yes although they have moved away from that word due to its confounding use in christianity.
Advertisement
by Sociobiology » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:00 pm
by Arkolon » Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:07 am
Yes, that's how logical processes work. C only matters IF B is true, which itself only matters IF A is true, etc.
which is why first you have to establish why self ownership is true.
and Rothband fails basic logic, a false tetrachotomy is no more true than a false dichotomy.
So what is your answer, then, if it is not in the tetrachotomy?
Everything in the universe doesn't necessarily have a self. X-ownership is pretty hard to do when you're not, or do not have, X.
then maybe using a vague term is not the best idea.
Yes, I know. This was presupposed, and I was making it pretty obvious when I deliberately omitted words that had the words "human beings" and replaced them with "sapient sentient beings". Following from Nozick, animals have self-ownership as well, and eating animals for their meat is nothing short of hypocritical. At least, he says so, and he admits that that is divisive among libertarians as to whether or not a bovine, equine, feline, or canine actually has the characteristics to be a sapient sentient being.
part of the problem is they are all sentient and sapient has no real meaning.
so even within self ownership proponents they can't agree on what qualifies you for it.
MBMC is true because SO is true. SO is true because your body, life, and products thereof belong to you.
underlined is not a demonstration it is " X is true because X is true." thats circular reasoning again
Why wouldn't they?
good at least you are asking the question.
And if they belonged to no one at all, can they be appropriated in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings?
if your concept of property was not valid why would something founded on it be valid?
Without our enforced legal system, could you still do what you want with your body?
that would depend, if I lived in a society with slavery possibly not.
me: SO is true
you: no it isn't
me: why not?
you: you tell me
That's all I'm getting here.
and thats the problem, its not up to me to tell you why not, it is up to you to show why it is true, the burden of proof lies on your claim.
For us. If you don't want to abide by the terms I'm going to use, we aren't going to get anywhere at all.
Legitimacy, in our context, derives from natural law.
no it doesn't, it does for you, this is important for you to understand, especially if you are interested in philosophy, you can't just assume things to be true because it suits your argument. you have to demonstrate that they must in all likelihood be true.
especially if you are going to constantly use them as justification for further principles.
... because an individual with a self owns themselves. You aren't giving me anything to work with. I have never trained to be a teacher. I only read books and take classes. I thank you for making me think about how to explain my ideology and philosophy in simpler terms for new people in less time, but I don't know what else I can give you. There was one axiom to start with, and that is self-ownership.
then you have no argument unless you can demonstrate self ownership MUST be true.
Until you give me something to work with-- anything: an opinion, an alternative objective reasoning, an idea, your idea-- I can't give you anything else, because I don't know what else to give you.
no that will only enable you to distract from your own arguments lack of foundation.
You must understand that your argument must stand on its own two feet.
When I was in English class and a list of logical fallacies was pinned to the wall, using one would be a negative light shone at you, but avoiding the whole argument on the grounds that a logical fallacy was used is doubly negative to your reputation as a consistent and admirable debater.
thats because it was a debate class and the purpose was to teach you to debate, you had to participate to be taught, not because you should argue a fallacious point.
You're about to cross a line in which you enter territory I can safely say that you are not giving me anything at all, you are not being productive in your reasoning or constructive in your criticism, and you are, effectively, wasting my time.
I'm deconstructing your argument, not offering an alternative, your argument must stand on its own.
...
It's dualism vs. monism. There are three types of monism: physicalist, idealist, and neutral.
wrong there are four types, I even mentioned the other.
and I am an empiricist first, if one of the others could be demonstrated to be more likely I would switch to that one.
If it's none of the above, then you aren't a monist, and must therefore be a dualist-- in which case you would have to agree with me, as there is only one type of dualist.
see above, and now you can see the problem with false X-chotomies.
Answer the questions I ask you, man. Please. You aren't helping anyone at all by avoiding important questions.
I am because it is not a important question it is a red herring. If my answer matters you already are admitting the point is subjective.
These are terms we are using as follow-throughs of SO.
no more than half of them have been used to attempt to justify SO.
I understand how homonyms work, and they are almost totally unrelated to the course of the argument in this thread.
which is nice and all, but this is not about them being homonyms, it is about the very concept itself being subjective and varying greatly by culture and society.
I'm still waiting for you to actually contribute to the process.
I am by trying to break your argument.
maybe this will help you understand.Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is
also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a
merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration...
--- Dr Pepper
. then you cannot use it to define of support SO or anything SO is based on, because then your argument becomes circular.These all are in direct correspondence with SO and the natural rights that follow from it. Force is a rejection, dismissal, or overriding of natural rights
... so your political ideology does not result from a a certain philosophy?
empiricism, I even said so.
If you're still in your teens,
not even close. I haven't been a teenager since before columbine.I expect you've whored yourself out to every corner of the political compass, just as everyone who has not anchored their beliefs in philosophy.
no, nice attempt at a ad hominem though.
