says "I am owning". Therefore, it doesn't matter.
You failed to respond.
I proclaimed that there is no connection between what you were saying and the actual definition of ownership, explaining my line of reasoning for my claim. You never responded to this line of reasoning. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#4
Quote:
Naturally, I have provided at every turn lines of reasoning that support my point of view, and I have presented what I consider to be evidence for these lines of reasoning. It's one thing to claim that i have asserted this without any rational justification; however, it's of a different matter entirely to demonstrate it. A judgment as to the rationality or irrationality of a particular assertion exists entirely within the domain of ideological thought, so, clearly, it's possible to demonstrate in ideological discussion that lack of rational justification, of course, if that lack exists in the first place. Will this be another point of contention that you abandon?
You failed to respond.
You had made the claim that the entirety of my actions in regards to your point of view on the matter was to merely assert that you were wrong without any rational justification. I followed up by pointing out that judgment as to rationality is solely an ideological act, therefore the judgment is capable of being demonstrated in ideological discussion. You did not substantiate your claim as to the irrationality of my justification for my claims. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#5
Quote:
Yes, ownership as a manifestation of behavior is behavior. Ownership is an act as ownership is the state of being an owner, which is defined as someone who owns, which is defined as having or holding for oneself. Therefore, an owner possesses something, by which he is considered to be an owner, therefore he is engaging in ownership.
That is the definition. Territoriality in animals and ownership in humans, as behavior, are indistinguishable from each other. Not synonymous - indistinguishable. The question of how humans have symbolized this action that they witnessed in both animals and themselves through conceptualization, while interesting in its own right, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not ownership actually exists or if it is natural. Therefore, your assertion that ownership requires thought in order to exist is clearly invalid, as the common definition of the word ownership bases itself on this behavior and not the presence of thoughts. Should I expect that you will abandon this point of contention?
You failed to respond.
You had claimed that ownership requires thought and that, as such, I was incorrectly suggesting that territoriality and ownership were synonymous. I cited the dictionary to demonstrate what ownership is, and, subsequently, how your claim that it requires thought is not relevant to the concept of ownership. As you did not respond, you provided no insight how your claim bears relevance to the concept of ownership. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#6
Quote:
Show me one instance in which I repeated your argument as if it were in contention of your argument. Unless, of course, you intend to abandon this point of contention as well.
You failed to respond.
You had specifically I claimed that I was only repeating your argument as though it were actually a contention of your argument. I asked you to show me where. You didn't. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#7
Quote:
No, I simply reiterated my claims as they remained unaddressed by you. As to your claim that they "have already been found to be illogical", I think it falls unto you to substantiate this claim by pointing to the part of the thread in which they were demonstrated to be illogical. Once again, a question of rationality or irrationality expresses itself through a line of reasoning, which needs to be present within the ideological debate. So, it's either time for substantiation or another abandonment of a point of contention.
You failed to respond.
You said that I was only rehashing claims that had already been proven to be illogical. I asked you for substantiation of this by actually pointing to the part of the thread where they were found to be irrational, so we could analyze if it were actually the case. You didn't respond back... Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#8
Quote:
No, I only see how you cherry-picked the definition of the word ownership in a misguided attempt to prove your point. 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.
Your response:
Quote:
It's not a misguided attempt, the point is proven unless you provide conflicting evidence to the contrary.
My response:
Quote:
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.
You failed to respond.
You had tried to demonstrate that ownership is unnatural through highlighting the definition of the legal right of ownership. I responded back with reasoning as to the difference of this legal right and ownership itself. You responded back by claiming that your point was proven until I provided evidence. I then demonstrated to you which part of my post constituted the evidence that I provided for my criticism of your point. You never addressed that evidence. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
#9
Quote:
Legal rights concerning ownership are an abstraction formulated by humans to regulate within themselves their acts of ownership. It is only applicable in defining notions like "stealing" or "theft" to the extent that it makes itself applicable. Ownership itself exists by its own right regardless. Abandon or no?
You failed to respond.
You had posed a set of questions pertaining to scenarios in which something is taken from nature, and if it constituted theft. I, in turn, explained to you the difference between the legal right of ownership, from which concepts such as stealing and theft are derived, and ownership itself, which exists regardless of these abstractions. You never commented. Therefore, point of contention abandoned.
So, there you have it, nine points of contention that you abandoned. As to your claim that they were proactively rebutted in the past, it'll be necessary for you to demonstrate this by finding and quoting what you consider to be the rebuttal to the corresponding point of contention, as numbered here, as well as an explanation for how you feel it rebuts the present point of contention you're referring to.
Sounds a lot like heavy lifting, but that's what happens when you abandon points of contention and have to play catch up. 
Why do you label each one as if they are all points of contention ?
I respond with a question or answer in each instance.
