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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

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 >
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19168585 - 11/21/13 03:48 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

They are responses yes, but they aren't in contention with the premise.

You even quoted where I told you that you need to provide evidence, and still haven't. If your points are not contending the premise then they are pointless.

I have provided logical alternatives to all your claims, quit pretending you have 12 points of contention and instead, explain why ownership is natural in a manner that hasn't been previously rebutted.

You didn't contend any of the definitions provided, so they are the definitions that we are using, and according to those definitions, ownership is not natural.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19168593 - 11/21/13 03:55 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

C'mon now, you don't really think you have 12 points in contention with the premise remaining unaddressed do you? Because that would mean that you have evidence that animals do indeed own and have ownership, and as a consequence they should also have the rights to such. Yet we don't have any evidence that an animal owns anything, especially when we as humans, don't allow them to own anything.


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]
    #19168641 - 11/21/13 04:48 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
They are responses yes, but they aren't in contention with the premise.




They are in contention of specific statements that you've made amidst the debate in your attempt to sustain your premise and deflect my contention of your points. Several of the points of contention, in fact, touch directly on the matter of the central premise, whereas the rest deal with it indirectly in the manner in which they address points you've asserted in discussing the central premise.

They are responses to statements you've presented for discussion. It's not my fault if, half-way through, you suddenly decided that they shouldn't be discussed. Trying to pin it on me with a lame excuse doesn't change the fact that you're dishonestly abandoning points of contention that you presented for discussion.

Quote:


You even quoted where I told you that you need to provide evidence, and still haven't.




That's false. Your inability to discuss what I presented as evidence and subsequent dishonest abandoning of the points being discussed isn't a failure on my part; it's your failure.

Quote:


If your points are not contending the premise then they are pointless.




Not only is every single one of them directly or indirectly contending the premise, but they are all responses to points that you've presented for discussion. There is no valid excuse that you could propose that somehow covers up the fact that you're abandoning points of contention that you presented for discussion.

Quote:


I have provided logical alternatives to all your claims, quit pretending you have 12 points of contention and instead, explain why ownership is natural in a manner that hasn't been previously rebutted.




If what I've proposed on the matter had been previously rebutted, there wouldn't be twelve documented points of contention pertaining to the matter that you've abandoned.
I don't have twelve points of contention. There are twelve points of contention. They begun with statements that you made, continued with my response to these statements, and ended with you abandoning them.

Quote:


You didn't contend any of the definitions provided, so they are the definitions that we are using, and according to those definitions, ownership is not natural.




Points of contention #3, #5, #8, and #9 contain direct references to the definition of the word ownership and consist of my contentions of your misunderstandings of the definition of the word.
You've systematically abandoned responding to these points of contention, and denial on your part of what's actually transpired in this debate doesn't amount to anything.


--------------------
: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
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19168836 - 11/21/13 07:34 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Then state two points of contention that haven't been addressed previously and qualify as an independent line of evidence for ownership being natural.

You are trying to beat me instead of defeating the premise, when I am inconsequential.

You failed to address this:

Quote:


Because that would mean that you have evidence that animals do indeed own and have ownership, and as a consequence they should also have the rights to such. Yet we don't have any evidence that an animal owns anything, especially when we as humans, don't allow them to own anything.







Edited by teknix (11/21/13 07:41 AM)


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]
    #19169015 - 11/21/13 08:42 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Then state two points of contention that haven't been addressed previously and qualify as an independent line of evidence for ownership being natural.




The aforementioned points of contention #3, #5, #8, and #9 already fulfill this criteria. You abandoned discussing these points of contention. It's your responsibility to respond to what I've presented regarding them if your interest is continuing to discuss the matter.

Quote:


You are trying to beat me instead of defeating the premise, when I am inconsequential.




Unsubstantiated allegations carry no meaning in an ideological debate.

Quote:


You failed to address this:
Quote:


Because that would mean that you have evidence that animals do indeed own and have ownership, and as a consequence they should also have the rights to such. Yet we don't have any evidence that an animal owns anything, especially when we as humans, don't allow them to own anything.









I have already addressed this. Points of contention #3 and #5 specifically deal with this matter. Repeating previous statements, my responses to which you've abandoned responding to, means absolutely nothing in the context of an ideological debate.


--------------------
: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
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19169875 - 11/21/13 12:34 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
#3
There's no connection between the notion that ownership necessitates both an owner and that which is owned and your "if the owner is only in thought". Ownership is defined and measured through the act of possession, not through the presence of a thought in the owner's head that says "I am owning". Therefore, it doesn't matter.

You failed to respond.

I proclaimed that there is no connection between what you were saying and the actual definition of ownership, explaining my line of reasoning for my claim. You never responded to this line of reasoning.
Therefore, point of contention abandoned.





Look, this was already rebutted with the definitions provided previously. In the definitions it says specifically that ownership is a state or fact of being an owner or the right of possession. Ownership is obviously implicating an owner. The point wasn't abandoned, it was rebutted.

Quote:


ownยทerยทship  (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ownership





Which is the point that you abondon, and have continued to abandon when questioning whether or not an animals has such a right or has the concept of an owner. In what context does an animal ever make such a claim, or how could it without a conceptualization/awareness of itself?


