|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#19088286 - 11/05/13 01:03 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
teknix said: To a certain extent, but the authority isn't as absolute and clear-cut as your previously posited analogy would presume.
So, in other words, you got owned, but now want to snivel?
LoL, you wish. You are only aiding my argument that ownership is independent of nature, I was testing your logic rather than conclusion.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19088307 - 11/05/13 01:11 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
teknix said: To a certain extent, but the authority isn't as absolute and clear-cut as your previously posited analogy would presume.
So, in other words, you got owned, but now want to snivel?
LoL, you wish. You are only aiding my argument that ownership is independent of nature, I was testing your logic rather than conclusion.
NO, I really didn't want you to look bad, but now you give me little choice but to say "to a certain extent" means you lost, and now you are trying the "comeback" position. Well no, I don't roll that way. You lost, and now you gonna pay.
Like a tenant recently. "To a certain extent" they owed me "X" amount. Well not just to a close estimation, it was in fact X. So they paid me that amount, and were glad of it in the end. Could have been "X" + $75 late fee.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#19088336 - 11/05/13 01:26 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The power over a child by law isn't absolute, what determines a person has no objective answer as of yet, but some claim it is consciousness other say it is conscious awareness, and some say that a person is made upon conception, along with many other explanations.
I personally think that rights require a conscious awareness, and most animals don't seem to have such a thing.
The extent is generally determined by the laws/beliefs of the society you live in, rather than based on objective evidence.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#19088350 - 11/05/13 01:35 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
teknix said: To a certain extent, but the authority isn't as absolute and clear-cut as your previously posited analogy would presume.
So, in other words, you got owned, but now want to snivel?
LoL, you wish. You are only aiding my argument that ownership is independent of nature, I was testing your logic rather than conclusion.
NO, I really didn't want you to look bad, but now you give me little choice but to say "to a certain extent" means you lost, and now you are trying the "comeback" position. Well no, I don't roll that way. You lost, and now you gonna pay.
Like a tenant recently. "To a certain extent" they owed me "X" amount. Well not just to a close estimation, it was in fact X. So they paid me that amount, and were glad of it in the end. Could have been "X" + $75 late fee.
Besides you're not against me to defeat me, you are in concurrence with the premise, which is the only thing there is to defeat.
You can't see me.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19088365 - 11/05/13 01:40 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Quote:
teknix said: To a certain extent, but the authority isn't as absolute and clear-cut as your previously posited analogy would presume.
So, in other words, you got owned, but now want to snivel?
LoL, you wish. You are only aiding my argument that ownership is independent of nature, I was testing your logic rather than conclusion.
NO, I really didn't want you to look bad, but now you give me little choice but to say "to a certain extent" means you lost, and now you are trying the "comeback" position. Well no, I don't roll that way. You lost, and now you gonna pay.
Like a tenant recently. "To a certain extent" they owed me "X" amount. Well not just to a close estimation, it was in fact X. So they paid me that amount, and were glad of it in the end. Could have been "X" + $75 late fee.
Besides you're not against me to defeat me, you are in concurrence with the premise, which is the only thing there is to defeat.
You can't see me. 
To the extent you think you have won in this thread, you have clearly lost. I have made a few points which you have tried to make your own. Clearly, they are not.
You don't even own the shit in your bowels.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#19088380 - 11/05/13 01:46 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To the extent you think you have won in this thread, you have clearly lost. I have made a few points which you have tried to make your own. Clearly, they are not.
I'm not trying to win anything, the premise is up for grabs. 
Quote:
You don't even own the shit in your bowels.
No shit . . .
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19088397 - 11/05/13 01:54 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
To the extent you think you have won in this thread, you have clearly lost. I have made a few points which you have tried to make your own. Clearly, they are not.
I'm not trying to win anything, the premise is up for grabs. 
Quote:
You don't even own the shit in your bowels.
No shit . . .

Grabs by whom?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#19088406 - 11/05/13 01:57 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
Grabs by whom?
Exactly.
|
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]
#19088696 - 11/05/13 05:19 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Then what differentiates an entity from an object? You say you are owning your dog, but could the dog just as well be owning you?
