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: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | Next >
Offlinersbattle
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 45
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
    #19178485 - 11/23/13 10:58 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Still ignoring posts though.

Quote:

rsbattle said:
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.





C'mon, take a swing at it.


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
    #19179140 - 11/23/13 02:12 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
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.




Must there? You've never presented any evidence for this unsubstantiated claim. The dictionary certainly doesn't sustain this opinion.

Quote:


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.




Your logic is that, as "it" is a noun, rather than an adjective, an owner, as an entity that owns, must conceptualize that they are an owner and that they are owning.
Apart from the fact that you haven't specified what "it" is, I'm very eager to understand precisely how whatever "it" is, and the fact that it's a noun and not an adjective, implies that an owner must conceptualize being an owner in order to own. :smirk:

Quote:


For example, you don't own anything unless you claim that you own it.




Not according to the dictionary. Ownership doesn't require a claim to be doing it in order for it to exist, by definition.

Quote:


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.




The fact that an entity that has conceptualized a sense of self and a sense of ownership expresses that sense doesn't negate the fact that ownership itself doesn't require conceptualization in order to exist.

Quote:


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.




Except for the fact that you've provided no substantiation whatsoever for your claim that they don't mean exactly the same thing.
Whereas, in fact, I have before, and will do so once again right now:

pos�sess
[puh-zes] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to have as belonging to one; have as property; own:

pos�ses�sion
[puh-zesh-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or fact of possessing.
2.
the state of being possessed.
3.
ownership.

own
[ohn] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
3.
to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.

own�er�ship
[oh-ner-ship] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state or fact of being an owner.

own�er
[oh-ner] Show IPA
noun
a person who owns; possessor; proprietor.



Sorry, but the dictionary, meaning the commonly accepted understanding of what the concepts mean, clearly states that they are exactly equivalent, i.e. the same.

Quote:


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




Yes I do.

Quote:


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.




The commonly accepted definition of ownership does not in any way, shape, or form imply that "conceptualization of self" is required for it to take place. It's defined as an act of possession, not as a conceptualization. You have no substantiation in suggesting otherwise, whereas I do.


Quote:


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?




It's not a mistake to understand what the dictionary says. :lol:


Quote:


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.




Unsubstantiated allegation. I've specifically addressed the relationship of meaning between the words ownership and possession as well as the matter of conceptualization as it pertains to ownership. You've failed to respond to what I've presented regarding this.

Quote:


To own something would require the idea that something is "yours" to take possession wouldn't require that same consideration.




That's your unsubstantiated opinion. The dictionary doesn't act as evidence for this unsubstantiated opinion, and you've not provided any other source for this claim.

Quote:


So what is this "mine" pointing to if not self?




There's a distinction between self and sense of self or conceptualization of self, a distinction that makes all the difference in the world regarding your unsubstantiated, baseless claim that ownership is unnatural because it requires conceptualization in order to exist.

Quote:


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




No, I didn't, and they are the same, for which the dictionary clearly stands as evidence. My claim is substantiated by sound evidence. Yours is unsubstantiated opinion.

Quote:


... 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.




Exactly, they do both of these things, but neither of these things rely on conceptualization in order to take place, so your point is null.

Quote:


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




No, because I actually know how to read and understand the dictionary.



Quote:


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




I never said it was. You were replying to my statement that territoriality and ownership are indistinguishable, and you suggested that you just distinguished them, so they must be distinguishable. So, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but both territoriality and ownership are nouns, so...

Quote:


You failed to respond.




Exactly, because there was nothing to respond to. When you find substantiation for your claim, there will be something to actually respond to.

Quote:


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




No, I'm not inferring this, and your conclusion that there wouldn't be ownership in any meaningful context is nothing more than a gross misunderstanding on your part of what ownership is.

Quote:


That is not substantiated.




Yes it is. I specifically demonstrated through the twelve points of contention that I outlined earlier how you've abandoned points of contention. That's substantiation and it's been left unchallenged, offering it validity.

Quote:


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.




False. Point of contention #5 directly deals with this matter, and you abandoned responding to it, so your claim of what has already been explained is bullshit.

Quote:


First of all your claim is unsubstantiated




No it isn't.

