Home | Community | Message Board


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

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 >
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18967194 - 10/12/13 05:15 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Or the opposite could be true and you realize all this ownership you thought you had was pretend all along.

(Because it is.)




I didn't retreat from the debate and abandon my contentions like you did. :nono: You weren't able to demonstrate that it was all pretend. Your argument was weak sauce and you dropped it. It's all there, line by line, post by post. What do you have to say about that, exactly? :smirk:


--------------------
: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
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18967451 - 10/12/13 07:48 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

I didn't, I was pointing out that you were simply making a claim without any evidence to back up that claim.

So says you . . . Big deal, it doesn't mean anything without some sort of evidence.


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


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] * 1
    #18975151 - 10/14/13 03:36 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

No, you've definitely dropped out of the debate, over all of these pages, successively, with each point of contention that you stopped responding to, all without acknowledging that you were letting them all slip by.
I'm not sure if it's denial or something else, but I've already provided that evidence and we debated that evidence and... you dropped out from the discussion. This isn't new, and it's not credible to quit the debate and then to ask the same questions again. It's not intellectually honest.

The evidence is in the fact that they actually possess the things they think they own, which shows in their behavior. It shows in the relationship between animals, humans, and objects. That is precisely what ownership is, and, until now, you haven't presented anything to suggest otherwise.
:shrug:


--------------------
: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
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god] * 1
    #18975681 - 10/14/13 08:23 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Did somebody just get owned?:nicesmile:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18977301 - 10/14/13 04:02 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
No, you've definitely dropped out of the debate, over all of these pages, successively, with each point of contention that you stopped responding to, all without acknowledging that you were letting them all slip by.
I'm not sure if it's denial or something else, but I've already provided that evidence and we debated that evidence and... you dropped out from the discussion. This isn't new, and it's not credible to quit the debate and then to ask the same questions again. It's not intellectually honest.

The evidence is in the fact that they actually possess the things they think they own, which shows in their behavior. It shows in the relationship between animals, humans, and objects. That is precisely what ownership is, and, until now, you haven't presented anything to suggest otherwise.
:shrug:





You haven't successfully contended any points.

:lol:

Ownership requires an owner and an owned, if the owner is only in your thoughts then you have no way of knowing if an animal has an idea of an owner to own anything.


--------------------
.6th and 7th sense theory
.Now is forever. .ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞTheﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞUnseenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ is seenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ by the blindﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ eye.ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ.When the inevitable time comes, go with your head held high,without regret or remorse, in your subconscious mind.
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18978658 - 10/14/13 08:57 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

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.

I personally don't see where you or anyone has shown ownership to be anything more than an idea, let alone the owner being anything more than an idea.

(I guess that's your way of giving up.)

:lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
    #18978710 - 10/14/13 09:08 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

My position is the negation or null hypothesis, which says there is no ownership beyond an idea. The claim that FWG is making is that ownership is an actual phenomena beyond any idea's. So the burden off proof is on FWG.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18978746 - 10/14/13 09:15 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

There is nothing  in the human mind outside of ideas.  Natural and unnatural are ideas.  The moon is an idea. The soul is an idea. God is an idea. Chi is an idea.  The tooth fairy is an idea.  Do any of those ideas jibe with what we can actually observe and or experience? That imo is what is at question or should be if we are trying for something beyond:whacker:.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
    #18978775 - 10/14/13 09:20 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

The moon in and of itself is real, just the idea's of it aren't. To show that the moon is real we have objective observations of it, and we can all pretty much agree that there is a glowing ball of rock in the sky at night and even astronauts have been to it.

The self is a different matter. You can't really poke and prod it with any tangible tools, and you can't land on it or sample it. If self is an idea' and an illusion then the idea's attached to the self are also an illusion, because they are dependent upon it.

It's like you're trying to build a house on top of an idea, verse building it on top of a mountain. (False Analogy)

But you can poke and prod at it with idea's and thoughts directed towards it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18978807 - 10/14/13 09:27 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

The moon in and of itself is real, just the idea's of it aren't. To show that the moon is real we have objective observations of it, and we can all pretty much agree that there is a glowing ball of rock in the sky at night and even astronauts have been to it.