You have one point that you could consider a point of contention and it has already been previously rebutted, the other points aren't points until found that it is true that I avoided any point of contention, which it hasn't been found.
I fail to respond because the questions have already been rebutted.
Ownership hasn't been shown to exist in an of itself, it has only been claimed to by you.
The evidence points to the contrary when in fact every instance of "ownership" is dependent upon 2 things, (which has been explained many times already), an owner and something to be owned. So without an "owner" or something to be "owned" there is not really ownership.
The rest of your B.S. is you dodging me . . .
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning. 
You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.
Good Game.

And throwing out red herrings to distract everyone after the fact you admitted ownership is a concept.
You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that it is an existence phenomena dependent only upon itself, , nor did you provide any evidence for your assertions. 
IE; The games been over for a while now . . .
|
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
#19026034 - 10/24/13 02:25 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: And throwing out red herrings to distract everyone after the fact you admitted ownership is a concept.
You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that it is an existence phenomena dependent only upon itself, , nor did you provide any evidence for your assertions. 
IE; The games been over for a while now . . .
Ever going to answer my question, or are you going to keep dodging?
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19027691 - 10/24/13 07:19 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
this thread is entrapment :p
To think/label is to create independence
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#19028793 - 10/24/13 10:45 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A verb can't be shown to exist in and of itself.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "Youβre not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." βAyishat Akanbi
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19029430 - 10/25/13 02:41 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I even think, ownership as a judicial 'concept', seen as 'agreement' can be found in nature. Once a lion defended its bait against a hyena, the hyena won't try to get the bait again from the lion, at least for a while, and so the hyena agrees on a concept of ownership.
|
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]
#19029616 - 10/25/13 04:59 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Why do you label each one as if they are all points of contention ?
Because, by definition, they are all subjects that have arisen within the course of the debate that we have taken differing points of view on. I refer you to point of contention #1, concerning the dispute over the definition of the word contention, which you have left abandoned. If you had not abandoned point of contention #1, it would be no mystery as to why they've been labeled points of contention.
Quote:
I respond with a question or answer in each instance.
I highlighted in my presentation of the numbered points of contention a response from your part, if it existed, or the lack of a response from you, for every single point of contention. This thread, as I'm sure you are aware, contains all the posts that have been made, in chronological order. Therefore, your claim that you respond in each instance is invalid until you substantiate it by quoting the response you provided in each instance. In fact, this qualifies as a new point of contention.
#10
Quote:
fireworks_god said: I highlighted in my presentation of the numbered points of contention a response from your part, if it existed, or the lack of a response from you, for every single point of contention. This thread, as I'm sure you are aware, contains all the posts that have been made, in chronological order. Therefore, your claim that you respond in each instance is invalid until you substantiate it by quoting the response you provided in each instance. In fact, this qualifies as a new point of contention.
You had said that you respond in each instance with a question or an answer. It's your responsibility to substantiate this claim. If you do not do this, you will have abandoned the point of contention.
Quote:
You have one point that you could consider a point of contention...
Nope. You cannot simultaneously abandon point of contention #1 and continue to comment on whether or not something qualifies as a point of contention. It's the definition of intellectual dishonesty. Until you address point of contention #1, such assertions have absolutely no value whatsoever in the context of an ideological debate.
Quote:
...and it has already been previously rebutted, the other points aren't points until found that it is true that I avoided any point of contention, which it hasn't been found.
Yes, it has been found. They've been identified on the basis of us discussing a particular matter and taking opposing sides and numbered for the sake of keeping you honest. Furthermore, your claim that they've already been rebutted carries no value without substantiation, in this case by citing the specific part of the thread in which you rebutted, in essence, the same point of contention. This fact was already demonstrated to you.
Quote:
I fail to respond because the questions have already been rebutted.
 Then, where's the substantiation for this claim? Unsubstantiated claims mean nothing.
Quote:
Ownership hasn't been shown to exist in an of itself, it has only been claimed to by you.
I claimed this, and then I provided a line of reasoning and cited evidence for this claim. That's what ideological debate is. When it comes to ideological debate, do you know what it means when someone abandons the points of contention in which they originally participated, and makes unsubstantiated claims about how they actually didn't avoid the discussion?
Quote:
The evidence points to the contrary when in fact every instance of "ownership" is dependent upon 2 things, (which has been explained many times already), an owner and something to be owned. So without an "owner" or something to be "owned" there is not really ownership.
Nope. Repeating what you've already stated as it pertains to point of contention #3, while abandoning what developed afterwards as it pertains to point of contention #3, carries no value in an ideological debate. It means nothing for you to repeat it. If you wish to discuss what you've just repeated in an intellectually honest manner, then you can't simultaneously abandon point of contention #3.
Quote:
The rest of your B.S. is you dodging me . . .
