This world is not ours

[Doc]

You know...

My brain has registered that there is more about philosophy and human nature in this thread than there is in a Philo-101 class at most of todays collages. And with you mentioning booty, now we have some grabass action... Now it really is like a college!

First mate, we need to find a way to profit from this. All dese lubbers getting a free ride! AAAAAARRRRRR!

Ok, really, this thread is turning into a real gem for those with enough mental fortitude to understand it.

[Occhidiangela]

You know...

My brain has registered that there is more about philosophy and human nature in this thread than there is in a Philo-101 class at most of todays collages. And with you mentioning booty, now we have some grabass action... Now it really is like a college!

First mate, we need to find a way to profit from this. All dese lubbers getting a free ride! AAAAAARRRRRR!

Ok, really, this thread is turning into a real gem for those with enough mental fortitude to understand it.
[right][snapback]75958[/snapback][/right]

Well, I don't understand it, could you explain it to me? :unsure:

Sorry, I can't hear ya Doc, there's all this giggling going on in the background. Or is it cackling? Witch is it? :shuriken:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

"Ownership" is just a way to describe who gets to use particular pieces of land in certain ways for certain things.  When  Isay I "own" the house, that means peopel have agreed that I'm the one who gets to live there, and decide who else gets to be there or not. 

Also, the idea of "ownership" works in many different ways.  I didn't make my parents or brother exist, but  Iregularly talk about them being "my" brother, and people in families are expected to take care of each other more than usual, even though people usually didn't "make" them.

Although you said not to stick economics or politics into this, ownership is pretty closely related, so there are some connections to get into.  When people "own" land, the effects are mostly people related.  IF they want to chop down trees, the trees don't simply fall over because they arte owned by people.  What owning land really means in this case is that most other people will allow the one who owns the land to make more decisions about the trees, and try to grow them or chop them down.

About "mans place in nature", as far as I'm concerned, people, and everything else, makes its own place for itself instead of being squeezed into a "real one.  A "real" place is wherever things make it to be.  I seriously doubt that, say, life started out in roles that effected weather, temperature, atmosphere gases, erosion, and all those other things it does today, but that's how its worked out.  Peopel, in this viewpoint, will fit into the planet wherever they decide to do so.
[right][snapback]75924[/snapback][/right]

Minionman scores three points for both staying on topic, and remaining both friendly and civil.

Well done, sir, well done. Bravo. :D

Occhi

[Doc]

Witch is it?  :shuriken:
[right][snapback]75959[/snapback][/right]

Does she weigh more than a duck?

[Occhidiangela]

Does she weigh more than a duck?
[right][snapback]75961[/snapback][/right]

No, she's made of flesh and blood, such splendiferous flesh that we find any number of members of the community made of wood . . .

Occhi

[Doc]

No, she's made of flesh and blood, such splendiferous flesh that we find any number of members of the community made of wood . . .

Occhi
[right][snapback]75962[/snapback][/right]

Members of the community Occhi?

Dirty pool! I cry foul!

I just swallowed a whole ice cube.

[Occhidiangela]

Members of the community Occhi?

Dirty pool! I cry foul!

I just swallowed a whole ice cube.
[right][snapback]75963[/snapback][/right]

Punny you should mention in, the fowl was the duck.

*ducks* (no, you are not allowed to goose me!)

Occhi

Edit: UH, sorry, fowel is not a duck.

[Archon_Wing]

You bring up concepts such as selfishness and vanity. But is not morality a human concept too? If we see everything as fabrications of humanity then any discussion is effectively pointless. I doubt nature cares about the actions of humans-- the natural order of things is to have living things take what they can. Of course, nature has its limits, physical limitations as well as disasters.

It is through our distorted lens that we see. It may be screwed up, but there's no other alternative.

Now I have a question:
If a post gets deleted in a forum, does it make a sound?

[Occhidiangela]

You bring up concepts such as selfishness and vanity. But is not morality a human concept too? If we see everything as fabrications of humanity then any discussion is effectively pointless.  I doubt nature cares about the actions of humans-- the natural order of things is to have living things take what they can. Of course, nature has its limits, physical limitations as well as disasters.