Quote:


#5

Yes, ownership as a manifestation of behavior is behavior.





This is you making things up and imposing your own beliefs upon a definition which are not included in the definition, which was already addressed.

Quote:


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.





This contradicts your earlier claim that owner doesn't necessarily implicate an owner. You are also claiming that animals have a self by stating that an animal is having or holding something for itself, which would require conscious awareness to consider itself. Notice that ownership is a noun, not an adjective.


Quote:


That is the definition.





So now your description of a adjective is a noun?

Quote:


Territoriality in animals and ownership in humans, as behavior, are indistinguishable from each other.






I guess you don't know the difference between an adjective and a noun?

Quote:


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.





I just distinguished them, so they must be distinguishable?

Quote:


You had claimed that ownership requires thought and that, as such, I was incorrectly suggesting that territoriality and ownership were synonymous. I cited the dictionary to demonstrate what ownership is, and, subsequently, how your claim that it requires thought is not relevant to the concept of ownership.





You didn't demonstrate anything or provide any evidence against the premise that hasn't already been rebutted, but you have failed to address the points of contention I brought forth against your claim. Such as your inference that animals have inherent rights or could even conceptualize such a thing. Being that ownership is a right or act of possesion.

You haven't provided evidence that ownership is anything more than a thought, you only provided your opinion. The premise assumes that ownership is a concept, because there is not any evidence to the contrary, and being a concept is not natural.

Which all of this has been previously explained in some form or another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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] * 3
    #19171439 - 11/21/13 05:42 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Seems like Teknix lost the debate with his own posts, and his first post. He's abandoned many points of contention, that resulted from his own statements, and simply ignores/ignored others.

I see no point in continuing to discuss this matter with him. It's like trying to teach a rock English or Math, no matter how hard you try, it isn't capable of understanding.


Edited by rsbattle (11/21/13 05:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
    #19173297 - 11/22/13 12:55 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

I haven't abandoned any, if you don't understand the implications that my posts posit then it's not my problem.

Quote:

rsbattle said:

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.




Take this for example, you presented a False Dichotomy assuming there are only two possibilities, when in fact that isn't so. Why exactly can't ownership be independent from nature if it doesn't exist on it's own?

Do you understand the definition of nature? Do you understand what a concept is?

This is grade school stuff that I shouldn't have to explain.

Show me an abandoned point of contention against the premise.

There really aren't any that haven't already been answered, but there are plenty of ignored fallacies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsols
Stranger
Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19173391 - 11/22/13 01:48 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

you don't seem to realize the right answer, for what I think you insist on proving ownership through

yes rights out of nature exist, but right is not to own otherwise it wont be true

right is to act on your own, that is why rights are always about freedom rights, freedom is not something to get or to deal with from somewhere else

freedom is what the basic is, so nature too, the right to be free too like to act on your own objectively individually clearly

because freedom is the basic fact of any in truth, then what we are through nature change as soon as it becomes consciously
the conscious of the fact force the basic true fact as the reference, so the true freedom of the conscious mean or will as positively being present alone

this fact everyone knows, that is why they need evil powers continuously acting in more direct terms to force individuals rights to stay as one with whole creation, for conditioners rights to stay first so more consequently positive absolutely then what could be conscious like us

because it is clear that any powerful freedom is false, true freedom cannot rule another freedom nor even condition it

so what are those wills of powers or powerful entities ?
they are what could the most prove that truth exist, from being a sense that need to sit on his knowledge constantly to mean being a relative free sense result
that is why powers wills need to know everything all the time, because they cant be but as a result from knowing the true truth when they are result like relative sense free

but freedom is not what truth do, truth do freedom rights

freedom is the basic which is before truth of any very relative sense

but this prove that void is true too, like monsters and positive wills are reactions of nothing to superiority knowledge in sense

nature do not own existence, nature is supposedly being a body of existence as there is no much else, when existence is programmed by what also don't own existence knowledge even

that is how freedom stay the basic right, and in principle any conscious in being through others is that right to be free, even if that is not a true free mean, its right exist when it is through others so through condition known


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: absols]
    #19173429 - 11/22/13 02:12 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

When the right is through others it becomes conceptual rather than innate, and in becoming conceptual it forgoes being natural.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsols
Stranger
Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19173467 - 11/22/13 02:36 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

right is not somebody or someone

right is a fact of existence before it is real

the right to be, while being is free

if you see more carefully everything you will know what I mean being right

you keep meaning physical points because you mean yourself too much

yourself is you that has nothing to do with all, how all walks and exist

the principal point of truth existence, so the object reason existence, is objective realizations of truth through the concept of superior rights

any existence as absolute fact reason is because of another superiority pointed right, so superiority less is sure and objective, and that is how freedom is always truly existing..as freedom superiority always fact, in the conception of existence in truth and not as a fallacy to take advantage from knowing that truth have some results

being the other fact when being through it is because of all being programmed, so freedom is not admitted being, so only the power of knowledge seem being, while existence is like us more, what conscious is alone, without power nor anything makes it more close to be free right

freedom is the fact which justify how monsters become existing free
because the negation of freedom as the fact right result all being inferior to exist, so free inferiority becomes the more free real possible moves out of being constant superiority