Quote:


, 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.




No it hasn't. You abandoned those discussions. If "examined" means suggesting some bullshit and then abandoning discussion of it when someone else subjects it to criticism, then, okay, it's been examined. :smirk:

Quote:


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




Unsubstantiated allegation. You've provided no line of reasoning to demonstrate this, nor any response to what I've proposed, abandoning those points of contention, so, therefore, what you're saying now is unsubstantiated and worthless.

Quote:


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.




False. Point of contention #1 deals directly with this repeated bullshit of yours that they don't count as points of contention, and you've failed to respond to it, along with the other eleven points of contention, which aren't inconsequential as they directly deal with things that you've proposed for discussion.
You've abandoned twelve points of contention, and the debate hasn't moved an inch forward due to your failure.

Quote:


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 ! . . . 




A conceptualization of ownership isn't evidence that the act of ownership itself requires conceptualization, so I couldn't have dismissed it as it isn't evidence. :smirk:
Whatever you're saying there about how I'm cherry-picking a single instance of this debate is worthless, because what we're talking about is how you claimed that behavior doesn't "imply" ownership because ownership is defined as the legal right of possession, and, as a right is an abstract idea, it means it's unnatural.
You should probably try to keep track of what you say before you start thinking I'm "cherry-picking one instance of a debate". You're the individual who tried suggesting behavior doesn't imply ownership because, oh, let's pass over the definition of ownership as an act, an act being something that's done, a manner of doing something being the definition of behavior, and focus solely on the extra definition of ownership as a legal right.
Which, naturally, brings us to the definition of the term "cherry-picking". :smirk:

Quote:


Exactly, the social conventions of humans, ownership being a social convention of humans doesn't qualify as natural.




No, the legal right of ownership doesn't qualify as natural by the definition of the word natural that you're employing; however, the act of ownership qualifies as natural, by definition of the word ownership.

Quote:


You haven't substantiated the existence of ownership beyond concept




You've never substantiated the idea that ownership is conceptual in nature, whereas the dictionary has substantiated the concept that ownership is an act for me. :lol:

Quote:


, 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.




The dictionary correlates ownership and possession, and your suggestion about how that would mean needing to do away with the word ownership all together is completely ignorant of the way language works. :smirk:

Quote:


Then it would be possession rather than ownership.




They are the same thing, by definition. 

Quote:


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.




Sure, in imagination land, together with all of your lousy excuses for not being able to respond to points of contention.


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



False. I specifically addressed them, and then you abandoned the point of contention.



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



False. I responded thusly:


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?


And you failed to respond, meaning the answer to my question was, yes, abandon. :lol:



teknix said:
[Ownership infers self.]

No it doesn't, by definition.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

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


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: rsbattle]
    #19181497 - 11/24/13 05:46 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

rsbattle said:
Yet, they still depend on nature.







Lol, I've been using the 1st definition for the premise:

    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.

See how it shows an independence from nature, because it is differentiated from products of nature and a product of the product of nature by explicitly excluding your ass!



Quote:


So, within these definitions we can go several routes.





Yeah you could grow all sorts of root's with it.  :smile:

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.





Yeah, but what is really owning it? Can you pinpoint which atoms are owning the other atoms not directly connected to themselves?



Quote:


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





The definition we have been using does.

Quote:


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





Not so much as consider something but consider as "I" which is breathing. If you consider that you are breathing then there would have to be a conceptual self to be doing it. Ownership implicates this concept of "I".


Quote:

rsbattle said:
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.





You mean an object that is being possessed?

You realize the definition of natural which you've seen quoted many times excludes humans and their creations?

Which atom is doing the owning, what is it that you consider "I", besides a concept?


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19181506 - 11/24/13 05:51 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
......





I'm not replying to you until you address that point of contention that you keep dodging.

If your argument defeats itself then there is no reason for me to argue against it, because it has done that for me.

