Like I stated before (I don’t know if everyone has ‘ignored’me)
Custodianship (also guardianship) always implies rights for those in custody or being guarded! Ownership does not. We are custodians and guardians of ourselves and others; That implies that we have rights and they have rights!
Also like I stated before: do we own a lamp? That would make this discussion slightly more interesting.
So you admit you don’t know how ownership works? Good, we’re making progress…
Yeah, well, when you have a child someday, I’ll take him/her away from you, because it’s not yours it’s mine. Then we’ll review this thread, at that time, and see how serious you really are?
I’ve already addressed this. You are simply denying self-ownership, which goes against common sense.
Do you, or do you not, have control over your body, bodily functions, limbs, range of motion? If yes, then yes.
I was walking by my elementary school and I saw my first grade teacher. She waved to me from my first grade classrroom, wonderful she is still teaching there.
I told her I owned her and she seemed very disappointed I was still a poor student.
So, I walked by the cemetery to visit the grave of my best friend Jack. His family found me digging there and claimed I did not own Jack or Jack’s body.
People just don’t understand ownership though I have to admit Jack was also their brother and son. I suggested we could be co-owners and I could have the body on weekends but they just looked at me funny. His sister, Jainey, is a crush of mine. I tried to carry her out of the cemetery, but her family stopped me and called the cops. They put me in jail. I told them this was my town and since the jail was part of my town I owned it and asked them to leave
Then I was assigned a court appointed psychiatrist.
We’re just playing word games here.
What about being possessed in your body by spirits?
Oh that’s right? You don’t know shit.
At best you have rights. You certainly don’t have any ownership!
Unfortunately I’ve learned that first hand with most of my former friends.
They are willing to sacrifice everything to remain trivial slaves.
They hate freedom far wore than they hate even themselves.
It’s apparent from the reactions. When pushed into it, forced into a corner, how do they react?
Trolling and word-games, Ecmandu and KT both just did it, admitted to it.
KT, probably smart enough to understand, knows the difference between Ownership and not, yet will not apply it to self-ownership, because if he does, and he knows this trap, then his mentality is finished. He has to admit to a series of contradictions, that he is unwilling to admit to. He’s aware of the double-standard, but for whatever personal reasons, cannot or will not confront them.
It’s as easy as ‘abortion’. If you believe women have the “Right” to “their own body”, then is this not significant of self-ownership, that “you own your own body” and not “evil-white-man”? This is the case. The Liberal-Left pretend that Abortion is an “act of rebellion”, “against patriarchy”, and thus, against these presumptions of ownership of self. But this is the opposite premise, a false preclusion. If women, liberal-leftists, do “own their bodies”, own-themselves, then they, at least, should be proud of the fact? More ready to admit to it? More ready to demonstrate it, and argue on its behalf?
Yet, when confronted, they balk, and play word-games, as Ecmandu and KT do here. Why? Because admitting to it, is going to get them in trouble. They’ll be stuck in a position, that, once you admit to “self-ownership”, then you admit to a position of Morality and Self-Responsibility, by which, they are immediately responsible for their choices, consequences, and situations throughout life, leading up to, during, and afterward, especially in a case of Abortion, or any such “liberal-left” situation in life. Including “Racism”. Including most modern-post-modern social, cultural, and political problems.
When you admit to self-ownership, then you immediately revoke your Victim-Card, and that’s the issue and cause for Resentiment here. Ecmandu and KT, probably feel this, but can’t explain it, and won’t admit to it logically.
In essence, I’d agree with you, self-hatred is then amplified toward a hatred against freedom/liberty/individuality/independence. Self-hatred amplified, and then pointed-outward at boogymen, demons, and whatever conjured scapegoat-enemy.
It’s ironic and almost cute in a childish way.
Those claiming to value ‘Liberty’ (freedom, the basis of liberalism), are the same ones who would attack it were it realized. But the contradiction is simple.
“Rules for Thee, not for Me”
“Liberty for Me, not for Thee”
It’s about gaining political power, and the cost and immediate detriment to others. Absolute selfishness. That’s the reason, I believe, for the defensiveness and emotional reaction.
Dude,
Urwrong… you’re wrong.
Spiritual possessions happen all around the earth.
It takes over your entire central nervous system against your will and moves your body around like a puppet.
You don’t own yourself.
Like I said before, at the very best, you have rights.
Those rights are custodianship / guardianship, not ownership.
Karpel Tunnel and Ecmandu walk into the Pound
.
KT: “Hello, I lost my dog this morning, can you help me out? She’s a small, brown Terrier.”
