View Poll Results: Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (should)

    37 74.00%
  • Yes (shouldn't)

    0 0%
  • No (should)

    4 8.00%
  • No (shouldn't)

    9 18.00%
Page 50 of 65 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 645

Thread: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

  1. #491
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Own - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    1. Own (verb): To have or hold as propertyThere's your falsehood. Neither Bob nor I are property.
    A semantic game? Come on. You didn't define property, let me help:
    Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
    According to that, you are if you are owned. We could do that all day if we were idiots.

    You apparently missed the point in the very post you responded to that already showed I saw where someone wrong might take the argument, and corrected it already. I'll repost it:
    You can't escape it with semantics either. You can insist that "own" can't apply to a person, but we'd just then find a new word that you are comfortable with, that does mean "power to control ownership", and we'd plug it all right back into the same argument and get the same result.
    Semantics isn't going to get you anywhere...you can see that above.
    Last edited by Mach; 06-22-12 at 01:39 PM.

  2. #492
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    A semantic game? Come on. You didn't define property, let me help:
    Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
    According to that, you are if you are owned. We could do that all day if we were idiots.

    You apparently missed the point in the very post you responded to that already showed I saw where someone wrong might take the argument, and corrected it already. I'll repost it:

    Semantics isn't going to get you anywhere...you can see that above.
    Then if you'd like to change your assertion to "self-control", which is in-line with YOUR use of "own", instead of asserting "self-ownership", which as we've just seen is ambiguous at best, then we can resolve the issue.

    I don't think anyone will deny that we all must have self-control.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-22-12 at 01:48 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #493
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Then if you'd like to change your assertion to "self-control", which is in-line with YOUR use of "own", instead of asserting "self-ownership", which as we've just seen is ambiguous at best, then we can resolve the issue.
    I don't think anyone will deny that we all must have self-control.
    Mo, I just countered with the definition of property. A word you used in your reference to the definition of OWN, which demonstrated (with those premises) that your conclusion was false. You accept that I assume?

    As to "control", you're just chasing semantics now. Doesn't ownership, if we're being general here, imply control? Why are you trying to shift it to that now?
    Another choice for you:
    Does the term ownership in our fairly generic, mainstream discussion, imply:
    A. control
    B. no control

    ? Which is it Mo? You tell me, clearly, is it A or B? Or, point to exactly which premise is false, and why.

    Use some examples if it helps you:

    Which conclusion is more reaosnable to draw from the below:

    Bob owns a company.
    1. Bob controls what the company spends money on.
    2. Bob does NOT control what the company spends money on.

    Sue owns a slave.
    1. Sue controls what that person (the slave) works on
    2. Sue does not control what that person (the slave) works on

    Jim has self-control.
    1. Jim controls what Jim does.
    2. Jim does NOT control what Jim does.

    In a mainstream, generalized discussion, it appears that ownership implies some degree of control. It doesn't guarantee it, but then you know even science is falsifiable and doesn't guarantee certainty...
    Last edited by Mach; 06-22-12 at 03:36 PM.

  4. #494
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Get rid of property and you've taken all but murderers out of the equation. Without property to fight over, the "robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists" have no craft to practice.
    I suppose you're right. If I owned nothing, I could not be robbed.

    But it is not very useful to consider a social order in which nobody is presumed to own anything.

  5. #495
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Finallly. And when you do the above, you logically are choosing one of those two options. (demonstrating there is no false dichotomy)
    No, the options were:

    1. You own yourself.
    2. Someone else owns you.

    I'm choosing #3, nobody owns anybody, thus doing away with the dichotomy entirely.

    You originally claimed:
    I never claimed that, I said that other people were claiming that.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #496
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, the options were:

    1. You own yourself.
    2. Someone else owns you.
    I'm choosing #3, nobody owns anybody, thus doing away with the dichotomy entirely.
    I never claimed that, I said that other people were claiming that.
    Is this a true statement Cephus:
    Cephus claims that it is true that "nobody owns anybody"?

  7. #497
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Is this a true statement Cephus:
    Cephus claims that it is true that "nobody owns anybody"?
    Yup, which was not one of the two choices offered and thus, not part of the false dichotomy.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #498
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    That's wrong.

    First, science cannot be proven or disproven either (it's falsifiable). Let's assume you accept that minor correction and we agree that the scientific method is robust and that once something has been well evidenced and peer reviewed, independantly verified, etc., etc., we get pretty damn close to proof. The point here is that you can't attribute this idea of certainty (proof, proven) to science in an attempt to show how unproven ethics are in comparison.

    Back to ethics. Ethics can vary sure, just as science can vary. However, once you codify the ethics (in English for example, or formal logic, etc.), and ethical rules are show to be illogical, then they are then falsified as being "ethical rules".

    Use the underlying assumptions of science (since you accept science) as an example, say #2:


    If some hack scientist wrote a hypothesis that involved something to the effect of:
    "A supernatural ghost will then do..."

    Do you really think this has to be experimented on and tested, peer-reviewed, etc., before it can be determined to be false? No. It's in contradiction to the underlying fundamental assumption of the scientific method (#2 above) That's why it's rejected as "not science". Same way the scientific community rejects matters of religion. You can't create a test for prayer because it contradicts the underlying assumptions. So it's thrown out as not science. And when you agree we can reject illogical claims, then at the very least, you agree that ethical rules are not ONLY a matter of opinon, that within some agreed upon logical framework, some can logically be shown to be "not ethics".
    The problem being within a framework. The validity of a framework itself is a matter of opinion.

    However you are correct, science doesn't cover everything, and for those things it doesn't cover, they cannot truly be known and must be a matter of faith.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 06-22-12 at 04:55 PM.

  9. #499
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    As to "control", you're just chasing semantics now. Doesn't ownership, if we're being general here, imply control? Why are you trying to shift it to that now?
    Another choice for you:
    Does the term ownership in our fairly generic, mainstream discussion, imply:
    A. control
    B. no control

    ? Which is it Mo? You tell me, clearly, is it A or B? Or, point to exactly which premise is false, and why.
    If ownership was only another word for control and implied nothing else then there may not be an issue but ownership also entails the option to transfer that control and therein lies the problem. Even many people that agree with the self-ownership ideal agree it is also non-transferable, that a person may only own themselves. Given the stipulation that control cannot be transferred, ownership adds a layer of complexity to the situation that is not needed or required. Simple control, without all the added baggage of ownership, is plenty for our needs.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #500
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,443

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    The problem being within a framework. The validity of a framework itself is a matter of opinion.
    The problem is that we are using a framework right now to have a discussion. If it's just opinion, why bother at all, how could anything in any framework be better than any other? Science is based on a framework, so is science therefore just opinion? Of course not. I'm comfortable with the certainty that I'm typing on a keyboard (not skepticism).

    However you are correct, science doesn't cover everything, and for those things it doesn't cover, they cannot truly be known and must be a matter of faith.
    Pretty close to what my position is. But since science assumes those underlying "reasoned" assumptions quoted from wiki as true to begin with, I put Reason first, Science second (since it relies on it), and yes, the rest that doesn't cover can enjoy other means of justification...like faith.

Page 50 of 65 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •