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”?
Custody battle are about the rights of the child to have the most suitable parent. It’s still about the rights of the child.
I can beat my car with a crowbar, I could park it in my garage and put my penis in any of its orifices, even if it is sleeping (not running), I can rip pieces of it off and replace them or not, I could take it down to the junk yard and get it crushed, I can lock it in a dark space for years and never give it gas…I own that thing. I don’t own my kid, and he don’t own me, even I am his father and he is my child. One can own things, but I can’t own a person, not even my kid. I do have authority of various kinds in relation to my kid. I have rights in relation to that child that others, except the mother, do not. But it’s not ownership.
Sound like you’re extremely rich Karpel. Poor people can’t do things like that to the car they drive and subsist in the world. Does the car then own you if you’re poor?
This is, what, the third or forth time this weak counter-argument appears?
You do not “own” something… unless you can sell it? unless you can destroy it?
Horrible argument.
No, again, ownership has firstly to do with the things you will not, will never destroy nor sell. It’s about what is most precious, fundamental, necessary.
The fact that you and others have this backward, symbolizes your perspective and approach to the concept.
“You do not own something/someone unless you can destroy it.”
Falsified.
You ‘Own’ something, when, it is something you would never destroy, something (someone) that you would defend with your life. You would put your life in front of it. This symbolizes true ‘Ownership’.
I only feel pity for these responses. Disgusting. How spiritually broken do you have to be, to have no claim over your own kin?
Alright so karpel is on board now with me 'n andy. We three recognize the difference between the meaning of guardianship and ownership. A rather simple few distinctions that you appear to be unable to make, so you equivocate as a result, urwrong.
That’s because you guys keep dodging the matter of selling your own kidney.
Do you, or do you not, ‘own’ your own body? Do you own your kidney? Both of them? Your liver? Your heart? Your brain?
Maybe, maybe not.
Abortion?
You guys dodged this one too.
I’m waiting…
It is very easy online to just never admit one is wrong and to waste even your own time saying something idiot. This is where pride gets in the way of even putting forward one’s own ideas. This linguistic idiocy could be dropped so easily. An admission, then move on to defend positions
that
do
not
depend
on
this
IDIOTIC
terrible non-argument.
Some people care more about never admitting they are wrong than even moving the world in the direction they want it to move it.
I didn’t dodge it. You don’t own any of that shit. Not even your own mind.
Like I stated before: we have tentative agreements about this stuff. You don’t own shit. Not one fucking thing or aspect. That’s why our custodianship agreements are important to us, that even though we don’t own ourselves in any way, we still have rights.
You could want to donate your kidney and the spirit world can override it.
“You’re wrong” is not an argument. Use reasons to backup your ideas. (to KT)
Your position is not convincing. I do own myself, my body, my ideas, etc. (to Ecmandu)
Just because you don’t own yourself, means that your lack of self-control, applies to anybody else. You speak for you, only.
Urwrong, you literally have no clue what you’re talking about. The spirit world exists. You don’t even own your own thoughts. I hope you never learn that lesson.
Just believe me for the sake of humoring me and contemplate your argument from that if you so desire.