Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | Next >
Offlinersbattle
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19030270 - 10/25/13 09:51 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Ownership hasn't been shown to exist in an of itself, it has only been claimed to by you.





So, according to your own words, ownership can't be independent from nature.


Edited by rsbattle (10/25/13 09:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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: Rahz]
    #19035317 - 10/26/13 11:51 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

"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"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19035952 - 10/26/13 02:26 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Then look at it this way, if nature does own then everything you think you own, was stolen from nature. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, everything was stolen from nature then right?

Also according to that definition, if you steal something then it is rightfully yours. Is that really how ownership works among humans? The biggest baddest guy can take what he wants unless you can stop him and then it is rightfully his?





Quote:


own�er�ship  (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.






Quote:


pos�sess  (p-zs)
tr.v. pos�sessed, pos�sess�ing, pos�sess�es
1. To have as property; own.

a. To have or possess as property:






Quote:

teknix said:
You're just renting it or using it for a time. The land you think you own isn't really yours if you have to pay for it every year, huh.

All the definitions break down at have and possess, they form a circular argument using each other to define each other.





Quote:


have  (hv)
v. had (hd), hav�ing, has (hz)
v.tr.
1.
a. To be in possession of:






Quote:

teknix said:


You can't link aggression to ownership. Aggression is an independent phenomena.





Quote:


5. Biology Displaying territoriality; defending a territory from intruders: territorial behavior; a territorial species.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/territorial





So what is constituting ownership?

Like I said, a Lion doesn't care if there are insects or birds, or much else around him other than Male Lions. That comes from aggression which is an evolutionary feat cause by aggressive animals being continually bred, because that trait is beneficial. No concepts of ownership there. You can't even show a lion to have any concepts, let alone one of ownership.

An intruder is a misnomer even, because they are generally only aggressive towards a specific intruder, rather than all intruders.





Quote:

teknix said:
concept of ownership exists.





therefore:

Quote:


nat·u·ral
ˈnaCHərəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

    1.
    existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.







As you can see from the definitions; behavior doesn't imply or even correlate to ownership, nor has it been show to. Just because something behaves territorial doesn't necessarily correlate to ownership.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19035975 - 10/26/13 02:35 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Your argument self-defeatingly labels you a thief, while being independent from nature at the same time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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]
    #19036782 - 10/26/13 05:49 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

the lion whisperer :p


nature isn't nature isn't nature isn't nature isn't; what is nature but not natural?

We see water, name it water; now it isn't natural. Is water minus thought natural? Once we think about it, name it, now it is inferring independence? 

Now take a human, remove all thoughts, make it an enlightened being. This enlightened being is a homeless beggar. Someone comes along and starts trying to take away this beings beggar bowl. The enlightened being simply holds onto the bowl and says "No", the being won't allow the other person to take the bowl. No matter how hard the person tries the enlightened being won't give it up. In action the being is defending something possessed. The enlightened being never thinks or defines it's actions. Is this a natural(aka unnatural) form of ownership? Or is it just not ownership at all; since the being engaging in the act of possession and reiteration doesn't acknowledge it? Once a human steps in and acknowledges/names then the act is made unnatural?


--------------------
"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"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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: Sse]
    #19036936 - 10/26/13 06:22 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
"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"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #19037072 - 10/26/13 06:49 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
"independence"




Confused you. I was referring to the idea that ownership hasn't been shown to exist in an of itself. Nobody thinks a verb exists in and of itself so this whole thread seems to be a red herring.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

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: Rahz]
    #19042951 - 10/27/13 09:52 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

im always confused lol''


--------------------
"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"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


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]
    #19051275 - 10/29/13 10:11 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
As you can see from the definitions; behavior doesn't imply or even correlate to ownership, nor has it been show to. Just because something behaves territorial doesn't necessarily correlate to ownership.




Once more, repeating what you've already stated regarding a point of contention, while ignoring what happens afterwards as it pertains to that point of contention, has no value in an ideological debate. It's absolutely meaningless, and it's also intellectually dishonest. Allow me to demonstrate:

Quote:

teknix said:
Then look at it this way, if nature does own then everything you think you own, was stolen from nature. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, everything was stolen from nature then right?