1. You own yourself (self-ownership).
and what leads you to believe this?
It's unrelated, actually, to my argument for self-ownership.
1. You own yourself.
2. This entitles you to certain natural rights as a result of (1).
3. But your (2) cannot override the (2) of others.
4. The accumulation of property in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings is just because (1), (2), and (3).
so then still no justification for 1. I mean there are holes in the others but it is kind of a waste of time to get into that without a demonstration of 1.
SO -> NR. That was easy. I've said it before, too.
thats not a chain of reasoning
this is what you are saying
"banana's exist therefor the japanese internment camps were justified"
of
"7 -> 14"
there is no way to establish truth for these because they are not arguments.
Nice try, but I have read them, and none of them come with a free CD "How To Explain This Book To People Who Don't Want To Listen In Fear Of A Change In Opinion", which is a shame, because I really need it in a situation like this.
just flip back to the part about supporting an argument.
by Arkolon » Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:13 am
by Arkolon » Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:14 am
Liberaxia wrote:Skeckoa wrote: 1. It's on. Let's get the numbers on. // 2. The state is made of people. They are not divine or special in any way, yet they are awarded powers that would seem to indicate that they are in fact divine.
This is a strange way to talk about government. Yes, government officials exist, but they're not the same as government itself, which is an institution. Democracy, for example, is the rule of thepeoplemajority.
by Maqo » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:29 am
Arkolon wrote:Percentage of deaths in warfare is not an accurate method of comparing stateless societies to statist societies, because what with specialisation of labour and much, much larger populations, only a small fraction of people actually enlist to the army. During wartime, this number is greater, but smaller in proportion to the total population. If you want to make the very same graphics with the very same examples go from smallest-to-largest deaths by society instead, use "total number of deaths caused by war". Contemporary history would be off the chart, or stateless societies would be barely visible. The images you gave are just a manipulation of data. It only looks like states are less violent because less people die as a proportion of all people; in a tribe of 100 people with 50 males, about 40 males are expected to fight if under attack. It would only be a fair comparison if modern armies had capacities of 40% of the population-- about 126 million in the US. How big is the US army, then?
by Arkolon » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:43 am
Maqo wrote:Arkolon wrote:Percentage of deaths in warfare is not an accurate method of comparing stateless societies to statist societies, because what with specialisation of labour and much, much larger populations, only a small fraction of people actually enlist to the army. During wartime, this number is greater, but smaller in proportion to the total population. If you want to make the very same graphics with the very same examples go from smallest-to-largest deaths by society instead, use "total number of deaths caused by war". Contemporary history would be off the chart, or stateless societies would be barely visible. The images you gave are just a manipulation of data. It only looks like states are less violent because less people die as a proportion of all people; in a tribe of 100 people with 50 males, about 40 males are expected to fight if under attack. It would only be a fair comparison if modern armies had capacities of 40% of the population-- about 126 million in the US. How big is the US army, then?
... It's not a manipulation of data - it is the only sane way to present the data.
Comparing 'total numbers' of anything across populations is exceedingly meaningless. This is why we have a field of 'statistics' instead of 'counting shit'.
Otherwise we can pick a country rife with civil war but with a low population, and say "gee, that place is less violent than Canada"... except it isn't according to any meaningful interpretation of the word violent.
by Sociobiology » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:57 am
Arkolon wrote:
Percentage of deaths in warfare is not an accurate method of comparing stateless societies to statist societies, because what with specialisation of labour and much, much larger populations, only a small fraction of people actually enlist to the army. During wartime, this number is greater, but smaller in proportion to the total population.
If you want to make the very same graphics with the very same examples go from smallest-to-largest deaths by society instead, use "total number of deaths caused by war".
Contemporary history would be off the chart, or stateless societies would be barely visible.
The images you gave are just a manipulation of data. It only looks like states are less violent because less people die as a proportion of all people; in a tribe of 100 people with 50 males, about 40 males are expected to fight if under attack. It would only be a fair comparison if modern armies had capacities of 40% of the population-- about 126 million in the US. How big is the US army, then?
by Sociobiology » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:04 am
Arkolon wrote:Maqo wrote:
... It's not a manipulation of data - it is the only sane way to present the data.
Comparing 'total numbers' of anything across populations is exceedingly meaningless. This is why we have a field of 'statistics' instead of 'counting shit'.
Otherwise we can pick a country rife with civil war but with a low population, and say "gee, that place is less violent than Canada"... except it isn't according to any meaningful interpretation of the word violent.