I definitely think that, in a lot of cases with dogs, the dog exhibits ownership of his owner as well. This kind of ownership is, naturally, of a different sort than the ownership exhibited by the human, as dogs lead different kinds of lives and have different interests, but there are plenty of signs that a dog will associate its identity with its owner and act possessively in regards to the human.
Regarding the question of what differentiates an entity from an object, differentiation itself makes the difference. A specific aspect of reality has unique distinguishing characteristics. These characteristics might or might not evidence an act of ownership. Perhaps two individuals exhibit ownership over the same object and thus enter into conflict. Perhaps an entity exhibits ownership over another entity, but that entity also exhibits ownership over the first entity, as in the example with the dog and its human. The two individuals above might appeal to other individuals, and their societal, abstract conceptualizations of rights, in order to settle their conflict, or they might simply rely on a struggle of physical force to resolve the matter, whereas, in the case of the dog and its human, no real conflict is likely to arise due to their separate senses of ownership, so there's no problem.
Points of contention #3, #5, and #8 address the notions you've previously presented that, respectively, A.) ownership requires a concept in the owner's head that he is owning, B.) ownership and territoriality aren't the same thing, and C.) behavior doesn't imply ownership because ownership is a right. Therefore, if you're intending to counter my statement by relying on an assertion that bears semblance to any of these notions, you should save yourself the trouble by first responding to the lines of reasoning that I've already provided in response to them, lines of reasoning which you've, as of yet, failed to respond to, meaning, of course, that you've, as of yet, abandoned these points of contention (and 9 more). I took a liberty of responding to your questions now simply because I'm enthused with the ideological exchange, despite the fact that you haven't been an honest debate partner.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19141629 - 11/15/13 04:44 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The supposed points number three, five and eight are hinged upon the first one being correct, if the first one is not correct then there was never a point of contention. As explained through the definitions the point was already addressed and evidence provided for the claim on my behalf. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary so you fail to contend the points provided by the definitions prior to claiming that I failed to contend a point.
|
absols
Stranger
Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19144254 - 11/16/13 05:55 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
the difference between entity and objects is being positive source
an object is present only from what it is in time objective fact so reality is built on that knowledge of being still
while entities are what are by definition free so superior positive source, that is why it goes in evil existence such as ours, to claim its rights in possessing things or objects life, as if realizing something positive really and not realizing is the same right, when evil is about cheapest ways to be superior freedom, so entities by forcing that all is for own realizations
the thing is, what is done is not itself, yes for sure, but a second still it becomes itself when it has to realize itself out of that constancy, then it becomes an entity like any entity that must have been before done too even if less seen as object thing... which brings back the concept of truth as the exclusive reason and actual fact
then no entity is to possess anything, and property right is for evil rules
that is why money is the only clean thing, as it circulate always freely, money is the answer of relative rights so real entities would keep always behaving as their own positive sources without using anything or possessions then it is more right to spend the money for real needs, instead of possessions objects, because the objects rights prevail as entity right in truth as being free out of being bought, when they are pointed being objects, they must get out free
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: absols]
#19146055 - 11/16/13 04:36 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What is "being positive source" ?
Is English your native tongue?
I find it difficult to decipher what you are saying.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19157735 - 11/19/13 12:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So it looks like you lose. Nice try and better luck next time. 
|
absols
Stranger
Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#19159156 - 11/19/13 11:03 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: What is "being positive source" ?
Is English your native tongue?
I find it difficult to decipher what you are saying.
you seem to base your existence on winning when everyone else is loosing..which prove how far what I said is true, like evil became a free matter of its fact present alone easy to invent how everyone is miserable so for cheapest way of being fine still
positive source is the definition of being superior
being superior by definition is the only reason of winning matters that might exist
so killing superiority is the worse fact reality, enjoy your winnings all eternally
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: absols]
#19161624 - 11/19/13 07:55 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm actually just goading him to posit any inconsistencies he see's in the logic.
I don't care about winning or losing, only seeking the truth, but others do care about winning and I can use that to my advantage.
|
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]
#19163835 - 11/20/13 07:17 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: The supposed points number three, five and eight are hinged upon the first one being correct, if the first one is not correct then there was never a point of contention. As explained through the definitions the point was already addressed and evidence provided for the claim on my behalf. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary so you fail to contend the points provided by the definitions prior to claiming that I failed to contend a point.