No you can't prove to me the moon is real and some even believe the moon landing was faked.  It's just an idea in my mind that I or others call "the moon".
.

It's not really glowing as a side note. It's reflecting light and is dark in and of itself.

I have no idea why I am engaging in this conversation as I know exactly the outcome so I'm ending it here on my part. :lol:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
    #18978822 - 10/14/13 09:29 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
The moon in and of itself is real, just the idea's of it aren't. To show that the moon is real we have objective observations of it, and we can all pretty much agree that there is a glowing ball of rock in the sky at night and even astronauts have been to it.

No you can't prove to me the moon is real and some even believe the moon landing was faked.  It's just an idea in my mind that I or others call "the moon".
.

It's not really glowing as a side note. It's reflecting light and is dark in and of itself.

I have no idea why I am engaging in this conversation as I know exactly the outcome so I'm ending it here on my part. :lol:




Are you saying that you don't think the moon is real?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGreySatyr
Pagan-Psyche
Male

Registered: 06/20/13
Posts: 3,376
Loc: North Carolina
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18978920 - 10/14/13 09:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Didn't you ever watch V for Vendetta?

"...I am an idea and ideas are bulletproof."

Anywho, the moon isn't an idea, it's a relative perception of a physical reality. Our perception of the moon varies. What your describing is an idea. The idea of the moon being an idea. Your idea is that everything is an idea. This is what makes an idea. A thought without a well perceived representation or realistic reflection on that thought. In the end, you're just babbling incoherently.

It's all word play just like whenever Charles Manson speaks, it's all a show, it's very creative and alluring to a mystic but it serves us no purpose. The end.


--------------------
...also, go to hell, huh?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: GreySatyr]
    #18978955 - 10/14/13 09:55 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

GreyMorph said:
Didn't you ever watch V for Vendetta?

"...I am an idea and ideas are bulletproof."

Anywho, the moon isn't an idea, it's a relative perception of a physical reality. Our perception of the moon varies. What your describing is an idea. The idea of the moon being an idea. Your idea is that everything is an idea. This is what makes an idea. A thought without a well perceived representation or realistic reflection on that thought. In the end, you're just babbling incoherently.

It's all word play just like whenever Charles Manson speaks, it's all a show, it's very creative and alluring to a mystic but it serves us no purpose. The end.





Nice of you to agree with me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGreySatyr
Pagan-Psyche
Male

Registered: 06/20/13
Posts: 3,376
Loc: North Carolina
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18978972 - 10/14/13 09:58 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Just stating my opinion of this perceived reality. I love philosophy but some folks make my head hurt.


--------------------
...also, go to hell, huh?


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


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] * 1
    #18980363 - 10/15/13 08:07 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
You haven't successfully contended any points.





If "successfully" is defined by the extent to which you abandoned responding to my contentions of those points, then the tally indicates that I indeed have. :sorry:
Of course, that is the way debate works. It's not my fault if you don't know how to do it right. :shrug:

Quote:


Ownership requires an owner and an owned, if the owner is only in your thoughts then you have no way of knowing if an animal has an idea of an owner to own anything.




"If the owners is only in thought", but that "if" doesn't exist when we're talking about the commonly understood definition of what ownership means. So why speculate on things that don't pertain to the subject at hand as if they actually matter? :lol:


Quote:


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.




Yes, I contended that point, repeatedly. Of course, that's assuming that you're not making the same mistake with the word "to contend" as you are with "to own". :lol: Do you know what "to contend" means? Every single time I've addressed this concept and provided a line of reasoning why I think it is baseless, I've contended it. What do you say about that?

Quote:


I personally don't see where you or anyone has shown ownership to be anything more than an idea, let alone the owner being anything more than an idea.




Behavior is explicative. Ownership is a manifestation of behavior. The reason you don't personally see this is because, not long out of the gate from me offering this point of view in contention of your view, you abandon the points of contention and stop responding. Then, much later, you repeat the same thing you said in the first place as if it's never been talked about before and as if there aren't already lines of reasoning posited in contention to them that you tried to sweep under the rug and not respond to.

Quote:


(I guess that's your way of giving up.)