Nice doublespeak. Too bad it carries no value, as I've never abandoned a point of contention. This has been documented. It's your responsibility to indicate examples in which I avoided directly responding to a point you've raised in this thread. In fact, in the spirit of documentation, I think we've discovered a new point of contention! Yay! 
#11
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Too bad it carries no value, as I've never abandoned a point of contention. This has been documented. It's your responsibility to indicate examples in which I avoided directly responding to a point you've raised in this thread.
You had claimed that nearly the entirety of my posting was simply me dodging you. I indicated that it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim by demonstrating examples in which I failed to directly respond to points you've raised in this thread. If you fail to substantiate this claim, then the point of contention will have been abandoned.
Quote:
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning. 
You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.
Good Game.

And throwing out red herrings to distract everyone after the fact you admitted ownership is a concept.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. A trip down memory lane:
Quote:
Teknix: That animals have ownership because you can correlate certain aspects that we use for ownership to them? But only a few of them right? Not the important ones which are conceptual.
fireworks_god: No, my point is that animals and humans alike manifest exactly the same behavior, the behavior which we've conceptualized as ownership. Your value judgment that the conceptual aspect is important is baseless because it has absolutely no bearing on the manifestation of the behavior, as the behavior itself manifests from a level that precedes and operates independently of the ability to conceptualize, both in humans as well as in animals.
Teknix: Your missing the conceptualization of calling something mine, and having the majority of others agree with that assessment. The natural society doesn't agree that a pride is his, other lions strongly disagree. They don't even consider themselves a lion afaik. Let alone consider themselves owning something, which that is the entire point, ownership requires a conceptualization to identify the item as belonging to a mental construct. Without that construct, created separate from nature, an item isn't being owned. A lion is one with nature, he doesn't get to choose where the pride or land goes when he dies.
fireworks_god: The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning.  Whether or not the society of a particular species recognizes to a greater degree a particular act of ownership as compared to the society of another species has absolutely no bearing on whether or not ownership actually exists, either.
Teknix: You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.
Good Game.

fireworks_god: That's quite the sense of humor you have there. I've been saying since the beginning of the discussion that a concept of ownership exists. The matter being debated is if the concept is derived from a preexistent phenomenon. I suggested that ownership is a natural phenomenon which was subsequently symbolized by humans as the concept of ownership, which you disagreed with.
Now, once again, the definition of the concept does not require that a majority agrees with the notion that someone is actually owning, as you suggested. As you made the claim, you can substantiate it. Well, you can try to. While you're at it, did you agree with my assessment of what I considered to be your inaccurate usage of the phrase "slippery slope"?
So, what's your point, exactly? You dug into the middle of the thread to show us how I stated the concept of ownership doesn't include the notion that a majority of people have to agree with a particular act of ownership in order for ownership to take place, after having clearly stated that I consider that the concept of ownership exists along with the behavior of ownership? And you, in typical, terribly misguided fashion, declared triumphantly that I just admited that it was a concept, completely oblivious to what you and I were both just discussing about whether or not the behavior can be considered ownership? And, somehow, magically, this means that I'm making up red herrings to distract everyone that I did this? I never, in the course of the entire thread, denied that ownership exists as a concept, and we've never debated whether or not it exists as a concept.
Hilariously, you dug up three points of contention that you abandoned, as well as demonstrated that you're capable of going back through the thread if you think it's in your benefit, but not to substantiate the claims you're been challenged on now. Since it's old news that you abandoned the point of contention that a majority opinion isn't relevant to the concept of ownership and the point of contention that I was arguing from a slippery slope, I won't trouble you further by numbering them up. There's plenty more of them buried back there to go along with them. However, this one, since you specifically brought it up, definitely needs a number.
#12
Quote:
fireworks_god said: I never, in the course of the entire thread, denied that ownership exists as a concept, and we've never debated whether or not it exists as a concept.
You claimed it was somehow relevant to the discussion that I stated that ownership exists as a concept, and I countered that I never said anything different, demonstrating that it's irrelevant to what was actually being discussed. If you cannot substantiate how you called attention to this fact as though it were something I needed to distract from by quoting me denying that ownership exists as a concept or by showing that we were ever debating whether or not it existed as a concept, then this point of contention will have been abandoned by you.
Quote:
You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that it is an existence phenomena dependent only upon itself, , nor did you provide any evidence for your assertions. 
Repeating what you've previously said as it pertains to point of contention #2, without actually addressing what has since developed as it pertains to point of contention #2, means absolutely nothing. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim after a request for substantiation is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
IE; The games been over for a while now . . .
Maybe in imagination land, but, in real life, you have nine abandoned points of contention you've failed to respond to, and three more on the deck. No one cares about your empty attitude and unsubstantiated claims. It's your responsibility to put up or shut up.
--------------------
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
|
|