Also according to that definition, if you steal something then it is rightfully yours. Is that really how ownership works among humans? The biggest baddest guy can take what he wants unless you can stop him and then it is rightfully his?

own�er�ship  (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.

pos�sess  (p-zs)
tr.v. pos�sessed, pos�sess�ing, pos�sess�es
1. To have as property; own.

a. To have or possess as property:






My response:

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Fundamentally, yes, that is exactly what it means. Humans, being clever and ingenious monkeys, changed who "the biggest baddest guy" is and how he makes his decisions. Maybe that's what confuses so much your sense of what ownership is.




You failed to respond.

So, right off the bat, you've called our attention to a point of contention that you abandoned. Now, ten pages later, you unearth what you said then with no explanation regarding how it relates to what's being discussed now. It's another point of contention that you've abandoned, but, rather than labeling it as a new one, since the the thread is chock-full of points of contention that you've abandoned, I'll correlate what you suggested then to the points of contention that I've presently labeled, the ones you're presently abandoning.

In this case, we're talking about points of contention #8 and #9. They're directly relevant to what you posted then; however, what you posted then does not address what I presented regarding these points of contention, so, therefore, what you posted then does not constitute a continuation of these points of contention. They constitute a reiteration of what you have presently said regarding these points of contention, which I directly responded to, which you then subsequently abandoned.
In simpler terms, you didn't bring anything new to the table by quoting them. You failed to respond to these points of contention, you failed to present a point of contention that I personally abandoned, and you failed to bring forth a new point of contention, so, as I said before, repeating them carries no value in the framework of an ideological debate.

Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #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.




Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #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 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.




My comments pertaining to these two points of contention act in direct response to the ideas that stood behind what you've quoted yourself as having said on page 24. My point of view on these two points of contention is the same as the one that I alluded to with my response to what you said on page 24, which you then failed to respond to. The ball is still in your court, and, as of now, you're still abandoning the discussion of these ideas.

Let's move on to your next quotation:

Quote:

teknix said:
You're just renting it or using it for a time. The land you think you own isn't really yours if you have to pay for it every year, huh.

All the definitions break down at have and possess, they form a circular argument using each other to define each other.

have  (hv)
v. had (hd), hav�ing, has (hz)
v.tr.
1.
a. To be in possession of:





This statement wasn't a part of our exchange, but a response to someone else's comments. Nonetheless, the matter of the definitions of the words "to possess" and "to have", as they relate to the definition of the word "ownership", has already been specifically covered between us in a point of contention. Point of contention #5 contains the dispute that we've had regarding these definitions and the way they relate, and the lines of reasoning that I've presented within this point of contention have not been addressed by you.

Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #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.




In this sense, it's irrelevant how the definitions of the words "to have" and "to possess" refer to each other, and the fact that you're absolutely wrong about the manner in which they refer to each other, falsely claiming that it's a matter of circular argument, while suggestive enough of the extent of the flaws in your thinking on the matter of ownership, is still irrelevant. To possess is to have as belonging to one, as one's property. To possess is a specific type of having, not having in and of itself. Furthermore, ownership, to place the matter back into the context of the debate, is the state of being an owner, which is defined as someone who owns, which is defined as having or holding for oneself. Inaccurate claims as to the self-referential nature of the definitions of the words "to have" and "to possess" do not change that or even address it in the first place.

You've failed to present anything in contention of the lines of reasoning I've provided regarding this point, so, as of yet, point of contention #5 remains abandoned by you.

Let's move forward:

Quote:

teknix said:
You can't link aggression to ownership. Aggression is an independent phenomena.

5. Biology Displaying territoriality; defending a territory from intruders: territorial behavior; a territorial species.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/territorial





Once again, this quotation didn't make part of our exchange, yet, coincidentally enough, it directly relates to a point of contention between us that you've abandoned.

Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #5:
Quote:


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.





The statement as quoted doesn't address what has developed concerning the point of contention because it makes no claim as to the association between aggression and territoriality, so there's no idea provided that implicates that territoriality and ownership are not the same thing. The suggestion that you cannot link aggression to ownership says nothing about the relationship between territoriality and ownership. You'll need to build upon this in order for it to qualify as a continuation of point of contention #5.

Quote:

teknix said:
So what is constituting ownership?

Like I said, a Lion doesn't care if there are insects or birds, or much else around him other than Male Lions. That comes from aggression which is an evolutionary feat cause by aggressive animals being continually bred, because that trait is beneficial. No concepts of ownership there. You can't even show a lion to have any concepts, let alone one of ownership.

An intruder is a misnomer even, because they are generally only aggressive towards a specific intruder, rather than all intruders.





