Slaves have always been treated like children. Childhood may be extended temporally to include slaves.
But possessions are terrotorially indefinite.
Therefore, taken literally, human beings treated as slaves, become like territorial claims. Their figurative timelessness is predicated as more a power struggle to protect autonomy.
Owners insist on their right to possess by virtue of being responsible for them. That kind of rationalization is self defeating on the long run.
How exactly is it self-defeating? Explain it to me.
Being responsible for your child, is how people act-out ownership. Being responsible for yourself, works exactly the same way. So how is this mistaken?
Urwrong said: ““Guardianship” has nothing to do with it. You are a guardian because it is your property, because you own it. Not the other way around?“
I can’t ever say that I felt like my parents owned me, but that I did belong to them… I definitely felt that school owned me between the hours of 9 to 4.30, but that’s another story altogether.
Sure, our parents have Rights over us, that everyone else does not have, because we belong to only them… so Rights = ownership, to you? You could call parents ‘the interface between their children and the outside world’, where parents make decisions for them. Parents cannot but help continue to be a parent, because they will always want the best for their (adult) children, and so they probably never stop being parents.
Owning/enslaving others, to do someone else’s bidding, is taking away those peoples’ freedom to live-out and actualise their own lives… so treating grown-ups as if they were children.
Lol, ok… I didn’t think that an option, so now got it.
If a parent says, feels, or thinks “my child is mine” then this signifies ownership, possession.
So even if you do not feel ‘owned’, doesn’t mean you are not owned. You are. You are your parents’ property. Parents who have children, know this intuitively and instinctively. It should be common sense, and is somewhat surprising to discover, here on this forum, that it is not. Maybe most inhabitants of this forum are childless. Parents will admit, readily, that their (biological) children, are theirs and nobody else’s. There are many instances of Ownership, Possession. Are not Step-children, also owned?
The connotation of “ownership” is negative, but, overlooked and selectively-ignored, when it comes to biological children, or even selfhood as property. Do you not own yourself? Are you not responsible for yourself?
In this thread, the answers are overwhelmingly, ‘No’, but this only begs-the-question as to Who-or-What does own people, humanity, in general?
I would guess, it must be ‘God’. And some of you may believe, in the back of your minds, that ‘God’ is your “Owner” or “Creator”. Is Creation, also Ownership?
Do you own what you create?
If an Artist paints a painting, does he/she own it? Or does somebody else? Who has claim to things?
It is self defeating not to particularise, but overly generalize whom to include categorically in the semantic qualifier of who should be held responsible for the ownership of others.
As convoluted that response appears, it is because it contains logical consequences that may be dwfinitionally forfeited.
My primary and apropp complaint need not be interpreted a negating the intent of justifying or nihilizomg the objective of the argument, merely looking at it as if such justification has not been properly assigned to a particular set.
I think by ’ children’several definitions could expunge the sense of responsibility trying ownership as an unfounded objective each other, for all men could be concerned the children of God.
It matters not to subsumed an existential truism to that catagorization
Today it’s fathers day, and God the father is responsible for all men, for Creation has imbued responsibility by an intrinsic logic, that only He can define.
It does not argue well to understand by that sense of responsibility to imply that God owns man. The most and the least are equally beheld by the Deity, therefore Man, can not take it upon himself to displace God’s role in Creation with similar or, even identical exetudr regarding the interreal meanings that are generated by that Creation.
Further, such critical points could not merely trickle down meaningfully blocked relationship between them, but rain down cataclysmic stoppages of faithful belief in the interchange.
So I do go along the generalized semantic sense of the connections pointed out , but miss in the particular versions , hence the sense of overly specific interpretation misses the objective sense of the narrative.
Ah yes, “God did it”, of course…
Yes, as imagined himself in Himself, through Himself and with himself.
Like I said… I never felt owned by my parents, but I did by the education system and school, so we may belong to our parents but be indebted to a system that we will all later on become instrumental in fostering societal progress for.
Where you see and say ownership, I see and say belonging to… do we say ‘who owns this child’ as opposed to ‘who’s child is this’? but I guess that both those terminologies boil down to the same thing, in that children are not independent of their parents.
If I don’t own myself, will someone come along and try lay claim to me? lol. As an adult, I am responsible for and in control of myself. I am possessed of myself, I possess myself… a jinn unto myself.
I don’t think the word ‘own’ is correct.
They are responsible for that child.