If by me giving up you mean you burying your head in the sand, then, yes. If you mean in the sense that it actually carries, then, no. Sorry. Still here. Maybe this time you'll at least get a little bit further into the debate than you have all of the previous times before dropping out of it, but I guess we'll see. :shrug:


--------------------
: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
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18981600 - 10/15/13 02:33 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

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

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.

:cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18981665 - 10/15/13 02:52 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
If "successfully" is defined by the extent to which you abandoned responding to my contentions of those points, then the tally indicates that I indeed have. :sorry:
Of course, that is the way debate works. It's not my fault if you don't know how to do it right. :shrug:






You haven't contended the premise until you show, or provide evidence for your assertion.


Quote:



"If the owners is only in thought", but that "if" doesn't exist when we're talking about the commonly understood definition of what ownership means. So why speculate on things that don't pertain to the subject at hand as if they actually matter? :lol:






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).


Quote:



Yes, I contended that point, repeatedly. Of course, that's assuming that you're not making the same mistake with the word "to contend" as you are with "to own". :lol: Do you know what "to contend" means? Every single time I've addressed this concept and provided a line of reasoning why I think it is baseless, I've contended it. What do you say about that?






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.

Quote:


Behavior is explicative. Ownership is a manifestation of behavior. The reason you don't personally see this is because, not long out of the gate from me offering this point of view in contention of your view, you abandon the points of contention and stop responding. Then, much later, you repeat the same thing you said in the first place as if it's never been talked about before and as if there aren't already lines of reasoning posited in contention to them that you tried to sweep under the rug and not respond to.





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.

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


Quote:


If by me giving up you mean you burying your head in the sand, then, yes. If you mean in the sense that it actually carries, then, no. Sorry. Still here. Maybe this time you'll at least get a little bit further into the debate than you have all of the previous times before dropping out of it, but I guess we'll see. :shrug:




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.

So if you want to contend the point you still have to show how ownership is any different from territorial. I don't mean show it by your assertions, I mean show it in the real world. Something you can point to and be like, now the is definitely ownership.

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?

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?

:rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18981700 - 10/15/13 03:03 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Or is there some sort of double-standard that your idea of ownership should carry with it, as such that it only applies to humans? Should we make sure it is ok with the animals that are living on a specific piece of land that we build a house there, or a play ground? Should we ask the bee's if it is ok if we take their honey?

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


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


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18985253 - 10/16/13 08:51 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

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.




Whether or not you accept what I've presented as evidence and the line of reasoning provided with it as valid has absolutely no bearing on the definition of contention. Contention in debate means to dispute. That is how the word is defined. Whether or not you feel my contention is substantiated doesn't change that I disputed what you said; thereby, I contended a set of points that you raised. Furthermore, you abandoned those points of contention.

Is this another point of contention that you will abandon - your assertion that I didn't offer a line of reasoning in contention of what you've presented? Will you explain how the commonly accepted definition of the word contention doesn't apply to what has happened here? Would you prefer it if they slipped by, unaccounted for?

Quote:


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.




Yes I have. 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. I, however, can demonstrate that you've been abandoning points of contention throughout the course of this thread.

Quote:


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).




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.


Quote:


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.




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?

Quote:


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.




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?

Quote:


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




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.


Quote:


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.




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.

Quote:


So if you want to contend the point you still have to show how ownership is any different from territorial. I don't mean show it by your assertions, I mean show it in the real world. Something you can point to and be like, now the is definitely ownership.




No, I don't have to show a difference between ownership and territoriality, as they are different words that describe exactly the same phenomenon. My line of reasoning as it pertains to this aspect of the debate was just presented once more in this reply, so this point of contention redirects itself back into it.

Quote:


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?




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.

Quote:


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?





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?



Quote:


Or is there some sort of double-standard that your idea of ownership should carry with it, as such that it only applies to humans? Should we make sure it is ok with the animals that are living on a specific piece of land that we build a house there, or a play ground? Should we ask the bee's if it is ok if we take their honey?

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





Ownership isn't a claim; it's an act of possession, which may or may not include a claim. The substantiation for this line of reasoning has been provided in the rest of this reply.


--------------------
: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
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18986905 - 10/16/13 04:16 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

It's not a misguided attempt, the point is proven unless you provide conflicting evidence to the contrary.

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



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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,711 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 10,653 162 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. 0 members, 5 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.