This quote didn't take place in our debate, but rather made part of a conversation with someone else. Nonetheless, point of contention #3 directly addresses the idea you mentioned that the lion has no concept of ownership.

Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #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 haven't addressed that line of reasoning, so, until you do, it remains abandoned by you.

Next:

Quote:

teknix said:
concept of ownership exists.

therefore:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCHərəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

    1.
    existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.





My response:

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Couldn't agree more. So, now maybe you could redirect your attention to the fact that what we've actually been debating the entire time is the question of whether or not the conceptualization of ownership is derived from a natural phenomenon? :lol:




Which is a nice segue into how this quotation is simply you repeating what you've already stated as it pertains to point of contention #12 without actually responding to what has already developed regarding point of contention #12.

Excerpt from the text pertaining to point of contention #12:
Quote:


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.





The entire long-ass course that our debate has taken has centered on the phenomenon of ownership, not on whether or not the concept of ownership is natural or unnatural. The idea that you've quoted here that the concept of ownership is a concept, which thereby means the concept of ownership is unnatural, is entirely irrelevant to what we've been debating, so repeating it has no value in this debate.


At this point, you haven't actually addressed any of the twelve points of contention that I've identified, nor have you produced a new one. These twelve points of contention are still abandoned by you, and any advancement of this debate still depends on you stopping the abandonment and actually responding with more than repeats of things I've already directly replied to, empty claims, and empty attitude.


--------------------
:redpanda:
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

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god] * 1
    #19061915 - 10/31/13 06:20 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

My response:

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Fundamentally, yes, that is exactly what it means. Humans, being clever and ingenious monkeys, changed who "the biggest baddest guy" is and how he makes his decisions. Maybe that's what confuses so much your sense of what ownership is.




You failed to respond.

So, right off the bat, you've called our attention to a point of contention that you abandoned. Now, ten pages later, you unearth what you said then with no explanation regarding how it relates to what's being discussed now. It's another point of contention that you've abandoned, but, rather than labeling it as a new one, since the the thread is chock-full of points of contention that you've abandoned, I'll correlate what you suggested then to the points of contention that I've presently labeled, the ones you're presently abandoning.





Not of your points are in opposition to the argument and are obsolete. It doesn't matter if I posted a reply to you or someone else as long as the issue was addressed. Do you have any actual arguments rather than complaints about how to proceed rather than proceeding?

The biggest baddest guy still doesn't constitute ownership nor does it provide evidence for that, which is what you have to do to convince anyone. The null hypothesis is that ownership doesn't exist naturally, only through humans, and you have to provide evidence to the contrary to truly contend it.

How do you explain that your argument self-defeatingly labels you as a thief? Does it seem right that we would consider plants and animals to be owning or having inherent rights other than what we decide to give them in concept?

I think your pretty much the only person who thinks that your argument holds any substance or logical validity. SO you switch to the whole point of contention thing to argue a non-point just to avoid positing any actual argument because you don't really have anything else to argue, or more pointedly, evidence to present.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


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]
    #19062363 - 10/31/13 09:26 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Not of your points are in opposition to the argument and are obsolete.




Ha! I don't trust your judgment, and, within the context of an ideological debate, I do not need to. Substantiate your claim with a line of reasoning. Otherwise, it's empty and meaningless. Do you know how to explain why you think the way you do?

Quote:


It doesn't matter if I posted a reply to you or someone else as long as the issue was addressed.




It matters in describing the course our debate took and whether or not specific points were directly responded to or abandoned between us, which was my point.
Furthermore, you were attempting to substantiate your claim that you had already rebutted all my points, not whether or not the issue was "addressed". I provided lines of reasoning for how those previous statements didn't actually rebut the points I raised. Is it a surprise that you are avoiding responding to those lines of reasoning? Of course not. You abandon discussing points of contention that you insert yourself into. It's a documented phenomenon.

Quote:


Do you have any actual arguments rather than complaints about how to proceed rather than proceeding?




I proceeded with those actual arguments. The problem is that you don't proceed; you abandon.
You'll find the relevant, actual arguments that I've made listed under the big, bolded numbers 1-12.
Pointing out that you're failing in your ability to proceed with discussing them isn't a complaint; it's an observation.

Quote:


The biggest baddest guy still doesn't constitute ownership nor does it provide evidence for that, which is what you have to do to convince anyone. The null hypothesis is that ownership doesn't exist naturally, only through humans, and you have to provide evidence to the contrary to truly contend it.