They can order the child to do certain things, though there are limitations, even there.
That’s not ownership. They can’t sell the child.
A slave could be sold.
You can burn your property. You can’t burn a child.
And so on.
How can a child be “yours” if you don’t own him/her?
To be “mine” or “yours”, necessarily implies and signifies ownership. You, along with most others here, can try to deny it. But that’s not the way people act/think/feel/say. To say something is “yours” or “mine”, is to demonstrate and prove ownership. Furthermore, humans are bought and sold, trafficked, traded, etc. Just because these actions are taboo, doesn’t mean they’re not reality. To take a child, from his/her parent, is to take ownership. Conflating the term with “Guardianship” does little to ‘justify’ the nature of the relationship.
Most human beings, apparently not reflective of this forum, do feel possessive and responsible for their ‘own’ biological children, and therefore, do Own them, are Owners of them.
Here’s the ‘taboo’.
Westerners, especially Americans and Liberals, don’t like the idea of “owning” people. But the common-sense, Reality, is, that parents ‘own’ their own children, and people ‘own’ their own bodies/minds/souls. To suggest otherwise, puts the burden-of-proof upon you, not me. You need to argue and prove your case, convincingly, if you honestly believe “nobody owns anybody, not even their own selves”. Because I doubt any human being actually thinks this way, actually believes it, with exception to “God did it”. Maybe that’s your position too. But it’s a weak one.
The “Western” (U.S. American, Post-modern, Liberal) conception of “Ownership” has a blind-spot, when it comes to human beings.
People, by common sense, know what Ownership is, the difference between Private and Public property. People will even admit, that people “own themselves”, insuchthat it is your body, and so your “Right” to do with your body and yourself as you see fit. This is a necessary aspect of Freedom and Liberty. But to convey ownership, of one person over and above another, is flagrant and denied. Thus the same ones espousing such freedoms, liberty, “rights”, justice, etc. will conveniently ignore and deny the matter, when it comes to common sense, such as a parent ‘owning’ his/her own flesh-and-blood child.
As-if a mother does not in fact own her own child??? Ridiculous.
It’s also clarified here, immediately, how many of these responses, how many here, are childless, and do not have their own children. Because if you did, or someday wanted to, then you would be forced to admit to Nature, Instinct, Reflex, which is the possession of parent to child. Children are the property of their parents, the most vital and important one of all.
I’m not childless. I own things not people, not even my child. I have exclusive rights in relation to my child, but that does not mean I own him. (that was one of you implied but not actually written out ideas and it doesn’t work).
Here’s what i notice. Instead of actually responding to anything I wrote, you just make statements and assumptions. Try to fucking sell your kid. I can sell everything I own. Everything. I can’t sell my kid, legally or morally in relation to society. It’s not an ownership issue.
Ownership:
Things or ideas. Not people.
Property is what is owned: property is
People are precisely not objects in modern law.
I own a doll, I can legally rip it’s head off. I cannot do that to my child.
I can sell the doll.
People can even buy dolls to have sex with. They can sell that doll for an hour to some other guy to have violent sex with it. They go to prison and even in prison culture get killed if they do that to a child.
Even murderers and rapists know the difference between a doll and a child. The former being an object, the latter not.
I notice this with posters like you. Instead of actually interacting with other people’s arguments - you know, doing the work of philosophical or intellectual interaction - you just spout your position, throw in assumptions, and seem to think this is a response. Nice appeal to incredulity in the middle there about mothers not owning their children.
The holes in your ability to think and discuss ideas with other people are glaring. Smugness built on nothing.
I can take a hammer to every single thing I own, by right, in the law. Ownership is a legal term for our relationship to
THINGS!!!
OBJECTS AND THE LIKE.
The mother you barf your incredulity around does not have to worry about anyone else owning her child. She and the father have rights, legally in relation to that child. But they are not ownership rights.
You’re still a boring ass who can’t argue his way out of a paper doily.
Or, actually, perhaps you can. You seem intelligent. But you either don’t understand what an argument or counterargument is or you are too lazy or scared to make one.
Your posts are simply self-congratulatory assertions. No argument in sight. No counterarguments, just judgments of other people’s arguments.
And the fact that you don’t even seem to realize any of this makes me think you are likely scared to interact with ideas and make actual counterarguments.
Cowardly shit. I mean, cowardly shit.