Of course it's a manipulation of data. The argument was asking which society killed more people: stateless societies, or statist societies. When we compare the number of people that died in each, we arrive at statist societies producing far more bloodshed. I have already said how labour specialisation and large societies arrive at smaller army sizes (5%s instead of 40%s), so of course there are fewer proportional deaths if a far smaller proportion of the population actually goes to risk their lives. Similarly, we could compare this to obesity. If I ask you which country has the most obese people, would you say American Samoa? It has a population of about 50,000 people and an obesity rate of 74.6%, which is 37,300 obese people. Compare that to mainland America, which has 315,000,000 people and an obesity rate of 33%, meaning about 104,000,000 obese people. Despite having almost 3,000-times fewer obese people, would you still pretend that American Samoa has the fattest amount of people? I'm not asking about concentrations. I know full well that it means American Samoa has the most obese people in proportion to their population, but we're taking a global look at global deaths in warfare before the advent of statism.
by Sociobiology » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:24 am
]which is why first you have to establish why self ownership is true.
Self-ownership is true because, honestly, every alternative to it is ludicrous.
So what is your answer, then, if it is not in the tetrachotomy?
1. it doesn't matter what my opinion is. I don't consider a person something that can be owned, and I don't prescribe to your control based definition of ownership. so it is not any of your options.
then maybe using a vague term is not the best idea.
I don't consider earth rocks, space rocks, or mint leaves to have self-ownership, because they don't have selves. Conversely, canines, felines, equines, and bovines have selves, and they also have natural rights. Although that is up for debate.
part of the problem is they are all sentient and sapient has no real meaning.
so even within self ownership proponents they can't agree on what qualifies you for it.
If it has a self, except that would include lots of types of animals, and again, that's a controversial issue.
I used sapient sentient being because humans are sapient and sentient, but they are not the only beings with natural rights.
underlined is not a demonstration it is " X is true because X is true." thats circular reasoning again
It's actually more like "X is X", but OK.
good at least you are asking the question.
6/10 almost, you have to give an answer, though.
if your concept of property was not valid why would something founded on it be valid?
1. You own yourself.
2. What you do with your body is equally yours as well as your responsibility.
3. In the beginning, all was common to all alike,
again based on unfounded assumptions thus an opinion.so accumulating property would be diminishing others' rights to it.
4. Which is why the accumulation of property can only be just if compensation is given in return; the Lockean proviso.
that would depend, if I lived in a society with slavery possibly not.
Slavery wouldn't be institutionalised, and if anything, if you didn't consent to it, it would be illegitimate anyway. So assume you were born free in a free, stateless society. To whom does your body belong to?
and thats the problem, its not up to me to tell you why not, it is up to you to show why it is true, the burden of proof lies on your claim.
If you want to sit down and me to teach you a university course on natural rights, go to university yourself and get an actual professor to help you. This is a thread for debate, not teaching.
no it doesn't, it does for you, this is important for you to understand, especially if you are interested in philosophy, you can't just assume things to be true because it suits your argument. you have to demonstrate that they must in all likelihood be true.
especially if you are going to constantly use them as justification for further principles.
me: this is true
you: why?
me: how isn't it true?
you: it isn't always true
me: so what is the alternative?
you: you tell me
What do you want me to say? You aren't helping me get anywhere. Ask me a proper question with a little substance, a la "Self-ownership is not true because . . .", and we'll debate that. Until you concede that nothing other than self-ownership is true, we can't move on.
... because an individual with a self owns themselves. You aren't giving me anything to work with. I have never trained to be a teacher. I only read books and take classes. I thank you for making me think about how to explain my ideology and philosophy in simpler terms for new people in less time, but I don't know what else I can give you. There was one axiom to start with, and that is self-ownership.
then you have no argument unless you can demonstrate self ownership MUST be true.
no that will only enable you to distract from your own arguments lack of foundation.
You must understand that your argument must stand on its own two feet.
It will strengthen my foundation, not distract me from a lack thereof.
So it won't distract you from the fact the thing you are arguing has no foundations?
thats because it was a debate class and the purpose was to teach you to debate, you had to participate to be taught, not because you should argue a fallacious point.
It wasn't a debate class, it was an English class where this situation was true for about two-three school years. It was always true that calling your friends out on fallacies used was a bonus point, but then refusing to continue the argument was doubly worse.
I'm deconstructing your argument, not offering an alternative, your argument must stand on its own.
"Why? ad infinitum isn't what I would call a proper deconstruction of one's arguments.
wrong there are four types, I even mentioned the other.
and I am an empiricist first, if one of the others could be demonstrated to be more likely I would switch to that one.
Empirical monism?
I am because it is not a important question it is a red herring. If my answer matters you already are admitting the point is subjective.
me: 4 squared is 16
kid: 4 squared is 8
sociobiology: maths is subjective!!!
no more than half of them have been used to attempt to justify SO.
*sigh*
which is nice and all, but this is not about them being homonyms, it is about the very concept itself being subjective and varying greatly by culture and society.
They are follow-throughs of one starting axiom.
Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is
also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a
merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration...
--- Dr Pepper
Dr Pepper was a real guy?
. then you cannot use it to define of support SO or anything SO is based on, because then your argument becomes circular.