I'm not interested in speculation and unsubstantiated claims. At this point in time, you have failed to respond to twelve points of contention, including the first point of contention. Your failure to provide a line of reasoning in response to what I've presented on these points of contention can't be changed by speculation and unsubstantiated claims. Until you actually respond to these points of contention, you have no credibility in promoting your point of view in this thread.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19166045 - 11/20/13 03:39 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I refuse to entertain the absurdity of the points that aren't in contention with the premise, or any other red herrings. It's not on me to provide the evidence, you have the burden of proof by claiming the existence of ownership as natural.
Maybe ownership is in the greed allele?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 2
#19168506 - 11/21/13 02:44 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: I refuse to entertain the absurdity of the points that aren't in contention with the premise, or any other red herrings.
If you wouldn't have started making absurd points that you feel don't pertain to the premise, they wouldn't have become points of contention. It's your fault for digging yourself into something you don't know how to get back out of.
Every single one of these twelve points of contention directs to a passage of your words that initiated that particular point of contention.
Furthermore, despite your dishonesty that they aren't relevant to the premise, all of these statements of yours started in your attempt to argue for your premise. Lying to attempt to get yourself off the hook isn't going to work here. If you don't like the fact that you're responsible for the words you present in the course of a debate, you can choke on them.
Quote:
It's not on me to provide the evidence, you have the burden of proof by claiming the existence of ownership as natural.
I've already provided evidence, and you abandoned any point of contention involved in discussing that evidence. Go figure.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#19168509 - 11/21/13 02:45 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Those points are not in contention with the premise, they are in contention with the debate, you are debating about the debate rather than the premise.
I don't have to entertain your red herrings.
So if you want to clean up your points and gear them towards the premise then I will rebut it.
Edited by teknix (11/21/13 02:53 AM)
|
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] 1
#19168538 - 11/21/13 03:07 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Those points are not in contention with the premise, they are in contention with the debate, you are debating about the debate rather than the premise.
No, they are in contention of statements that you've made in the course of the debate in your attempts to sustain your premise.
The power of the point of contention numbered system is that it doesn't allow for misrepresentation of what course the debate has taken, and why. Let's take a look:
Point of contention #1 started like this:
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.
Point of contention #2 started like this:
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.
Point of contention #3 started like this:
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).
Point of contention #4 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: If contend means to assert that it is wrong without any rationale justification then you have done that, if you want to contend the point you have to provide evidence.
Point of contention #5 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: Ownership being a manifestation of behavior is not ownership, but behavior . . . But for there really to be ownership there has to be an owner, so you are just using ownership synonymously with territorial, in which territorial does a much better job of describing the behavior than ownership. As I said before, and animal doesn't need to think it is owning anything to be territorial, and I also said that it was a behavior and called territorial, then you take my argument and change the word from territorial to be synonymous with ownership, in which it is not, because ownership requires something to be owning and something separate to be owned.
Point of contention #6 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: All you have been doing is repeating my argument, which isn't in contention with my argument.
Point of contention #7 started like this:
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.
Point of contention #8 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: And no, behavior doesn't imply ownership either. Quote:
ownership
1.right of possession: the legal right of possessing something
Quote:
legal right - a right based in law right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature;
Now you see how it is unnatural?
Point of contention #9 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: So are you saying you have stolen everything you own, or at least partook in the stealing of everything you think to own from nature? If you take a fruit from a plant, are you stealing it, because it is belonging to the plant? What if you shoot a deer, are you stealing its life from its family? What about if you pick a mushroom from the ground, are you stealing it or mushroomnapping it?
Point of contention #10 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: I respond with a question or answer in each instance.
Point of contention #11 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: The rest of your B.S. is you dodging me . . .
Point of contention #12 started like this:
Quote:
teknix said: And throwing out red herrings to distract everyone after the fact you admitted ownership is a concept.
So, it's undeniable that these points of contention are in response to your statements. Making up bullshit about how I'm debating the debate and not the premise doesn't absolve you from this clear fact, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that you've been abandoning points of contention in a dishonest manner.
--------------------
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
|
|