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.
I pity your relationship with your parents, that you think of relationship between parent and child so lowly and detached.
Just because you hate your parents, doesn’t mean everybody else does or should.
I own my discussion partners…
Perhaps I should pity your inability to understand (together with your inability to recognize that you do not understand) what other people are saying. But it’s not something I do in general…
I am not talking about my relationship with my parents. I am not talking about anyone’s relationship with their parents. I am not even talking about the ideal relationship with one’s parents. I am merely stating what it means to say that one person is another person’s child. In other words, I’m talking about language – English language.
To say that one person is another person’s son is to merely state that that other person’s sperm created that person. Nothing more than that. And I didn’t come up with that. That’s English language.
It is YOU who are redefining language and I wonder why. Is it perhaps because it allows you to interpret other people’s statements in a way that suits you?
I understand in which direction Urwrong is going in… in a Court of Law situation, where any and every loophole in the Law and Human Rights Act can be used to get out of certain situations. But this is not something the average human has to worry about or think of, in any given lifetime.
Ownership of children and kin, is not so much a Societal dilemma, as it is a Political, Criminal, and Human Rights one, in aiding to protect one’s kin and citizens.
Ownership has to do with objects. My relation to my son is much closer and less detached than my relationship with my door, my carpet, my usual soup spoon.
And Magnus probably does not think he owns his parents…
even though he uses ‘my’ when talking about them.
And that’d be weird if a three year old owned his parents. His parents. And Magnus was once three, well, most of us were. But we did not own our parents. Nor did they own us. They owned stuff, things, inanimate stuff, that they would have given away in a second to save our lives because unlike owning us, they loved us as people love other people, but in that incredibly strong way parents love children, those that do, those that are not detached - you know, like those people who treat their kids like property, like things.
It’s good this is happening online so you can just keep presenting yourself as confident when in person that level in yourself where you know you are making a fool of yourself would be easy to see in your body language and tone of voice.
Indeed. The degree to which, and in which, we are able to control the fate of some object, is determined by the kinds of restrictions made upon us when exercising that control. You own a car, you control the fate of the car, and there are laws put into place which restrict what you can do with the car. A human being, on the other hand, and despite whatever ‘relation’ it has to another human being, cannot be treated the same way as a car; you can’t do the kinds of things we do as conventional language users to exercise what we understand as ‘ownership’, with another human being. The relationship can’t be classified as one of ownership, and this not even considering the number of restrictions involved in determining the fate of and/or controlling the destiny of another human being.
There are several things you can do with a car that you can’t do with another human being. You can’t park a person, or sell a person, or loan a person, or physically modify a person (you can’t put a fuel injected carburetor on a person). Neither can the bank seize another person from you.
Dependents are much more owners than the executors.
Think of dogs and cats. Those damn things rule the planet.
All joking aside… you don’t know the spirit world. It can literally park you like a car and make you starve to death. It can bite your tongue off with your own teeth, it can force you to cut off all your genitals, put them in a blender and drink it.
We do not own our bodies.
All there is are tentative agreements about custodianship that exist in the cosmos.
That we have certain rights even though we don’t own ourselves.
I’m trying to give you actual imagery of what the spirit world is capable of so you can meditate / contemplate this in ways you’ve yet to contemplate it.
Is there a grand judge who oversees all of this? With ‘free will’ that means nobody has the freedom to really abuse people without punishment. Not really ‘free will’ is it?
I’ll reply to your general thoughts on my general post here and leave it at this for now.
No, it has to do with subjects. If you cannot own yourself, you do not own yourself, then you cannot “own” anything else, including objects.
You have claim to nothing, over nothing.
I doubt this. I believe your relationship to your flesh & blood is as dysfunctional, or more so, than Anderson and his relationship with his father.
Ownership is the most powerful and implicit relationship, not the least. If you don’t view your own kin as yours, as possessed, as claimed, as (Birth) Rite, as Ownership, then you have a weak or destroyed sense-of-self. You have no sense-of-self. You have no independence. And you don’t. We need to start confronting and admitting to hard-truths. Maybe it’s true then, that, most people are not in possession of themselves. And we’re not joking around. You are not joking around. You represent a growing majority of Western people, who are fundamentally detached, spiritually fractured and cut in two. You do not Own yourself. You do not Own your own kin.
I believe you. You convinced me. You “win” this debate. Good job.
I pity whatever led to such a fracture and fragmentation in your life.
You have no claim over your own son… the most pathetic thing I’ve heard in my life.
Maybe God owns him?
What are Custody battles except claim of ownership of children between biological mother and father?
Why do some people hate their own children? Why do some people love them, and want to keep them?
Bear-in-mind, lots of humans abandon their children. Bear-in-mind, lots of Neglect and Child Abuse. Maybe it’s rarer (over 50%) that humans have any ‘love’, attachment, care, or fondness for their own flesh & blood. I believe we are seeing this, in this thread. Loveless.
No claim over your own kin, over your own kind.
I think this is a symbol of the decade as well.
What are these ‘racial’ battles, except a rejection of ownership of “one’s own kind”?