1. You own yourself.
2. You have natural rights as a result of 1.
3. Rejecting, dismissing, or overriding your 2 by a third party constitutes force.
4. Force is bad because it rejects 1.
empiricism, I even said so.
not even close. I haven't been a teenager since before columbine.
no, nice attempt at a ad hominem though.
Either that or your whole ideology is an appeal to moderation, a logical fallacy.
and what leads you to believe this?
The fact that no alternative to it stands true.
so then still no justification for 1. I mean there are holes in the others but it is kind of a waste of time to get into that without a demonstration of 1.
Where are the holes in 2-4?
thats not a chain of reasoning
this is what you are saying
"banana's exist therefor the japanese internment camps were justified"
of
"7 -> 14"
there is no way to establish truth for these because they are not arguments.
You know what SO and NR stand for, right?
just flip back to the part about supporting an argument.
Why don't you tell me where I'm wrong
and how you are right, supposedly?
by Arkolon » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:11 pm
Self-ownership is true because, honestly, every alternative to it is ludicrous.
argument from ignorance and ab absurdo, try agian
1. it doesn't matter what my opinion is. I don't consider a person something that can be owned, and I don't prescribe to your control based definition of ownership. so it is not any of your options.
So if you don't consider a person as something that can be owned, but a legal framework enforces slavery, what would you say?
I don't consider earth rocks, space rocks, or mint leaves to have self-ownership, because they don't have selves. Conversely, canines, felines, equines, and bovines have selves, and they also have natural rights. Although that is up for debate.
finally you admit it.
If it has a self, except that would include lots of types of animals, and again, that's a controversial issue.
and you think that somehow excuses you? You are the one claiming some ultimate objective form of rights.
I used sapient sentient being because humans are sapient and sentient, but they are not the only beings with natural rights.
well since we don't know what sapient means, we can't say humans are it.
and if you are not using these critieria what are you using to determine what has natural rights?
It's actually more like "X is X", but OK.
no because the question is "is X true", you are using X to justify X.
6/10 almost, you have to give an answer, though.
no I don't, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim to objective self ownership.
1. You own yourself.
which you have yet to demonstrate
2. What you do with your body is equally yours as well as your responsibility.
based on an unfounded assumption, thus entirely opinon
3. In the beginning, all was common to all alike,
so another unfounded assumption.
again based on unfounded assumptions thus an opinion.so accumulating property would be diminishing others' rights to it.
4. Which is why the accumulation of property can only be just if compensation is given in return; the Lockean proviso.
appeal to authority does not help you, especially when the "authority's" argument is equally unfounded.
Slavery wouldn't be institutionalised, and if anything, if you didn't consent to it, it would be illegitimate anyway. So assume you were born free in a free, stateless society. To whom does your body belong to?
you do realize I could answer with" I don't know" and it would not help your argument in the slightest, right?
this false dichotomy thing is getting old.
If you want to sit down and me to teach you a university course on natural rights, go to university yourself and get an actual professor to help you. This is a thread for debate, not teaching.
I know you think this is relevant but this is not how teaching works, I am trying to help you learn to debate. You can't just say "I'm right" and not back it up and expect people to believe you. You have to demonstrate why your argument is correct.
me: this is true
you: why?
me: how isn't it true?
you: it isn't always true
me: so what is the alternative?
you: you tell me
What do you want me to say? You aren't helping me get anywhere. Ask me a proper question with a little substance, a la "Self-ownership is not true because . . .", and we'll debate that. Until you concede that nothing other than self-ownership is true, we can't move on.
I don't have to do that, you need to show why it is true.
finish the following sentence; (Self ownership is objectively true because...)
I'm not going to a concede a point your entire argument if founded on if you cannot demonstrate that point is true, nor should I. Thats not how debate works.
you need to make a claim with substance first.
then you have no argument unless you can demonstrate self ownership MUST be true.
Self-ownership MUST be true because everything else isn't.
which is an argument from ignorance, it is not a better answer than "I don't know"
snip
It will strengthen my foundation, not distract me from a lack thereof.
Empirical monism?
Empiricist, and materialism is the most likely to be true given current evidence.
me: 4 squared is 16
kid: 4 squared is 8
sociobiology: maths is subjective!!!
already explained that math is not a social construct, so try a different strawman.
*sigh*
I know its frustrating when your opponent remembers things you say.
They are follow-throughs of one starting axiom.
and unproven, unfounded, unaccepted axiom. thus making everything based on it unfounded as well.
1. You own yourself.
2. You have natural rights as a result of 1.
3. Rejecting, dismissing, or overriding your 2 by a third party constitutes force.
4. Force is bad because it rejects 1.
now demonstrate 1. is true.
Either that or your whole ideology is an appeal to moderation, a logical fallacy.
Ideology, what ideology, so far all I have told you is one of my opinions and that I am an Empiricist.