the true reason of existence objectivity, is of pointing another freedom right while it is really existing, so you cannot know itself fact as it is other freedom

but the point turn to be for values subjectively because any cant ever know how positive is superior and negative cannot be, when any is always its fact equality since only the freedom most positive superior sense

but existence fact  is not that and nor about it

the point is what freedom is then clearly complete as a point, so fully existing fact, so existence is to freedom and not to point anything

this is why, it is meant to point evil like the reverse of freedom, by its own fact to complete too, and conscious should help that to reach its fact for everyone and everything outcome faster

evil became the only existence fact, because true existence in objective terms is truth dimension which is totally of concepts

that is why you should not that freedom is not what you think

how you can be through others while very much the free being

but because all is evil existence, from the beginning reversing existence truth for powers of knowledge wills, that any perspective on objects is wrong, it is not the fact
that is why all knowledge of all gods are not reaching to control the less of existence facts
and what close conscious to powers say about anything and everything is very stupid and invented, where it is easy shown how they cant but mean force of powers

we are talking about freedom rights or pointing free spaces, not because freedom is a result of anything, on the contrary freedom is the only thing that cannot be realized, no one could ever realize its freedom

so we are talking about freedom because freedom is truth, so we have to understand what is truth to be true through conceptions of truth while through our relative active free means in mind real







Edited by absols (11/22/13 02:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: absols]
    #19173554 - 11/22/13 03:44 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Does this look like innate rights?

Quote:



"This is my 12th time passing ANWR out of the House and although this is a momentous day, there is still work to be done," said U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. He said the Senate should get moving.

The legislation, which contains other controversial drilling and pipeline provisions, faces much bigger obstacles in the Senate and with President Obama, said Alaska's senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Mark Begich.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/17/139185/us-house-oks-opening-anwr-to-oil.html#storylink=cpy







If so then in which way?

:aliendance:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19173705 - 11/22/13 05:36 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
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.





It doesn't appear that points eight and nine address this at all:


Quote:

fireworks_god said:
#8
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.





It has been explained as both an act and a right, there is not cherry picking and I'm providing evidence contrary to your claims with a definition that you claim is invalid, without providing any counter rather than attempting to prove anything.


Quote:



"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.






Here you are attempting to describe legal ownership, while omitting the fact that legal ownership is what has the final say, and is not dependent upon possession. IE; if you steal a car and have it in your possession you still don't legally own it.

Quote:


Ownership itself exists with or without it.





How so? If there is non to enforce an ownership then does it truly exist?

Quote:


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. "








Considering that nine says nothing more than eight does I don't know why you bothered to post nine, unless you are simply trying to exaggerate with redundancy.


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]
    #19173741 - 11/22/13 05:55 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Look, this was already rebutted with the definitions provided previously. In the definitions it says specifically that ownership is a state or fact of being an owner or the right of possession. Ownership is obviously implicating an owner. The point wasn't abandoned, it was rebutted.




No doubt that, in the definitions, it says specifically that ownership is a state or fact of being an owner, and that, as a result, ownership is obviously implicating an owner.
As in, I myself specifically said as much within the very text of mine that you just quoted. :lol:

Reading comprehension dictates that I suggested that there is no connection between the notion that ownership necessitates both an owner and that which is owned, and the idea that being an owner requires a conception within the entity owning that they are owning in order for ownership to exist.

It's clearly expressed in my quotation above regarding point of contention #3.
In what world, precisely, does saying "the definition says that ownership is the state or fact of being an owner", in response to someone saying "there's no connection between the fact that ownership necessitates an owner and the idea that, to be an owner, one must think that one is an owner" constitute a rebuttal? :smirk:

The problem, of course, is that you have completely failed to respond to this; therefore, you've abandoned this point of contention. Repeating a definition that we both acknowledge as being true, a definition upon which my assertion relies upon in order to make sense, doesn't constitute a rebuttal of that assertion.


Quote:

Quote:


ownยทerยทship  (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ownership




Which is the point that you abondon, and have continued to abandon when questioning whether or not an animals has such a right or has the concept of an owner. In what context does an animal ever make such a claim, or how could it without a conceptualization/awareness of itself?




False. Point of contention #8:

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
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.




And, of course, point of contention #5:

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
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.




I have not abandoned this point, as the two above statements of mine both directly address the matter and were the last statements made on the matter in the course of the debate. You have not addressed these statements that I've presented regarding these two points of contention; therefore, you've abandoned them.

Quote:


This is you making things up and imposing your own beliefs upon a definition which are not included in the definition, which was already addressed.




False. I provided a line of reasoning for why this view is based squarely upon the definitions pertinent to ownership, and you failed to address them, as has been documented thoroughly in this debate.

Quote:


This contradicts your earlier claim that owner doesn't necessarily implicate an owner.




False. I've never claimed this. I've claimed that the definitions of the words owner, ownership, and possession do not substantiate your claim that it is necessary for an owner to think they are an owner in order for them to, in fact, be an owner. Your claim is inconsistent with these definitions, and it is unsubstantiated.

Quote:


You are also claiming that animals have a self by stating that an animal is having or holding something for itself, which would require conscious awareness to consider itself.