:cool:


Edited by teknix (11/24/13 06:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineeve69
--=..Did Adam and ...?=--
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 3,910
Loc: isle de la muerte Flag
Last seen: 1 month, 18 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19181579 - 11/24/13 06:50 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

are you serious? fireworks_god is one of the most forthcoming of people, you're playing games with her


--------------------
...or something







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: eve69]
    #19181635 - 11/24/13 07:32 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

him:nono:


--------------------
"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
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
    #19181920 - 11/24/13 09:55 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Watching the hopeless, yet nonetheless amusing efforts of teknix in attempting to bolster his confused argument via logical fallacies, fundamentally ill-defined terms, and ignoring well-thought-out rebuttals by fireworks_god & others that have wholly demolished the preposterous claims in the OP sorta reminds me of the following picture:



--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


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
    #19182744 - 11/24/13 01:48 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I'm not replying to you until you address that point of contention that you keep dodging.




Unsubstantiated claim. You've provided no evidence that I've dodged a point of contention. I know it sounds cool when I say you abandoned points of contention and everything, but the difference is that I've provided plenty of evidence of the dishonest ways in which you abandon points of contention, whereas you've never been able to substantiate a single claim that I've ever abandoned a point of contention.
If you want to say it, you need to earn the right to do so. :shrug:

Quote:


If your argument defeats itself then there is no reason for me to argue against it, because it has done that for me.





If my argument defeats itself in your imagination, that's great, but no one here gives a fuck about what happens in your imagination.
You've abandoned twelve points of contention, and once again, with the last reply that I've posted, you've decided to abandon responding to the point by point debate that you, up until that point, felt comfortable with engaging in.
Whatever changed, to the extent that you now inform us that my argument defeated itself in your imagination, is purely a matter of your own psychological processes, which aren't pertinent to this debate. However, what is pertinent to this debate is that you've abandoned the points of contention that you initially engaged in, and no excuse in the world can justify abandoning a point of contention in the context of an ideological debate.
:teacher:


--------------------
: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
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19182816 - 11/24/13 02:10 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Would the owner of this thread just kill it?h

Enough.  Already.  Effing wall of text, and puppets battling puppets.

We effing get it!  Puppets will never own, they will only be able to have their effing strings pulled.  But when two puppets mingle, who's to say who the mix up favored.

No freaking body?

Puppets, back in your case, and please if you talk again, you will be burned.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


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]
    #19183196 - 11/24/13 03:35 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Lol, I've been using the 1st definition for the premise:

See how it shows an independence from nature, because it is differentiated from products of nature and a product of the product of nature by explicitly excluding your ass!




No, I don't see how it shows an independence of nature, because it still depends on nature. All you've shown with that definition is that it's unnatural.

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:


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




Not so much as consider something but consider as "I" which is breathing. If you consider that you are breathing then there would have to be a conceptual self to be doing it. Ownership implicates this concept of "I".




Except, by definition it doesn't. Even if it did though, how would that make them independent of nature? Yet, without considering/making the concept of breathing/breathe, we still display/do the action of breathing. It's the same with ownership.


Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

rsbattle said:
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.





You mean an object that is being possessed?

You realize the definition of natural which you've seen quoted many times excludes humans and their creations?




Obviously. That makes them unnatural, not independent of nature.

You realize these human creations are still dependent on nature? (That's rhetorical, it's obvious you don't)


Edited by rsbattle (11/24/13 03:35 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19183614 - 11/24/13 05:15 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I would say, humans have the choice to enforce ownership, which naturally is a given by possession. Maybe it needs some intellectual ability to enforce ownership, while possession can easily be seen immediately.
Maybe the english dictionary simplifies the subject too far as I also see a difference there.
I really would like to see this debate come to a conclusion :lol:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19185481 - 11/25/13 05:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
I'm not replying to you until you address that point of contention that you keep dodging.




Unsubstantiated claim. You've provided no evidence that I've dodged a point of contention. I know it sounds cool when I say you abandoned points of contention and everything, but the difference is that I've provided plenty of evidence of the dishonest ways in which you abandon points of contention, whereas you've never been able to substantiate a single claim that I've ever abandoned a point of contention.
If you want to say it, you need to earn the right to do so. :shrug:

Quote:


If your argument defeats itself then there is no reason for me to argue against it, because it has done that for me.