It's not amazing that you're capable of parroting points you've already repeated. Parrots don't really belong in ideological debate after all.
Until you respond to points of contention #3, #5, and #8, you can repeat the same bullshit as many times as you like regarding what constitutes ownership and whether or not it is natural, but it will carry absolutely no meaning in the context of this ideological debate, because you are, in effect, ignoring the criticism these ideas have already received while pretending, poorly, that they still stand on their own.
You haven't responded to them or pointed to any part of the thread where you uttered a statement that stands in as a response to them. Your failure to do so is a measurement of both the validity of your point of view as well as your intellectual honesty.

Quote:


How do you explain that your argument self-defeatingly labels you as a thief? Does it seem right that we would consider plants and animals to be owning or having inherent rights other than what we decide to give them in concept?




Squack squack. I've already answered these questions, and you've failed to respond to the lines of reasoning I've provided in contention of the ideas you're attempting to support by asking this. Points of contention #8 and #9 exist because I directly responded to these questions, and you miserably failed to respond to my direct response. By all means, though, I encourage you to squack out the same questions that I've already answered and the same ideas that I've already contended. I'm sure it's an easier effort than actually responding to them. Abandoning them might not be as intellectually honest, but it sure is easy.

Quote:


I think your pretty much the only person who thinks that your argument holds any substance or logical validity.




Logical fallacies aren't substitutions for substantiating your claims and responding to points of contention. You could at least try to be creative in your attempts to abandon the points of contention.

Quote:


SO you switch to the whole point of contention thing to argue a non-point just to avoid positing any actual argument because you don't really have anything else to argue, or more pointedly, evidence to present.




Empty posturing. Points of contention #2 and #11 directly deal with this unsubstantiated claim of yours that I'm avoiding positing an actual argument and that I haven't presented evidence. You've failed to respond to them. Why? I could speculate. Perhaps it's simply easier to pretend it all didn't happen and repeat the same things you've already said. Not honest, but easier. Unfortunately, easiness doesn't substantiate ideas; substantiation does.
Furthermore, regarding the "whole point of contention" thing, its sole purpose is to demonstrate how you're abandoning the claims and ideas that you originally put forth and committed yourself to arguing for. If you wouldn't abandon the points of contention, and would honestly respond to them, point by point, in each instance in which they arise, it would never have been necessary to create a system of tracking them. The fact that you try to make this failure on your part reflect badly on me is hilarious.

You've got twelve points of contention that you entered into and subsequently abandoned debating. You've contributed another post of empty posturing and repeated ideas and questions that have already been responded to, but no substantiation for your claims and no attempt to actually address the points of contention that you made yourself responsible for. I don't accept unsubstantiated claims and empty posturing in debate, as they are worthless and carry no meaning. It's your choice if you want to play pretend debate, entirely within the bounds of your own imagination, but, if you actually want to exchange ideas in the real world, you'll need to learn how to adapt and respond.


--------------------
:redpanda:
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

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19062889 - 10/31/13 11:25 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

You say that they are, I say that they aren't . . .

So are they or aren't they, what do you say?

Which is stronger heads up, is or is not?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


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]
    #19063189 - 10/31/13 12:40 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Amusing, but an inaccurate portrayal of what's happening in this thread. I don't know how much solace it provides you, but it certainly doesn't substantiate your claims, and it certainly doesn't constitute a response to the points of contention that you've left abandoned.
Does it constitute a withdrawal from the ideological debate? If you want to surrender, just say so.


--------------------
:redpanda:
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

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19063283 - 10/31/13 12:55 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I'm not making the claim sir, you are.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19063293 - 10/31/13 12:56 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Can you tell me what constitutes a right or rights?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDoes

Registered: 02/12/12
Posts: 2,846
Loc: Flag
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19063316 - 10/31/13 01:00 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

It might not be natural but if I don't establish ownership people will always be taking my shit! IMO if you're experiencing it, it's as natural as anything could be


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Does]
    #19064490 - 10/31/13 04:41 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Does said:
It might not be natural but if I don't establish ownership people will always be taking my shit! IMO if you're experiencing it, it's as natural as anything could be




It does seem like society imposes it upon us, however is it really necessary or does it exist only through tradition?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehusmmoor
Invitro


