Arkolon wrote:Sociobiology wrote: it is one of the factors that creates value. franklinite and clouded leopards are far rarer than gold but no where near as valuable. in nature gold is all but worthless because it is useless. You are assuming a given definition of value based on the scarcity, it is a circular argument.
There is a higher demand for gold, which makes it more valuable. Economic scarcity is a combination of low supply and high demand. If Franklinite and clouded leopards had really important uses (ie demand for them is higher), they would be a whole lot more valuable than they currently are.
you do realize gold does not have many important uses, the majority of it is used in jewelry.
economics 101, value is subjective.
You only have one self, and you can only ever have one self. You are because of your self (because of your body . . .). There is considerable demand for your body, therefore, and since supply is incredibly low (one life), human life has considerable value.
only if you accept your already circular argument for value.
clouded leopards are far scarcer than humans, do you argue they are more valuable, humans are among the most common large animals on the planet.
Is there a lot of figurative demand for clouded leopards? If not (and there isn't), then I do not value them as much as I value human beings.
so you admit it is not intrinsic value, merely subjective value.
IF, being the key phrase
the question in this analogy is IF you own the house.
Since, because, due to the reason that, once, when I will, I will, I have the possibility to. . . would all work just as well as "if".
IF
conjunction
1.
in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that:
IF does not mean what you think it means, it is a statement of contingency.
Because I own the brick house, I own each and every constituent brick just as much.
which is a circular argument. "I own the bricks because I won the house and I own the house because I own the bricks"
which assumes A can be owned, A is basic point being argued. you can't just take your conclusion as your assumption.
another contested point.
How exactly is this contested?
do you know what contested means?
"mind = owner" is a contested point in the argument.
Or B could not be owned by anyone, you are assuming it can be owned. or it could be owned by multiple entities, there are several other possiblities you fail to account for.
A can be one individual or a community of individuals.
or B could not have an owner.
if it was consistent with the other laws then legally, yes it would justify it in that context. Remember I make no claim to objective morality unlike you.
So, say you vote for the Democratic Liberal Party, or whatever, against the Kevin Is God Party, and Kevin claims the seat of dictator, or whatever, by the narrow absolute majority of 67% vs. 33%. You participated in the election, which is you agreeing to the social contract by explicitly using government services, so does that mean that Kevin butchering up whoever he wants because, and you should agree to this because, you know, The Law is The Law, and, finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all? At all?
wow resorting to another strawman, have you run out of actual arguments?
nice try with the strawman.
Honestly, I wish it was a strawman. The fact that this is actually how you perceive legal societies to function doesn't make what I said a strawman.
I doubt you understand how I think they function, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of conditional legitimacy or social decisions.
You seem to need everything to be absolute.
so by your own logic some computers can own, thus my question is valid.
Which computers? Minds are nonphysical,
yeah thats just straight up bullshit. minds are purely physical.
I think, so I don't see how a computer could own when it cannot think on its own.
what part of some computers can think gives you difficulty? you had to be trained by your parents to think, so I would not deride computers for the same flaws you have.
[/quote]which you have.
first it was person, then mind, then master.
Synonyms. I can go back to mind/person/self, if you want. The object-master relationship was slave-master with "slave" being replaced by "object", because the object-master relationship disproves the possibility of legitimate slavery.
while the real world proves otherwise. this is the problem with the mental masturbation form of philosophy, it is prone to retaining false conclusions. not legitimate to use in our culture is not the same thing as not legitimate.