No, I am not claiming this, as there is nothing to suggest that "conscious awareness" is necessary for self-referential instinctual behaviors.

Quote:


Notice that ownership is a noun, not an adjective.




I grokked the distinction between nouns and adjectives a long time ago.

Quote:


So now your description of a adjective is a noun?




No.

Quote:


I guess you don't know the difference between an adjective and a noun?




Yes, I do know the difference.

Quote:


I just distinguished them, so they must be distinguishable?




A false distinction doesn't mean anything, so, no, they must not be distinguishable.

Quote:


You didn't demonstrate anything or provide any evidence against the premise that hasn't already been rebutted, but you have failed to address the points of contention I brought forth against your claim.




Unsubstantiated claim. If you want to allege that a point of contention has been abandoned, you need to substantiate your claim with evidence.

Quote:


Such as your inference that animals have inherent rights or could even conceptualize such a thing.




I've never inferred this.

Quote:


Being that ownership is a right or act of possesion.




You have abandoned points of contention pertaining to this, so repeating the definition of the word ownership without addressing these abandoned points of contention is meaningless in an ideological debate.

Quote:


You haven't provided evidence that ownership is anything more than a thought, you only provided your opinion.




No, I provided evidence - the definition of the word. You abandoned the discussion regarding this. You're disillusioned into thinking that, by repeating things you've said already, you're actually continuing to discuss these matters, but, because of the fact that you've abandoned the things that I've presented regarding these repeated things you keep saying, you are no longer discussing these matters.

Quote:


The premise assumes that ownership is a concept, because there is not any evidence to the contrary, and being a concept is not natural.




And this premise has no relation to the actual definitions of the words ownership and possession, and you've failed to respond to the points raised regarding this, so your premise is effectively bunk and meaningless as far as an ideological debate is concerned.

Quote:


Which all of this has been previously explained in some form or another.




Explanations which were contested, and then abandoned by you in a dishonest manner.
Twelve points of contention abandoned by you, as if it's so incredibly hard to respond to a few lines of text. :rofl2:


--------------------
: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
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]
    #19173760 - 11/22/13 06:08 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
It has been explained as both an act and a right, there is not cherry picking and I'm providing evidence contrary to your claims with a definition that you claim is invalid, without providing any counter rather than attempting to prove anything.




Yes, it's cherry picking because your attempt was to utilize the legal definition of the right of ownership to suggest that the act of ownership itself is not natural. Conflating the two, as I addressed with an explanation that you abandoned responding to, is utter nonsense.



Quote:


Here you are attempting to describe legal ownership, while omitting the fact that legal ownership is what has the final say, and is not dependent upon possession. IE; if you steal a car and have it in your possession you still don't legally own it.




Sure, the final say amongst the social conventions of humans. :lol: Once again, to reiterate upon a line of reasoning that you have abandoned responding to, the act of ownership itself exists whether or not humans have social conventions regarding their acts of ownership.

Quote:


How so? If there is non to enforce an ownership then does it truly exist?




By the definition of the word ownership, yes, it truly exists, even if there aren't social conventions that attempt to regulate it.

Quote:


Considering that nine says nothing more than eight does I don't know why you bothered to post nine, unless you are simply trying to exaggerate with redundancy.




Your assumption that nine says nothing more than eight is the error. If you stopped abandoning these points of contention, along with the other 10, your sense of what they say might be more accurate. :lol:


--------------------
: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
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]
    #19174726 - 11/22/13 12:27 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I haven't abandoned any, if you don't understand the implications that my posts posit then it's not my problem.



Except you have, saying you haven't doesn't change that fact.

Quote:

teknix said:
Take this for example, you presented a False Dichotomy assuming there are only two possibilities, when in fact that isn't so.



Just because you believe it's a false dichotomy, doesn't mean it's one.

There are only two possibilities for that fact though, concerning independence/independence from nature. Either, it's independent, or it isn't.

Quote:

teknix said:
Why exactly can't ownership be independent from nature if it doesn't exist on it's own?

Do you understand the definition of nature? Do you understand what a concept is?




I understand the definition of nature/what concepts are just fine, it seems that you don't though.

Quote:

Definition of Independence
inยทdeยทpendยทence
หŒindษ™หˆpendษ™ns/
noun
noun: independence

    1.
    the fact or state of being independent.




So, independence, is the "fact or state of being independent"

Quote:

Definitoin of Independent
inยทdeยทpendยทent
หŒindษ™หˆpendษ™nt/
adjective: independent

    1.
    free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

    2.
    not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

    3.
    not dependent:

    4.
    not requiring or relying on something else :  not contingent




So, independent, is "not dependent", "not contingent"
Quote:

Definition of Dependentdeยทpendยทent
diหˆpendษ™nt/
adjective
adjective: dependent

    1.
    contingent on or determined by.

    2.
    requiring someone or something for financial, emotional, or other support.





So, for ownership (or anything) to show independence from nature, it has to be not dependent on nature (which if the ideas are created by humans, are automatically dependent on nature).

Quote:

Definition of Nature
naยทture
หˆnฤCHษ™r/
noun
noun: nature; plural noun: natures

    1.
    the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

    2.
    the basic or inherent features of something, esp. when seen as characteristic of it.