Registered: 04/17/11
Posts: 557
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19064738 - 10/31/13 05:21 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I'll start by admitting I haven't read this thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what's already been said, or say something that's unrelated to what you are talking about. But based on the last few posts, I want to add there is a large literature in the field of "Law and economics" that discusses the economics of contracts and property, their enforcement, etc.  Are clearly defined property rights really necessary? Modern economic law theory would say unequivocably yes. But there can be some discussion as to how to most efficiently distribute the ownership rights, because in some cases "free markets" may not be optimal, but this is really a completely different matter than the existence of property rights as such. E.g. an obvious case is monopoly. Other gray areas are copyrights, patents, etc. But these are not about whether property rights are good or bad - it's assumed they are for the good - but only about who gets them and on what terms. Can society exist without property rights? I would dare to say there is no society without at least some implicit rules about property. That rules are unwritten or unclear doesn't mean they are not there. There is some law even in the apparently most lawless societies. Also, 'primitive' tribes for instance may have many forms of egalitarian, collective use/sharing/ownership of resources, but even this practice could be said to contain some idea of ownership, as for instance, outsiders to the tribe might not be allowed to partake, etc. Just what I wanted to add, even if I am not entirely sure if I am missing the point of what the discussion is currently about. :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: husmmoor]
    #19065662 - 10/31/13 07:56 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I'll start by admitting I haven't read this thread




Pretty much off the mark, but if you read the first 3-4 pages and just multiply by 10 you'll know everything you need to about it.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


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]
    #19068688 - 11/01/13 07:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I'm not making the claim sir, you are.




You've made several claims that you've failed to substantiate. No amount of lying is going to change that:

Quote:

teknix said:
The main point in which you have not contended is that idea's are not defined as natural, and if ownership is an idea then it is not natural.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
You have never provided any evidence of your point, therefore there really wasn't a point to contend the premise, but an opinion.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
Contending the argument requires evidence to the contrary, or there is not a true contention to the argument (premise) presented.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
You can argue by assertion all you want, but the fact remains that you haven't shown ownership to be anything more than an idea or concept, and as such, does not fit into the definition of natural.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
It does matter, because for there to be ownership there has to be both an owner (self) and that which is being owned (other than self).




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
If contend means to assert that it is wrong without any rationale justification then you have done that...




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
All you have been doing is repeating my argument, which isn't in contention with my argument.





You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
I say you are giving up because you haven't contended the argument for the last 2 pages and instead have been rehashing your claims that have already been found to be illogical.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
As you can see ownership is a right that must be claimed, and without an ability to claim that right, there is not ownership.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:

I rebutted all your points of contention.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

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.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
I respond with a question or answer in each instance.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
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.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
And throwing out red herrings to distract everyone after the fact you admitted ownership is a concept.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that it is an existence phenomena dependent only upon itself, :rolleyes:, nor did you provide any evidence for your assertions.





You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
Your argument self-defeatingly labels you a thief, while being independent from nature at the same time.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
Not of your points are in opposition to the argument and are obsolete.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
The null hypothesis is that ownership doesn't exist naturally, only through humans, and you have to provide evidence to the contrary to truly contend it.




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
How do you explain that your argument self-defeatingly labels you as a thief?




You haven't substantiated this claim.

Quote:

teknix said:
O you switch to the whole point of contention thing to argue a non-point just to avoid positing any actual argument because you don't really have anything else to argue, or more pointedly, evidence to present.




You haven't substantiated this claim.


And these are just a small handful of claims that you've never substantiated. They certainly go hand in hand with all of the points of contention you've abandoned.

Quote:

teknix said:
Can you tell me what constitutes a right or rights?




You have too many questions you've left unanswered. Do you think you can worm your way out of them and act as if it's my responsibility to tell you what constitutes a right?
You've got twelve points of contention laid out for you to respond to. They've been easily identified with a numbering system that even a retard could make sense of.


--------------------
:redpanda:
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

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,707 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 7,500 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* The Ownership/Theft Paradox Anonymous 1,718 14 06/23/03 02:45 PM
by Sclorch
* Is the physical world independent of consciousness?
( 1 2 all )
Divided_Sky 3,765 27 08/25/04 11:11 AM
by Zahid
* Natural vs. synthetic drugs skaMariaPastora 2,857 16 03/19/02 01:31 AM
by rum
* Independent Verification
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Swami 10,628 162 09/05/03 07:28 AM
by tak
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,866 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Independent Truth- a road to greater empowerment and freedom
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,974 25 09/04/04 06:59 AM
by Simisu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
25,823 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.