We don’t have the language in English unless you want to explain thinks awkwardly such as “the birth mother of the birth mother of the birth mother of me” to refer to “the great grand mother of me”… it all sounds cold and clinical and people look at you funny. Trust me, I’ve tried this! Things are not easy in English when you do this. I can just say “mother”. “Mother of what? You or someone else?”
English is a language that has never allowed for the expression of people as not being possessions … “my mom”. “My child” “my husband”. Etc…
It’s a childish way to see the world and people, exceedingly immature. Our culture is exceedingly immature.
Oh okay, so if your child is kidnapped, you can’t complain about it, since you don’t own your child. Interesting. See, this is the “common sense” factor that I mentioned. Most people, most human beings, know that if your child is kidnapped, your property taken, that this is a problem. But since your children are not your property, (they are nobody’s?) then you shouldn’t have a problem with that?
So you have to be able to sell something, otherwise it’s not ownership? Very interesting…
So… you don’t own yourself? I’m guessing ‘No’, in theory, but ‘Yes’, in action.
This is further argumentation that “you don’t own yourself”. Well, I disagree. I do own myself. Maybe I’m unique. Let’s find out, how unique though?
I was under the presumption that most people, do own themselves, are in-control of themselves, are responsible for themselves… seems like I might be wrong?
So if you mutilate and sell your child, this proves ownership?? Very interesting, I’m learning so, so much, from this thread. Thank you. You’re proving how necessary and insightful this can be. I didn’t know that you had to destroy or sell something, otherwise you don’t own it?
Yikes, these are some giant leaps of logic. Mutilation, selling people, sex, you’ve introduced a lot into this notion of “Objectification”. Maybe that’s your intention. People aren’t “Objects” (says you), yet humans objectify each-other everyday. What else is claim to ownership and property, except this “Objectification”? That doesn’t mean that, somehow, parents are immune, or that you don’t act as though you do in-fact ‘Own’ your own child or body. Maybe, just maybe, you really believe the nonsense and garbage you just spewed. I really don’t know, but it’s sick and twisted, either way.
Imagine people walking around who …don’t own themselves …don’t own their own children …have no possession of self. Again, I could be wrong, seems like I am. At least, my perspective is the minority already. I was under the presumption, again, that most people own-themselves and own their own children. As-if an infant, child, or teenager can be picked-up off the street, and anybody can lay-claim or ownership of him/her. “Nobody can own anybody else”? That’s not quite true, nor accurate. People have before, in the past, so what changed?
Furthermore, therefore, is it really true, that today nobody owns themselves, or to do so, would be to “Objectify yourself” as you implied? Is this even possible, existentially? How can somebody “Objectify him or herself”?
Urwrong,
The very fact that your child can be kidnapped or you can be killed by another, means, by definition! That you don’t own your child or yourself… ownership as a “god given right” means that these things are impossible! By definition!
Kidnapping means that a person has stolen the possession of a person.
Again… I thought these were common sense, but it never ceases to amaze me around this forum.
Again, The English language does not have very sophisticated language for this concept. If you can possibly be killed, does that mean you actually own yourself?
If you can possibly be kidnapped, that doesn’t mean parents own you… it’s the idea, again, that you don’t own yourself.
Well… ‘parent and therefore legal guardian‘ as opposed to just ‘legal guardian‘, as the latter involves paperwork, bureaucracy, and going through much red-tape… the former, doesn’t… unless you want to count the signing of the birth certificate. that is?
Grown people are indeed bought and sold… are they promised a better life? are they stolen? is it a hoax? do some go willingly, out of desperation for a better life? Could be all of the above, but owning ourselves doesn’t always seem to work for many.
Have you heard me mention god as true? I thought my position on gods and religion was clear to all here? No?
time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/ watch the video… doctored news? fake news? part-fake news?
What of when children are homeless, have no parents, are unwanted, or sneak out to do grown-people things… as in Rotherham? Is this real? Is this a hoax?
I shall ask my mother if she thought/felt like she owned me… I recall she did / I recall I didn’t, but I weren’t put up for sale, stolen, molested etc., but I do recall a disturbing attempt of the unknown kind on my person, right outside my front door, when 9.
Is a sister considered a legal guardian?
No. An older sibling could possibly become a legal guardian of his/her younger siblings, for instance if their parents were incapacitated or died. … A legal guardian would be someone appointed through the court to care for a child. This could be anyone, not necessarily (and not usually) a sibling.
Family are the custodial-authority, by default.