Vet: “Yes, Mr. Karpel Tunnel, we picked up several dogs today. Let’s go take a look.”
KT: “Ah, there she is! Poopsie! Good girl, come to daddy! Daddy loves you! Ooooo!”
Vet: “Ah, there’s a small problem, Mr. Karpel Tunnel. As you know, possession is 9/10ths of the Law…”
KT: “Wait, what are you saying?”
Vet: “Well, since you have lost custody of your dog. She’s no longer yours, she’s ours now.”
KT: “Dammit, you’re right! I forgot about that. Since Ownership doesn’t mean anything, I guess I don’t own Poopsie after all. I’m so bummed out.”
Ecmandu: “Don’t worry, friend, Ownership means that something is for sale, including animals. So, can we purchase Poopsie back?”
Vet: “Sorry, we’re not a regular pound here. We’re not a business. We cannot put a pricetag on animals and their lives. They are priceless.”
Ecmandu: “These are just word-games though. You don’t ‘own’ Poopsie. Nobody does.”
Vet: “Again, I’m sorry gentlemen, you lost your Right and responsibility over Poopsie, when you neglected her, lost her, and could no longer watch out for her.”
Gotcha!
I never explained why it was a word game. I simply stated it. For some bizarre reason you assumed this wouldn’t be a 100,000 character post explaining everything you don’t know about this subject.
I’m trying to be concise here.
So it’s merely a “word game” that people own themselves are not?
That people are independent, or not?
Maybe you have a point, maybe not. The Legal system, however, disagrees with you. It is presumed within the Law, that you are responsible for yourself, as an adult. Independence and Dependence are defined within the tax-code. But, as I mentioned, some people are ‘Dependents’ from birth to grave. If anything, that is lack of “ownership”, not the other way around.
“John is David’s son” merely means that it is David’s sperm that created John. It does not mean anything more than that. The fact that John is David’s son says absolutely nothing about their social relationship. In fact, it leaves the possibility that they never met and that David does not even know he has a son.
Normally, when people say that someone owns something, what they mean is that that person has a control over that something (and is exercising it.) But when people say that John is David’s son, what they mean is that David created John, not that he has a control over John. Even if he has zero control over John’s life, John is still his son, simply because he created him.
So you’re wrong. (It’s in your name.)
I read that is it important to understand your competitors (I run a consultancy)
infoentrepreneurs.org/en/gu … mpetitors/
My competitors, the main ones, have offices in the same building as me. I went and told them I owned them. They thought I must be trying some kind of hostile takeover, but no, I told them they were MY competitors and started taking the computers out of their offices.
Now I am back again in my town’s jail.
Instead of hiring a lawyer (since my lawyer refuses to continue representing me now that I refuse to pay him) I hired a linguist. They are my fucking competitors. Mine.
My son visited me, I own him. He’s having trouble at his college since he has been on academic probation. I told him it’s his college, they can’t threaten him.
Can’t wait to hear how that smarmy dean and my son’s (HIS!!!) professors react to finding out my son owns them. Threaten him with expulsion indeed, uppity property needs to know its place.
My neighbor’s son is also my neighbor so I have started trying to undo some of the bad parenting my neighbor engages in. I meet the kid, my youngest neighbor, after school, where I take him out for some fast food. He’s my neighbor and his father can’t tell him what to do and not do. I mean, it’s his father he owns him and I own the kid since he is my neighbor and hell, if he doesn’t like a Whopper now and then. That’s my perogative to deal with my neighbors, my property, these people I own, however I want to
in my town
on my planent
in my solar system
they are my fellow americans
my occasional nemises (when they think they can have late night parties on MY street)
and if you have any objections to this well
you’d better not use
MY native language,English, to voice them, or I will rip your Broca’s area right out of your brain, since you are my critic and that part of what is actually MY brain since you are my critic, would be using one of
MY belongings, the English language,
without my permission.
Annie’s favorite novelist was Paul Sheldon. No wonder she thought she owns him.
(Stephen King is fun.)
Total pwnage. Andy just shut this whole thread down.
True to the rigorities of the inductive logician, andy carefully examines the normative semantic meanings of the word ‘own’, and finds that a genetic relationship to another being does not constitute the proper conditions in which the use, or practice, of ownership could be meaningfully expressed as it is in normative circumstances if circumstances are normative.
For two points, identify the circular reasoning in that paragraph.
It’s obvious that most or all of you are childless.
That’s fine. If, someday, you have children. They won’t be yours. They’ll be mine, because as you admit in this thread, you can’t ‘own’ your own children. I guess that means somebody else can.
Your firstborn are owed to me.
I expect child support checks, as well.