The fact that no alternative to it stands true.
which is both a false dichotomy and an appeal to ignorance, no matter how many alternatives are proven false that does not add one iota of support to your claim.
I never claimed my opinion was right, just equally valid. I don't have to show something else is right to show you are wrong. All I have to do is show that your argument is unsound, which I do by pointing your your first premise is unfounded.
by Sociobiology » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:54 pm
Self-ownership is true because my mind is the sole entity with authority over my body and itself.
that the legal framework is not consistent with self-ownership.
I know what you want me to say but I'm not going to play into your attempt to make an appeal to emotion
That is stating the obvious. All it shows is, as you implied, that the legal framework would be illegitimate.
and you think that somehow excuses you? You are the one claiming some ultimate objective form of rights.
Excuses me how? I am a human being and I own myself. From a sorites perspective, it is hard to discern exactly where a creature goes from mind-over-body ownership to just being property. Meat is either slavery, murder, both, or none. I say both, but that's my personal opinion, and I'd love to debate it.
no because the question is "is X true", you are using X to justify X.
It's actually an expansive form of "just because", admittedly.
no I don't, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim to objective self ownership.
i. You are a person; the self.
ii. Your person is granted life by having a body shaped in a particular way.
iii. Your person controls what you want to do.
iv. Your body belongs to you, the person.
1. You own yourself.
so another unfounded assumption.
In the beginning, either no one owned everything or everyone owned everything equally. Those are negative commons and positive commons respectively. They are commons: they are common to all.
you do realize I could answer with" I don't know" and it would not help your argument in the slightest, right?
this false dichotomy thing is getting old.
It would tell me in which direction to point you towards. That being the door, by the way.
I know you think this is relevant but this is not how teaching works, I am trying to help you learn to debate. You can't just say "I'm right" and not back it up and expect people to believe you. You have to demonstrate why your argument is correct.
French education system. How teaching works is subjective.
I don't have to do that, you need to show why it is true.
finish the following sentence; (Self ownership is objectively true because...)
I'm not going to a concede a point your entire argument if founded on if you cannot demonstrate that point is true, nor should I. Thats not how debate works.
you need to make a claim with substance first.
Say you're an young lad, twenty to twenty-five years old, and your friends want you to get a tattoo-- to permanently ink your body in a certain form. Who makes the last call? Who decides if you walk to the tattoo parlour and get the tattoo done?
Don't pull any of this "no one" bullshit on me again. You know full well how nonsensical it is, just as you know full well that it is you who decides if you want to get a tattoo and it is your call to make because it is your body. Even if your friends grabbed a gun and pointed it at you and threatened to shoot if you didn't get a tattoo, you still own yourself, because it is you who decides if you want to suddenly start running, and it is you who decides if you want to tilt your head or move your finger or clench your teeth together when the gun is pointed at you. It is an overriding of natural law and by a violation of natural rights, sure, just as it is a statement positing that they own enough of you to make you get a tattoo, but they do not own you. Nobody can own your body except yourself.
Self-ownership is objectively true because the mind and the body exist hylomorphically.
The same way the bricks that constitute a brick house belong to the house,
the body that constitutes a person belongs to the person.
Matter itself is relative: the matter of a brick house is brick, but the matter of brick is clay.
Letters are the matter of syllables,
and syllables are the matter of words.
the life breathed through the nostrils of the body.
Personhood is what gives a body life.
A brick house without any brick is not a house:
a body without a person is not alive.
The body belongs to the person; the body is the property of the person.
The person actually tried to counter whether or not a dragon actually was there by constructively asking questions about its whereabouts and its abilities and characteristics, something you have failed to do, and something you feel justified in failing. Analogically:
me: here's my dragon!
you:here's my fairy!prove it.because I don't see anything
Empiricist, and materialism is the most likely to be true given current evidence.
Which is a shame: empiricism falls short of being totally rational-- empiricism is the study of What Is Seen and not What Is Not Seen.
already explained that math is not a social construct, so try a different strawman.
Self-ownership isn't a social construct either, apparently, because it isn't subjective, which doesn't fit your definition of a social construct.
now demonstrate 1. is true.
Hylomorphic rationality.
Ideology, what ideology, so far all I have told you is one of my opinions and that I am an Empiricist.
Kantian transcendental idealism is the one true method of the accumulation of knowledge.
which is both a false dichotomy and an appeal to ignorance, no matter how many alternatives are proven false that does not add one iota of support to your claim.
Give me one alternative. Give me any alternative. Give me your alternative.
What is wrong with 2-4 now, please?
I never claimed my opinion was right, just equally valid. I don't have to show something else is right to show you are wrong. All I have to do is show that your argument is unsound, which I do by pointing your your first premise is unfounded.
Fairies to dragons. Educative.
by Arkolon » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:08 am
Self-ownership is true because my mind is the sole entity with authority over my body and itself.
which isn't true, please learn some basic behavioral science or anatomy.