It is through our distorted lens that we see. It may be screwed up, but there's no other alternative.

Now I have a question:
If a post gets deleted in a forum, does it make a sound?
[right][snapback]75968[/snapback][/right]

Liked your post, as you said with fewer words what I tried to say with a lot more, and by using a big word "anthropomorphizing."

Archon_Wing scores three points, yes folks, he hit that shot from behind the line! The crowd is on its feet! :lol:

Gratuitous Grammarian Gainsaying follows:

If a post gets deleted from a forum. (To understand the difference, say "taken in" or "removed in" then "taken from" or "removed from" to see the sense of action away. Deleted from the forum infers movement, I think, hence a post goes somewhere else upon deletion. )

Does it make the "moves silently" roll? If so, no sound.

If the percentile dice do not roll a good number, it makes a sound: something like a mucous filled tissue hitting a wastebasket. ;) Yes, I have insomnia tonight. :wacko:

Occhi

[Urza-DSF]

Does it make the "moves silently" roll?  If so, no sound. 

If the percentile dice do not roll a good number, it makes a sound: something like a mucous filled tissue hitting a wastebasket.  ;)  Yes, I have insomnia tonight.  :wacko:

Occhi
[right][snapback]75969[/snapback][/right]

Feh. Percentile for Move Silently? Spending too much time with outdated, table-based systems eh?

[Rinnhart]

I will drink to that. :D

[Rinnhart]

Latin is a dead language,
Dead as it could be.
First it killed the Romans,
Now it's killin' me.

[whyBish]

Punny you should mention in, the fowl was the duck.

*ducks* (no, you are not allowed to goose me!)

Occhi

Edit:  UH, sorry, fowel is not a duck.
[right][snapback]75966[/snapback][/right]

I'd like to buy a fowel :P

[whyBish]

The world is not ours, this thread is not yours. You can't own either.

Ah... Allow me to pirate a thread and give me an internet cliche to steer her by.

All I need now is a first mate.
[right][snapback]75949[/snapback][/right]

or if we conjugate the verb, a "first mating"? I never did grasp grammar :P

[whyBish]

"Man has been created by Nature."
Man has evolved. Culture also evolves. Laws, norms, religions, television programming, corporations, advertising, products, all evolve due to competitive forces. Even science evolves in response to the observations not fitting models.

"We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals."
We have evolved a natural advantage in terms of complex reasoning, however I agree with you that this is just an advanced form of what animals have.

"We belong to a whole, this whole is Nature. We are a part of Nature, we belong to a big family, this family is life on Earth."
We experience an environment of variables and respond to those variables in a way that will increase our chances of creating offspring (as a group, not neccessarily as an individual) (immortality would also have implications here). Any group that does not respond to the environment will become extinct. Hence laws evolve to handle changes in the environment. Some laws die out and are removed, and new ones are born based on what has worked previously.

"When you build a house for yourself, you consider it to be yours because you built it, your are its owner."
Thinking of current day society this is not true. My issue is with 'build'. The builder of the house (in modern society) is not normally the owner, but an expert (or team) in the art of building houses.
If you purchase the house you consider you have particular rights to occupy the house, and to deny others the use/misuse of the house. These beliefs stem from your observations of others response to similar situations, which creates a set of norms(/laws).

"Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor. Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner."
Again this is a set of norms that place expectations on the two parties based on known results. (i.e. the owner expects compensation, and the tenant expects occupancy)

"This is the same logic for planet Earth."
This does not follow unless you consider the earth sentient and able to have expectations.

"Man did not create planet Earth, we are just tenants of this planet."
You are associating creation with ownership rights, which as I have shown above is not always the case. You are also associating existence with tenancy which is a set of mutual expectations, and as above cannot be true (i.e. the earth expects something in return for tenancy???).

"Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs."
Tenants can claim whatever they want, whether they get it depends on norms (or if they want to go outside those norms then whoever is 'fittest' in terms of claiming the item).