If my argument defeats itself in your imagination, that's great, but no one here gives a fuck about what happens in your imagination.
You've abandoned twelve points of contention, and once again, with the last reply that I've posted, you've decided to abandon responding to the point by point debate that you, up until that point, felt comfortable with engaging in.
Whatever changed, to the extent that you now inform us that my argument defeated itself in your imagination, is purely a matter of your own psychological processes, which aren't pertinent to this debate. However, what is pertinent to this debate is that you've abandoned the points of contention that you initially engaged in, and no excuse in the world can justify abandoning a point of contention in the context of an ideological debate.
:teacher:




I haven't abandoned any, they are irrelevant if your argument defeats itself.

If a vegetable owns the fruit growing from it, then who are you take take it and eat it? If a mother cow owns her calf, who are you to butcher and eat it?


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19185496 - 11/25/13 05:18 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Since ownership can be defined as a right or entitlement of possession, we must first show that animals have rights innately to say that they are owning, and how do we know that they have a conceptual idea of self from which to own, or attache things outside of them to themselves and call it theirs.

This is true because in every instance of ownership, there is the owner and that which is owned. Unless you can provide an example to the contrary?

I know it's probably really hard to understand how ownership, implicates an owner and conceptual thought, but if you think about it, and consider what exactly is doing the owning, it should become clear that the "I" that is calling something mine, is just a thought, and without that thought, there is nothing to attach the strings of something else to call yours.


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: deCypher]
    #19185511 - 11/25/13 05:39 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Watching the hopeless, yet nonetheless amusing efforts of teknix in attempting to bolster his confused argument via logical fallacies, fundamentally ill-defined terms, and ignoring well-thought-out rebuttals by fireworks_god & others that have wholly demolished the preposterous claims in the OP sorta reminds me of the following picture:







Lol, yeah I guess I should partake in the whole yes it is, and no it isn't battle . . rofl.


Care to substantiate those claims?

The terms have been defined adequately by dictionaries, if you have a better suggestion for a definition then posit it. I am using the definition that excludes humans and their idea's for obvious reasons, and one of them is to separate out the idea of self from nature through isolation.

Don't worry, most idea's foreign to ones mindset are often ill received, because it is unfamiliar, and unfamiliarity breeds discomfort, and it is doubly so when the idea in question is one so personal as self.


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #19185540 - 11/25/13 06:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Let me provide an example that should make the differentiation between possession and ownership obvious:

If you pick up a rock while rocking down the street, you are possessing that rock. So what is required for the rock to be owned? What is required is for you to call it yours, IE; you have to claim it as yours, and not only that, you have to let others know that it is yours as well or they make come and possess that rock.

Now let's say that you throw the rock, without ever calling it yours, and someone else comes along and sticks the rock in their pocket, big deal right? I mean it wasn't "your" rock so what do you care of the rock?

Now let's say that you throw "your" rock down the street, and someone comes by and sticks it in their pocket, now they are stealing "your" rock, and you feel the need to do something about it, because you connected it to yourself as yours.

So what is the difference between the two scenario's?

The first scenario doesn't require any conceptual thought, you are simply picking up a rock.

The second scenario requires the idea that the rock is yours and belonging to you, and if someone takes something that is belonging to you, you are obliged, through self, to voice your claim over that rock to the one who picked up that rock, otherwise that rock wasn't yours as far as the person picking it up is concerned.


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]
    #19185541 - 11/25/13 06:01 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I haven't abandoned any




False.

Quote:


they are irrelevant if your argument defeats itself.




There is no such thing as an argument defeating itself in an ideological debate. :lol:
Nice excuse for your abandonment, though. :smirk:

Quote:


If a vegetable owns the fruit growing from it, then who are you take take it and eat it? If a mother cow owns her calf, who are you to butcher and eat it?




I've already responded to this point of contention, and you failed to respond to what I presented regarding it. Repeating the same thing is meaningless. Your responsibility in debate is to respond to what I've presented regarding the matter.

There are twelve points of contention, none of which you've responded to, despite the fact that you initially were involved in them. You've abandoned them.

Quote:


Since ownership can be defined as a right or entitlement of possession, we must first show that animals have rights innately to say that they are owning




No we mustn't, because we're not discussing the legal right of ownership that exists amongst human society; we're debating the act of ownership, which does not require the legal right in order to exist, by definition of the word ownership.