So, within these definitions we can go several routes.

1. The idea/concept of ownership is not a human creation*1, even if humans think about them. Thus, ideas/concepts are natural. Unless you can prove that ideas/concepts exist outside time/space*2, they rely on nature, and thus can never be independent of it.


2. The idea of ownership is a human creation*3, thus the idea/concept of ownership is unnatural. Once humans die out, the concept of ownership will also die out (unless cultivated/taught by/to another species, or recorded somehow). We can stop this "die" off by "recording" these ideas/concepts, (into machines, the landscape, scripture, other species etc). Yet, recording "devices" still rely on nature, and will at some point "die" off too, ending these ideas/concepts.

Either way, you will need to prove that these ideas/concepts will last through the "end"*4, and that they don't rely on nature in any way at all, to prove their independence from nature (ie: prove they exist outside space/time).

Quote:

teknix said:
This is grade school stuff that I shouldn't have to explain.





And you didn't have to explain them, they had to be explained to you.
Quote:

teknix said:
Show me an abandoned point of contention against the premise.

There really aren't any that haven't already been answered, but there are plenty of ignored fallacies.

I haven't abandoned any, if you don't understand the implications that my posts posit then it's not my problem.





There's no reason to do so. Every time me, and several others have pointed them out, you just make up excuses. "Those aren't points of contention, that's not true, blah blah blah"... Instead of just muttering those things, why don't you use your brain, and provide evidence that they aren't points of contention? No one is just going to take your word for it, especially when basic logic dictates that you're wrong.


Here, I'll even use your own words against you.
Quote:

teknix said:
Ownership hasn't been shown to exist in an of itself





Exactly. The idea/concept hasn't been shown to exist in and of itself, but the act/behavior has been demonstrated over and over in nature. These ideas/concepts are "unnatural" in that they were created by humans, yet, the behavior they describe isn't.

Quote:

teknix said:
Animals protect their territory for many more reasons without the need of ownership, such as food, shelter, mates, water, protecting young, etc. and are never going around thinking that they own it, they are just a part or it.




So what if they think they own it or not? Ownership is a description of behavior/possession, and the definition of ownership infers that they own it, regardless of if they realize the ownership or not.

I would also ask, how is it "their" territory then? If they can't be owners because they don't think/haven't thought/conceptualized it, even though they display all the qualities of ownership, then, how can they "protect" "their territory", when they haven't thought/conceptualized "protection", or "territory"? They must not be protecting, and it must not be "their territory", because they aren't consciously thinking about it.

According to your flawed logic, any X doing Y, if thought about/conceptualized, makes them/it independent of nature, as there has to be a/an X (not self), and a/an Y (self), .

A couple examples
Quote:

Example of Flawed Logic
Example 1:
Breathing. Animals have been breathing for much longer than humans have been around. Now that we're around, we've made the "idea/concept" of "breathing". Animals that breathe, are not breathing, because they don't know that they're breathing, they're doing something else. Breathing infers an independence from nature, because there has to be a breathe (not self), and a breather (self).

Example 2:
Eating. Animals have been eating for much longer than humans have been around. Now that we're around, we've made the "idea/concept" of "eating". Animals that eat, are not eating, because they don't know that they're eating, they're doing something else. Eating infers an independence from nature, because there has to be an eater (self), and an eaten (not self).

Example 3:
Sexual reproduction. Animals have been sexually reproducing for much longer than humans have been around. Now that we're around, we've made the "idea/concept" of "sex/sexual reproduction". Animals that sexually reproduce, are not sexually reproducing, because they don't know that they're sexually reproducing, they're doing something else. Sexually reproducing infers an independence from nature, because there has to be an "inseminator" (self/not self), and an inseminated  (self/not self).

Example 4:
Sight/Sound. Animals have been looking around, and hearing sounds for much longer than humans have been around. Now that we're around, we've made the "idea/concept" of "Sight/Sound". Animals that see/hear, are not seeing/hearing, because they don't know that they're seeing/hearing, they're doing something else. Sight/Sound infers an independence from nature, because there has to be a "looker/hearer" (self), and a looked at/heard (not self).

Example 5:
Flight. Animals have been flying around longer than humans have been around. Now that we're around, we've made the "idea/concept" of "Flight". Animals that fly, are not flying, because they don't know that they're flying, they're doing something else. Flying infers an independence from nature, because there has to be a "Flyer/Pilot" (self), and a "medium of flight" (not self).






Quote:

teknix said:
We are are part of nature until we try to own it, which to own something you have to have something separate from yourself to own.



I haven't really seen anyone say/argue the point about being "separate" from nature, it's your premise that's the problem, I'd say the majority probably disagree that you can be independent of nature.

*1: Quite the possibility, yet, not one I really want to get into (ie: aliens created them, they were there all along, etc, etc, etc).
*2: You can't. We can however provide evidence (as we have multiple times (even if you ignore it)) that it is dependent upon nature.
*3: Also quite possible/probable, and seemingly the most held belief.
*4: The "end". End of life, the planet, solar system, galaxy, and/or universe.