"Man cannot claim ownership of land, thus ownership of land is not morally right."
Man can claim ownership of land with other men via norms(laws) that prevail. Man does not expect the plants and animals to understand that he has ownership of the land.
Your two statements hare are not connected, and you provide no definition of which morality, or which moral system is being violated. The only thing I can see is you are trying to define building with the right to ownership as a morality sytem. But is this a moral system? Is this *the* moral system? Isn't a moral system based on the beliefs of man? Then if man believes he can own land morally, then isn't it moral?
I will define morality as utilitarianistic morality. Something is moral if it does not make other people worse off (I should probably get a tighter defenition, but I'm sure someone can Nit this point properly for me :P ). Ownership of land does not make people worse off, therefore it is morally right to own land.

"Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right )."
Well, I can agree with this conclusion since:
If ownership of land is wrong -> then existence of countries is hypocrisy
However you have not shown the former, hence can't claim the latter (yet... :P )
As an aside I *personally* think that countries are a hypocrisy, but for different reasons. However countries have evolved and exist for logical reasons (Such as co-ordination of works, economies of scale, efficiency through specialisation etc.)

"However, Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity, selfishness and vanity. Genocides were committed to conquer lands."
The first sentence is an unsupported statement. Man has created the concept of ownership of land out of the agrarian age where stability of control (ownership) is required to successfully plant, cultivate, and harvest crops neccessary for survival. Norms for land ownership provide a way of reducing (local) conflict of desired use for the land.

"Why not simply share land?"
If I grow strawberries to sell to the rich, you wont be able to use that same land to grow wheat to feed the poor. (or whatever example you need). Ownership of land reduces conflict by having an agreed norm for who controls the use of the land. Anyone that does not follow the norm will have to resort to conflict to get control of land they don't own (either verbally by changing the norms, or physically by taking ownership by force)
Ownership of land also allows for investment. See communist China/Russia for example of lack of ownership leading to lack of investment. Without ownership (i.e. with sharing) everyone will want to live in the best location, which will increase crowding (and conflict), and reduce resources. It will also mean that no-one will be willing to pay to upgrade something that everyone else gets the free benefit of. So again ownership reduces conflict.
Tying back to your last point, does the idea of reduction of conflict reconcile with "stupidity, selfishness, and vanity"?

"The right to be free and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream."
It's good to have a dream. However, see last point about ownership and investment. Is it morally right to let someone who didn't toil for the freedom/infrastructure etc. into that country? What would stop everyone from going to the 'best' country? What would keep investment in upkeep of that country happening?

"This is a philosophical topic. It is not about economics or politics. Politics and economics come from the will of humans."
As you have laid it out it is not a philosophical topic as you have:
- too many undefined terms
- too many unsupported statements
- too many incorrect steps in logic
Politics and economics *and* ownership come from the will of humans.

"I am not talking about what Man wants, I am talking about who he really is, his real place no matter what he wants."
Well, you didn't mention that until now...
Who is man??? You have not even said.
What is his 'real place'? You haven't defined what you mean by his 'real place' but give some vague assertion that ownership is 'not moral'
Are you claiming that ownership is what man wants?

"Please, no trolling, no incoherent posts, no quick trivial answers in my thread. This is a serious topic, I want you to be sincere."
I think you should find a different forum. This is the second topic that you have started that contains inflammatory, vague assertions that have yet to be supported.
I am sincere when I say I hope that it will be soon when you either learn some social skills or are banned. Coming into Boltys forum and telling him he should change it to your liking is egocentric behaviour. As do you, I would also like to have this forum changed to how I like it (i.e. have you banned), but I understand how fair the moderators are, and if I don't like it, I know I can go elsewhere. (however I am not smart enough to start my own website... and if I did it would be lonely :P )

I am looking forward to your next (and hopefully improved) topic. This one could have been interesting if it weren't for the antagonism.
Cheers,
whyBish.

P.S. sorry, I ran out of time to preview... have R.L. stuff to do...