You've failed repeatedly to respond to this point.

Quote:


, and how do we know that they have a conceptual idea of self from which to own, or attache things outside of them to themselves and call it theirs.




We don't. Fortunately, these things are not necessary for ownership to exist, by definition of the word ownership.

Quote:


This is true because in every instance of ownership, there is the owner and that which is owned. Unless you can provide an example to the contrary?




Being an owner doesn't require conceptualization, by definition of the word ownership. Your claim to the contrary is not substantiated, and you've provided no evidence for it.
Naturally, this is another point that you've abandoned responding to.

Quote:


I know it's probably really hard to understand how ownership, implicates an owner and conceptual thought




It must be so hard that you fail miserably in providing any evidence that conceptual thought is necessary for acts of ownership to take place. :rofl2:

Quote:


, but if you think about it, and consider what exactly is doing the owning, it should become clear that the "I" that is calling something mine, is just a thought, and without that thought, there is nothing to attach the strings of something else to call yours.




No, it shouldn't become clear, because organisms do not require conceptualization in order to take action, and ownership isn't defined as an exercise in conceptualization, as the definition of the word evidences.


--------------------
: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] * 1
    #19185542 - 11/25/13 06:01 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Lol, yeah I guess I should partake in the whole yes it is, and no it isn't battle . . rofl.





You're the only reason the debate isn't honest and productive.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

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


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


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19185547 - 11/25/13 06:04 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

What do you consider a productive debate?

It's like I'm sitting outside of earths orbit, trying to explain to you that the earth is round (because I can see it as such) while you are on the surface claiming it is flat (because that is all you can see).

So you will adamantly disagree with me, until you see for yourself that the earth is round, and to do that requires opening your eyes and looking beyond self.

Those who are working with or beyond the idea of self shouldn't have much of a problem understanding what I am saying, those who are perceiving through the eyes of self will find it much more difficult (if ever), to see, because they are looking for that which they are perceiving through. Kind of like trying to look at your eyeball with the eyeball that is looking, and without a reflection to aid you.

I mean, how do you know there is an eyeball in your head that is seeing, if you have never seen an eyeball?


Edited by teknix (11/25/13 06:10 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]
    #19185563 - 11/25/13 06:17 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
If you pick up a rock while rocking down the street, you are possessing that rock. So what is required for the rock to be owned?




Behavior which evidences the fact that the entity regards the rock as belonging to it.

Quote:


What is required is for you to call it yours, IE; you have to claim it as yours, and not only that, you have to let others know that it is yours as well or they make come and possess that rock.




What is required is for the entity to associate themselves with the rock in some manner and to behave in a way that would seek to discourage other entities from removing the possibility of that association, through communication and/or defensive action. 

Quote:


Now let's say that you throw the rock, without ever calling it yours, and someone else comes along and sticks the rock in their pocket, big deal right? I mean it wasn't "your" rock so what do you care of the rock?




Yes, of course, entities may come into contact with an object and not feel an impetus to continue their association with the object or an impetus to attempt to prevent other entities from possessing the object after that.

Quote:


Now let's say that you throw "your" rock down the street, and someone comes by and sticks it in their pocket, now they are stealing "your" rock, and you feel the need to do something about it, because you connected it to yourself as yours.

So what is the difference between the two scenario's?




In the second scenario, the entity has the impulse to attempt to prevent another entity from taking action that would eliminate the chance for the entity to maintain their association with the object.

Quote:


The first scenario doesn't require any conceptual thought, you are simply picking up a rock.




Yes, no conceptual thought is necessarily involved in picking up a rock.

Quote:


The second scenario requires the idea that the rock is yours and belonging to you, and if someone takes something that is belonging to you, you are obliged, through self, to voice your claim over that rock to the one who picked up that rock, otherwise that rock wasn't yours as far as the person picking it up is concerned.




You omitted the part that evidences your suggestion that conceptualization is required for an entity to manifest ownership. Sure, you say it's required, but you certainly don't provide any evidence that it actually is. :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
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #19185583 - 11/25/13 06:30 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Then ownership should be defined as such. :cool:

The Implicative Self.


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: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


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 6 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.