That is stating the obvious. All it shows is, as you implied, that the legal framework would be illegitimate.
by modern western cultural values.
Excuses me how? I am a human being and I own myself. From a sorites perspective, it is hard to discern exactly where a creature goes from mind-over-body ownership to just being property. Meat is either slavery, murder, both, or none. I say both, but that's my personal opinion, and I'd love to debate it.
good you recognize what an opinion is, now how is self ownership not also entirely opinion.
i. You are a person; the self.
ii. Your person is granted life by having a body shaped in a particular way.
iii. Your person controls what you want to do.
iv. Your body belongs to you, the person.
1. You own yourself.
iv does not follow from iii
In the beginning, either no one owned everything or everyone owned everything equally. Those are negative commons and positive commons respectively. They are commons: they are common to all.
so if no one owned anything how does that support ownership.
It would tell me in which direction to point you towards. That being the door, by the way.
any direction will do just as long as it has some foundation
French education system. How teaching works is subjective.
fair enough, now try the second part.
"You can't just say "I'm right" and not back it up and expect people to believe you. You have to demonstrate why your argument is correct. "
Say you're an young lad, twenty to twenty-five years old, and your friends want you to get a tattoo-- to permanently ink your body in a certain form. Who makes the last call? Who decides if you walk to the tattoo parlour and get the tattoo done?
in our culture, in most cases, I do.
Don't pull any of this "no one" bullshit on me again. You know full well how nonsensical it is, just as you know full well that it is you who decides if you want to get a tattoo and it is your call to make because it is your body. Even if your friends grabbed a gun and pointed it at you and threatened to shoot if you didn't get a tattoo, you still own yourself, because it is you who decides if you want to suddenly start running, and it is you who decides if you want to tilt your head or move your finger or clench your teeth together when the gun is pointed at you. It is an overriding of natural law and by a violation of natural rights, sure, just as it is a statement positing that they own enough of you to make you get a tattoo, but they do not own you. Nobody can own your body except yourself.
which makes volition equal to control which is problematic because he could have inserted some wires in my head and cause me to walk in without my brain deciding in one way or the other or even against what my brain decides.
Self-ownership is objectively true because the mind and the body exist hylomorphically.
do you mean they are the same, because that sentence does not describe a relationship linking the two, it is like saying apples and oranges exist as fruit, true but not terribly relevant.
The same way the bricks that constitute a brick house belong to the house,
unless you take some of them to build a new house and replace them with new bricks, do you really want to run down the Ship of Theseus, because the answer at the end is the human brain can and does track patterns as if they were objects, because it usurped the same neural wiring.
the body that constitutes a person belongs to the person.
which does not necessarily follow from the person being made of the body.
Matter itself is relative: the matter of a brick house is brick, but the matter of brick is clay.
no matter is not relative, a brick house is not a type of matter, it is composed of matter. the pattern defines it as a brick house.
matter is anything that has mass.
Letters are the matter of syllables,
not in many languages. but now I see you are using matter figuratively. but that just makes this non sequitur.
and syllables are the matter of words.
again not in all languages.
the life breathed through the nostrils of the body.
so not familiar with science newer than phlogiston?
Personhood is what gives a body life.
no chemistry is what gives it life.
again..A brick house without any brick is not a house:
actually it it can be a house, a log house is a house without bricks. a brick house without bricks is not a brick house.
a body without a person is not alive.
based on what definition of person?
I can keep a body alive without a brain which means no mind. Its not legally alive but thats legally.
The body belongs to the person; the body is the property of the person.
so a long string of verbiage just to go back to the same circular argument.
The person actually tried to counter whether or not a dragon actually was there by constructively asking questions about its whereabouts and its abilities and characteristics, something you have failed to do, and something you feel justified in failing. Analogically:
me: here's my dragon!
you:here's my fairy!prove it.because I don't see anything
fixed it for you
you haven't even claimed it was invisible just pointed at a blank space and said here is a dragon.
Which is a shame: empiricism falls short of being totally rational-- empiricism is the study of What Is Seen and not What Is Not Seen.
actually it is the study of what is most likely given current knowledge. something without the slightest evidence can be safely treated as untrue, because it can not be shown to be more likely than an infinite number of equal alternatives.
we work from the simplest model and add complexity only when accuracy in prediction is gained, because there is always an infinite number of more complex alternatives, however there is not an infinite number of less complex alternatives.
we probability to our advantage, because will will never have access to all information in existence, so must work from some point.So we use the most probable.
or to put it in your terms, what is not seen and true is impossible to distinguish from what is not seen and false, thus has no truth value. so we must rely on what is seen.
Hylomorphic rationality.
does not demonstrate it, if anything it makes it more problematic, as we showed above.