Edited by rsbattle (11/22/13 05:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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: rsbattle]
    #19175059 - 11/22/13 02:28 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Flat out reason why ownership isn't independent of nature: The object that's owned is a part of nature (whether natural or not, physical or concept), and within it. The owner is a part of nature (whether natural or not) and within it. Both object, and owner rely on nature, and aren't independent of nature. Therefore; ownership can't be independent of nature, as to own anything relies directly on nature; thus making it dependent upon nature.

The only way to disprove this, is to prove that there are owners/owned things outside space/time, that are unnatural, good luck.


Edited by rsbattle (11/22/13 04:11 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19177634 - 11/23/13 03:45 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

Reading comprehension dictates that I suggested that there is no connection between the notion that ownership necessitates both an owner and that which is owned, and the idea that being an owner requires a conception within the entity owning that they are owning in order for ownership to exist

It's clearly expressed in my quotation above regarding point of contention #3.
In what world, precisely, does saying "the definition says that ownership is the state or fact of being an owner", in response to someone saying "there's no connection between the fact that ownership necessitates an owner and the idea that, to be an owner, one must think that one is an owner" constitute a rebuttal? :smirk:






Lol, The state or fact of being an owner depends on two things, one to own and one to be owned, so there must be a conceptual separation between the owner and the owned, for there to be ownership. An owner, being one who owns, must conceptualize the owning and owner for such a thing to take place being that it is a noun rather than adjective. For example, you don't own anything unless you claim that you own it. If I come up and take something that you consider as yours, you would have to say "hey, that's mine" which  mine is being a conceptualization of self. This is true in every case and why there is a different word for possession, because they don't mean exactly the same thing as you seem to contend.

Quote:


The problem, of course, is that you have completely failed to respond to this; therefore, you've abandoned this point of contention. Repeating a definition that we both acknowledge as being true, a definition upon which my assertion relies upon in order to make sense, doesn't constitute a rebuttal of that assertion.






Really, the only problem is that you don't understand the implication of being an owner and what it entails.



Quote:

fireworks_god said:
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.




Yes the legal right to ownership is defined as explicitly human, more evidence that ownership requires conceptualization of self, to make such claims to and over things other than yourself.


Quote:

fireworks_god said:
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.




Here again you make the mistake of possession equaling ownership, so by your logic there is no need for the word ownership because it bring nothing to the table that possession does not?


Quote:



False. I provided a line of reasoning for why this view is based squarely upon the definitions pertinent to ownership, and you failed to address them, as has been documented thoroughly in this debate.





You provided a line of reasoning, but it is not a sound line of reasoning because it fails to differentiate ownership and possession nor does it address the "mine" idea that precede any ownership. To own something would require the idea that something is "yours" to take possession wouldn't require that same consideration. So what is this "mine" pointing to if not self?

Quote:


False. I've never claimed this. I've claimed that the definitions of the words owner, ownership, and possession do not substantiate your claim that it is necessary for an owner to think they are an owner in order for them to, in fact, be an owner. Your claim is inconsistent with these definitions, and it is unsubstantiated.





Yes you did, by equating ownership and possession to be the same.

Quote:


No, I am not claiming this, as there is nothing to suggest that "conscious awareness" is necessary for self-referential instinctual behaviors.






Yes you are, as explained above, an animal would have to consider something separate from itself as "mine" to take ownership over that object, and then it would also have to communicate that ownership to others.

Quote:

Quote:


Notice that ownership is a noun, not an adjective.




I grokked the distinction between nouns and adjectives a long time ago.





Then you should have also grokked that there is a difference between ownership and possession.



Quote:

Quote:


I just distinguished them, so they must be distinguishable?




A false distinction doesn't mean anything, so, no, they must not be distinguishable.





How is a distinction between an adjective and a noun a false one?

Quote:


Unsubstantiated claim. If you want to allege that a point of contention has been abandoned, you need to substantiate your claim with evidence.





You failed to respond.

Quote:



I've never inferred this.






Yes you are inferring this, otherwise there is not ownership over something in any meaningful context.

Quote:


You have abandoned points of contention pertaining to this, so repeating the definition of the word ownership without addressing these abandoned points of contention is meaningless in an ideological debate.






That is not substantiated.

Quote:


No, I provided evidence - the definition of the word. You abandoned the discussion regarding this. You're disillusioned into thinking that, by repeating things you've said already, you're actually continuing to discuss these matters, but, because of the fact that you've abandoned the things that I've presented regarding these repeated things you keep saying, you are no longer discussing these matters.





If your evidence involves correlating ownership and possession with territorial, then it has already been explained why such a correlation is irrelevant, because there wouldn't be any differences between the words, and there are.

Quote:

Quote:


The premise assumes that ownership is a concept, because there is not any evidence to the contrary, and being a concept is not natural.




And this premise has no relation to the actual definitions of the words ownership and possession, and you've failed to respond to the points raised regarding this, so your premise is effectively bunk and meaningless as far as an ideological debate is concerned.





First of all your claim is unsubstantiated, and the relation between ownership and concept has been examined through real world scenarios and the mechanisms involved in constituting ownership as well as possession and territorial in the lion analogies.

Quote:



Explanations which were contested, and then abandoned by you in a dishonest manner.






If they were contested, they weren't contested in any legitimate way that lends credence to your argument.