[Walkiry]

This thread is rather... interesting. It kind of reminds me of Pulp Fiction since the order seems to be shuffled and people are quoting some posts I've failed to notice while reading through (I could go back and see if it was a defensive act of my brain blanking out certain posts, but that would involve two whole mouseclicks).

Anyway, just to stir the topic a bit, I'd like to point out that man wasn't created by "Nature" (in its anthropomorphic view), but rather, as far as the evidence shows, by apes. By filthy, depraved apes, I might add.

Why the "filthy, depraved" part? Well, taking a look at chromosome bands and sequence, our beloved chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion between two ape chromosomes. So, our very early ancestors were a malformed ape and another ape who was turned on by said malformation.

Shameful I tells ya. *Shakes head*

[eppie]

Hello,

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .
This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?
The right to be free  and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream .

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts , no quick trivial answers in my thread . This is a serious topic , I want you to be sincere .

Abramelin
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

Was this post a question or a statement. The only questionsmark I found was put after "why not share land".

Well I think we do allready. Normally a citizen of, say Norway can walk around freely in (at least) Norway (and several other countries). A piece of land belonging to that country means that another country may not put claims on it to for example say that everybody there should obey the rules made by the queen of england.
Somebody from Norway however is also not allowed to build a house in some park....because it belongs to everybody in Norway...and by building a house it would get quite difficult feeding the ducks or not? So we make enough rules to let people do what they want with the planet or not?

Another thing, if I am born in a house (of my parents) the house will be mine later or not?
Man since I became a Ph.D. I feel so elite! Great place....

[lfd]

Deleted from the forum infers movement
[right][snapback]75969[/snapback][/right]

Obligatory Correction Of Grammar-Related Post:

It doesn't infer, it implies. An inference is something drawn from an implication.

[Nystul]

Was this post a question or a statement. The only questionsmark I found was put after "why not share land".

Well I think we do allready. Normally a citizen of,  say Norway can walk around freely in (at least) Norway (and several other countries). A piece of land belonging to that country means that another country may not put claims on it to for example say that everybody there should obey the rules made by the queen of england.
Somebody from Norway however is also not allowed to build a house in some park....because it belongs to everybody in Norway...and by building a house it would get quite difficult feeding the ducks or not? So we make enough rules to let people do what they want with the planet or not?
[right][snapback]75986[/snapback][/right]

I think the post was actually just a clever redirect of a locked thread. But if we assume it was a serious question, then the houses vs. ducks thing is probably about the best serious answer given.

Philosophy is known to come up with ideal solutions for a non-ideal world. For whatever reason, people don't think alike. People don't always want to act in the best interest of the community. Even when they do, they won't agree on what the best interest of the community is. So Bo wants to drain the pond and build a house, and Mo wants to feed the ducks. How is our great global natural commune supposed to resolve this? So we have public land, where a given community agrees to reserve the land for a certain thing and the government enforces that, and we have private land, where the community essentially "agrees to disagree" and each person gets to dictate what happens in their own playbox. I suppose that is about as detailed as one can take this without getting into economics or politics. :rolleyes:

[Quark]

First: Spaces do not come before punctuation. I'll try to give this post some serious thought, but that's just another strike against you. I know, I'm some elitist (err: jerk) for saying that, but if something's not readable people aren't going to read it.

Hello,

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

Are these just your assertions? Who's nature? Where's the rest of the universe come in? Where'd your ideas come from? It really sounds like just someone rambling trying to come up with junk.

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .
This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

Then what is Earth's creator? Who is the real owner? And if it's a moral issue, why do animals have territory? Are you saying all animals are morally wrong? That seems a pretty broad leap from the thought that animals are amoralistic.

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?
The right to be free  and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream .

You're discrediting man for something animals started. Humans have just taking it further and given laws and morals to it. Territory is still territory, we just have a so-called civilized way of dealing with it.

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

You never really talked about man's place. You said "we shouldn't have ownership, because that's wrong." It's neither a deeply involved point nor related to man's place. You claim we shouldn't be doing something - what should we be doing? You gave no alternative. Saying we shouldn't be doing something is easy. Think harder; what's better?