Kantian transcendental idealism is the one true method of the accumulation of knowledge.
results disagree, things like the computer and the airplane.
its kinda funny because the roots of Kant's thinking are explained by neurology, the brain tried to form archetypes to deal with the vast amounts of information it has to deal with. archetypes doesn't exist but makes categorization much faster with minimal sacrifice in accuracy. It is no coincidence Kant has become less relevant with the advent of real cognitive neurology.
Give me one alternative. Give me any alternative. Give me your alternative.
no, I don't need one to show your argument is unsound.
What is wrong with 2-4 now, please?
why is rejecting 1 bad
i could give more but you will just use it to distract from 1.
Fairies to dragons. Educative.
actually if you said you had a dragon and I said I have a fairy, it would pointing out how unfounded your claim of a dragon was by making an equally invalid but distinct, but noticeably identical claim.
you: I'm the pope!
me: yea and I'm the king of england.
by Sociobiology » Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:16 am
Arkolon wrote:Sociobiology wrote:
which is wrong, I can do it, all i need is a a wife and an electric charge, hell tasers do it all the time. also your mind is part of your body.
If there is no mind, there is no body of my own. If you control your wife through electric impulses, her body is not hers. Quit bringing lasers, tasers, and pointless scenarios into this.
which isn't true, please learn some basic behavioral science or anatomy.
My mind survives off of my body (if there is no body there is no mind); if the body is hungry, the mind tells it to eat. I never rejected biology.
by modern western cultural values.
No, objectively. Because self-ownership is objectively true,
it is objectively true that slavery is illegitimate.
good you recognize what an opinion is, now how is self ownership not also entirely opinion.
Because it is not subjective.
iv does not follow from iii
Come on, this is basic Aristotle.
iv follows very well from iii because they exist hylomorphically.
any direction will do just as long as it has some foundation
You're wasting my time, you do realise that?
fair enough, now try the second part.
"You can't just say "I'm right" and not back it up and expect people to believe you. You have to demonstrate why your argument is correct. "
Mind-body hylomorphism, I've already explained it to you.
its either about culture or biology either way ownership is not automatic.in our culture, in most cases, I do.
No, you do, objectively. This isn't a question about cultures.
Stop trying to change the subject. Stop trying to avoid conceding to the fact that your body is yours. It's too late. I know you know it, and you know you know it yourself. This is philosophy, not sociological anthropology.
which makes volition equal to control which is problematic because he could have inserted some wires in my head and cause me to walk in without my brain deciding in one way or the other or even against what my brain decides.
Then that wouldn't have been your mind, would it? Is your mind the wires? What are you even trying to prove at this point?
Self-ownership is objectively true because the mind and the body exist hylomorphically.
do you mean they are the same, because that sentence does not describe a relationship linking the two, it is like saying apples and oranges exist as fruit, true but not terribly relevant.
unless you take some of them to build a new house and replace them with new bricks, do you really want to run down the Ship of Theseus, because the answer at the end is the human brain can and does track patterns as if they were objects, because it usurped the same neural wiring.
Now you're deliberately wasting my time. I gave one sentence that said that a pile of bricks is not a house, and you say that if you build a house with it, it is a house.
I have given my reasons as to why the body belongs to the mind,
Looking back, what have you given me? Absolutely nothing.
You have asked me to spit out what is written in my philosophy books.
which does not necessarily follow from the person being made of the body.
It does, because the body and soul/mind exist hylomorphically.
In our language. You apply a globalist scope only when it is convenient for you. If I'm talking in English, consider "the language" to mean English.
You're doing this again where you attempt to find superiority in an argument not by taking down the actual points, but by tackling a totally unrelated part of the post about how comparing it to all that has ever existed does not make it true in this context. Stop doing this.
You literally cut the same post in half to make the same point twice. What's the point? What are you trying to prove?
It's a figure of speech, and it was written like so when it first appeared. I don't seriously believe that life is breathed through the nostrils. I found it poetic.
Mate, I never said we had logs.
A person is the self. And you're again conflating subjects. A body can be alive, but if it doesn't have personhood ("legally alive") it does not own itself, because it does not have a person.
You know what I think, I think you took a course in biology that one time, and since then you have never given up conflating everything you can find with it. Stop, this isn't biology. This is philosophy.
You are wasting my time with pointless and crude conflations that have no bearing to what we're talking about.
I'm waiting for you to ask me where the dragon is,
and I have shown you where the dragon is. The dragon is real. It is objective.
You cannot see it because you do not want to see it. You are trying not to see it.
actually it is the study of what is most likely given current knowledge. something without the slightest evidence can be safely treated as untrue, because it can not be shown to be more likely than an infinite number of equal alternatives.
we work from the simplest model and add complexity only when accuracy in prediction is gained, because there is always an infinite number of more complex alternatives, however there is not an infinite number of less complex alternatives.
we probability to our advantage, because will will never have access to all information in existence, so must work from some point.So we use the most probable.
or to put it in your terms, what is not seen and true is impossible to distinguish from what is not seen and false, thus has no truth value. so we must rely on what is seen.