Quote:


Twelve points of contention abandoned by you, as if it's so incredibly hard to respond to a few lines of text. :rofl2:


12 points is some number you made up, and then wrote a bunch of crap that is inconsequential as far as the debate goes, because your points haven't really been substantiated as points of contention against the premise.


Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
It has been explained as both an act and a right, there is not cherry picking and I'm providing evidence contrary to your claims with a definition that you claim is invalid, without providing any counter rather than attempting to prove anything.




Yes, it's cherry picking because your attempt was to utilize the legal definition of the right of ownership to suggest that the act of ownership itself is not natural. Conflating the two, as I addressed with an explanation that you abandoned responding to, is utter nonsense.





You are cherry picking a single instance of this debate and claiming that one of the many definitions examined was cherry picked, when in fact many have been examined. You want to dismiss evidence that isn't in your favor as being cherry picked? How unbiased of you ! . . . 



Quote:


Sure, the final say amongst the social conventions of humans. :lol: Once again, to reiterate upon a line of reasoning that you have abandoned responding to, the act of ownership itself exists whether or not humans have social conventions regarding their acts of ownership.





Exactly, the social conventions of humans, ownership being a social convention of humans doesn't qualify as natural. You haven't substantiated the existence of ownership beyond concept, and have only attempted to correlate it to mean possession and territorial, in which case we could do away with the word ownership all together.

Quote:


By the definition of the word ownership, yes, it truly exists, even if there aren't social conventions that attempt to regulate it.





Then it would be possession rather than ownership.

Quote:


Your assumption that nine says nothing more than eight is the error. If you stopped abandoning these points of contention, along with the other 10, your sense of what they say might be more accurate. :lol:




They same the same thing in different ways, and the implications are obvious enough that nine could be extrapolated from eight without nine have ever been read.

Now back to the point of contention you abandoned by not addressing, which is that your argument labels you as a thief:


Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
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.





As you can see you have never defended this line of reasoning, so should we all be considered as thieves?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
๐“‚€โŸ๐“…ข๐“๐“…ƒ๐“Šฐ๐“‰ก ๐“ผ๐“†—โจป
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
    #19177710 - 11/23/13 04:37 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
So, for ownership (or anything) to show independence from nature, it has to be not dependent on nature (which if the ideas are created by humans, are automatically dependent on nature).






I can agree with most of the first couple of sentence except for the conclusion of the first part.

Ownership infers self, and self is independent of nature being created by us, as an illusion it is only being dependent upon being a product of a product of nature, rather than a direct product of nature, like robots and computers would be a product of a product of a product of nature.

Quote:

Definition of Nature
naยทture
หˆnฤCHษ™r/
noun
noun: nature; plural noun: natures

    1.
    the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

    2.
    the basic or inherent features of something, esp. when seen as characteristic of it.

So, within these definitions we can go several routes.

1. The idea/concept of ownership is not a human creation*1, even if humans think about them. Thus, ideas/concepts are natural. Unless you can prove that ideas/concepts exist outside time/space*2, they rely on nature, and thus can never be independent of it.


2. The idea of ownership is a human creation*3, thus the idea/concept of ownership is unnatural. Once humans die out, the concept of ownership will also die out (unless cultivated/taught by/to another species, or recorded somehow). We can stop this "die" off by "recording" these ideas/concepts, (into machines, the landscape, scripture, other species etc). Yet, recording "devices" still rely on nature, and will at some point "die" off too, ending these ideas/concepts.

Nope this is wrong, #2 means an innate attribute of something, something inborn, rather then created. Otherwise everything would be natural and the word nature would lose all meaning.

Either way, you will need to prove that these ideas/concepts will last through the "end"*4, and that they don't rely on nature in any way at all, to prove their independence from nature (ie: prove they exist outside space/time).






That's not entirely true, they just have to be created independent of nature rather than by nature.

1inยทdeยทpenยทdent adjective \หŒin-dษ™-หˆpen-dษ™nt\

Definition of INDEPENDENT

1
:  not dependent: as
a (1) :  not subject to control by others :  self-governing (2) :  not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore>
b (1) :  not requiring or relying on something else :  not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) :  not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) :  not bound by or committed to a political party.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/independent



Quote:


Here, I'll even use your own words against you.





Sure you will . . .

Quote:


So what if they think they own it or not? Ownership is a description of behavior/possession, and the definition of ownership infers that they own it, regardless of if they realize the ownership or not.





Ownership implicates a self to have something as "mine". That is the real difference between ownership and possession.


Quote:


I would also ask, how is it "their" territory then? If they can't be owners because they don't think/haven't thought/conceptualized it, even though they display all the qualities of ownership, then, how can they "protect" "their territory", when they haven't thought/conceptualized "protection", or "territory"? They must not be protecting, and it must not be "their territory", because they aren't consciously thinking about it.





It isn't "their territory", it just happens to be where they are.


Quote:


According to your flawed logic, any X doing Y, if thought about/conceptualized, makes them/it independent of nature, as there has to be a/an X (not self), and a/an Y (self), .





How very astute of you . . . Yet you fail to explain why it is flawed. If you consider something mine, you need something to be the "mine" or thing that is owning, which happens to be self.