Your point does not follow from the rest of your paragraph.
Losing my patience.
[/quote]I am the pope; this is the reason why I am the pope. I am the pope because I fit the characteristics of a pope. How do I not fit the characteristics of a pope?
you: you have to prove it to me.
I'm so done.
by Conscentia » Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:46 am
Arkolon wrote:Because they're not the same.
As for the block of wood question, it depends.
What I'm trying to say is that using your definition of property, the distinction between the two is quite blurry at the actual division. Why the distinction-- why cut it like that?
I don't think you understand what I mean by reverse sorites. "It depends" proves my point.
Arkolon wrote:Who says every negative liberty is a right? Law must recognise any particular liberty as a right. Until then, it is not a right - it is just a liberty you happen to have.
You do not bestow the freedom to kill, but is it a right to kill?
You've misunderstood. They're called "liberty rights", which are what I have meant when referencing "negative rights", but "liberty rights" (as opposed to "claim rights") are more specific to the actual argument.
Arkolon wrote:Private property involves social production without social ownership. There is no social production involved in a single body's labour, and the private/social ownership distinction is irrelevant when a system involves only 1 person.
Leave AI, aliens, etc. out of this to keep things simple.
I am, as a person, producing things, and I own myself. Private property. To reject private property is to reject living as a free individual. Using your logic, by the way, me operating a machine on my own, producing tonnes of goods every year for my personal gain (or even hiring people to do so) would be "personal property". The means of production are now, magically, personal property and not private property. I also fail to see how land would be, by your definition, private property.
| Misc. Test Results And Assorted Other | The NSG Soviet Last Updated: Test Results (2018/02/02) | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
by Arkolon » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:44 am
Conscentia wrote:Sorry for the long response time, Arkolon...
Arkolon wrote:What I'm trying to say is that using your definition of property, the distinction between the two is quite blurry at the actual division. Why the distinction-- why cut it like that?
I don't think you understand what I mean by reverse sorites. "It depends" proves my point.
The distinction is not blurry. It is clear. It's just that the fact that it's a block of wood is irrelevant to the distinction. As I understand it, it's the function of the object that's relevant. If block of wood is turned into personal shelter, then it's personal property. If you intend to rent out the building, then it ceases to be personal property.
Arkolon wrote:You've misunderstood. They're called "liberty rights", which are what I have meant when referencing "negative rights", but "liberty rights" (as opposed to "claim rights") are more specific to the actual argument.
I don't see how that changes much.
Law has to recognise a particular freedom or permission as an entitlement, otherwise it's not a right. It's just a freedom you have without being entitled to it.
Arkolon wrote:I am, as a person, producing things, and I own myself. Private property. To reject private property is to reject living as a free individual. Using your logic, by the way, me operating a machine on my own, producing tonnes of goods every year for my personal gain (or even hiring people to do so) would be "personal property". The means of production are now, magically, personal property and not private property. I also fail to see how land would be, by your definition, private property.
Much no.
Property is a relationship between people with respect to an object. A person cannot be property.
As soon as you hire someone else, it ceases to be personal property.
"In economics and sociology, the means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories,[1] including both infrastructural capital and natural capital."
Land is not a consumer good. It's natural capital.
As I've explained before, when there is only one employee, the private/social property distinction becomes irrelevant. If you operate a machine alone, then the workers already control the means of production - there is only one worker and that guy is controlling the means.
by Liberaxia » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:59 pm
Arkolon wrote:
Percentage of deaths in warfare is not an accurate method of comparing stateless societies to statist societies, because what with specialisation of labour and much, much larger populations, only a small fraction of people actually enlist to the army. During wartime, this number is greater, but smaller in proportion to the total population. If you want to make the very same graphics with the very same examples go from smallest-to-largest deaths by society instead, use "total number of deaths caused by war". Contemporary history would be off the chart, or stateless societies would be barely visible. The images you gave are just a manipulation of data. It only looks like states are less violent because less people die as a proportion of all people; in a tribe of 100 people with 50 males, about 40 males are expected to fight if under attack. It would only be a fair comparison if modern armies had capacities of 40% of the population-- about 126 million in the US. How big is the US army, then?
by Liberaxia » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:00 pm
by Liberaxia » Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:29 pm
Arkolon wrote:[spoiler=spoilered because length]Maqo wrote:If the free market could provide roads, electricity, laws, etc as you suggest, they could be provided by the free market within a state without affecting the state's monopoly on violence. (assuming that laws could be provided by competition between firms and then enforced via the state's police).
Once the law itself has been privatised, there is no state, and the firms that create laws enforce their own laws.
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Cyptopir, Dogmeat, Eahland, Kostane, Lemkowyna, Luminesa, Merriwhether, Rusrunia, The free romanians, The Grand Duchy of Muscovy, The Holy Therns, Three Galaxies, Vanuzgard, Wampummariut