Quote:

Example of Flawed Logic
Example 1:





Sorry, I don't trust your judgement on what constitutes flawed logic lol . . , what is it that is doing the owning?


Quote:


I haven't really seen anyone say/argue the point about being "separate" from nature, it's your premise that's the problem, I'd say the majority probably disagree that you can be independent of nature.





So then what's the point in the word natural as anything distinguishing if it means everything?


Quote:

rsbattle said:
Just because you believe it's a false dichotomy, doesn't mean it's one.





Are there more options than you pretended exist?

Quote:



So, independence, is the "fact or state of being independent"





Quote:

Definitoin of Independent
inยทdeยทpendยทent
หŒindษ™หˆpendษ™nt/
adjective: independent

    1.
    free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

    2.
    not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

    3.
    not dependent:

    4.
    not requiring or relying on something else :  not contingent

So, independent, is "not dependent", "not contingent"





Independent simply means it does not depend on nature, if it depends on many then it is not depending on nature is it?

Quote:


Either way, you will need to prove that these ideas/concepts will last through the "end"*4, and that they don't rely on nature in any way at all, to prove their independence from nature (ie: prove they exist outside space/time).





This is called shifting the burden of proof, I don't have to prove that idea's and concepts are idea's and concepts, you just showed that . . lol

Also if ownership is a natural phenomena it would have to be shown to be so, rather than shown not to be so.


Edited by teknix (11/23/13 04:43 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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]
    #19178484 - 11/23/13 10:58 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I can agree with most of the first couple of sentence except for the conclusion of the first part.

Ownership infers self, and self is independent of nature being created by us, as an illusion it is only being dependent upon being a product of a product of nature, rather than a direct product of nature, like robots and computers would be a product of a product of a product of nature.




Yet, they still depend on nature.



So, within these definitions we can go several routes.

1. The idea/concept of ownership is not a human creation*1, even if humans think about them. Thus, ideas/concepts are natural. Unless you can prove that ideas/concepts exist outside time/space*2, they rely on nature, and thus can never be independent of it.


2. The idea of ownership is a human creation*3, thus the idea/concept of ownership is unnatural. Once humans die out, the concept of ownership will also die out (unless cultivated/taught by/to another species, or recorded somehow). We can stop this "die" off by "recording" these ideas/concepts, (into machines, the landscape, scripture, other species etc). Yet, recording "devices" still rely on nature, and will at some point "die" off too, ending these ideas/concepts.


Quote:

teknix said:
Nope this is wrong, #2 means an innate attribute of something, something inborn, rather then created. Otherwise everything would be natural and the word nature would lose all meaning.




It wouldn't. Every Human, or Human created thing would still be unnatural. You can be unnatural and dependent on nature.

Quote:

teknix said:
That's not entirely true, they just have to be created independent of nature rather than by nature.




Even if they were created independent of nature (which we've never seen anything created independent of nature), they still rely upon nature


Quote:


So what if they think they own it or not? Ownership is a description of behavior/possession, and the definition of ownership infers that they own it, regardless of if they realize the ownership or not.





Quote:

teknix said:
Ownership implicates a self to have something as "mine". That is the real difference between ownership and possession.




Except, the definition doesn't agree with this, you're remaking the definition to fit your argument.


Quote:


According to your flawed logic, any X doing Y, if thought about/conceptualized, makes them/it independent of nature, as there has to be a/an X (not self), and a/an Y (self), .





Quote:

teknix said:
How very astute of you . . . Yet you fail to explain why it is flawed. If you consider something mine, you need something to be the "mine" or thing that is owning, which happens to be self.




If you consider something to breathe, you need something to be the "breather" or thing that is breathing, which happens to be self.



Quote:

teknix said:
So then what's the point in the word natural as anything distinguishing if it means everything?




It doesn't mean everything, you should know that as you've quoted the definition yourself several times.

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

rsbattle said:
Just because you believe it's a false dichotomy, doesn't mean it's one.





Are there more options than you pretended exist?




What options does it have, regarding independence from nature? Either, it's independent or it isn't. There is no "half-way" group, as they would still be dependent on nature. So, no, there aren't really any other options then those two.

Quote:







Quote:

teknix said:
Independent simply means it does not depend on nature, if it depends on many then it is not depending on nature is it?




Yet, that's not how it works. If it depends on something that depends on nature, it's dependent upon nature itself, even if it depends on many.

Quote:


Either way, you will need to prove that these ideas/concepts will last through the "end"*4, and that they don't rely on nature in any way at all, to prove their independence from nature (ie: prove they exist outside space/time).





Quote:

teknix said:
This is called shifting the burden of proof, I don't have to prove that idea's and concepts are idea's and concepts, you just showed that . . lol




You don't have to prove they're ideas, and concepts, you have to show that they exist outside space/time, and then, if you somehow manage that, you'll have to prove that they're unnatural.
It doesn't shift the burden at all. It's clear cut. The definitions of ownership, and nature/natural, make it so anything that relies on the universe in any way is dependent on the universe, nature.

Quote:

teknix said:
Also if ownership is a natural phenomena it would have to be shown to be so, rather than shown not to be so.



Ownership has been shown to exist as a natural phenomena. The idea/concept however isn't.


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   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


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. 2 members, 10 guests and 5 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 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.