This world is not ours

[Doc]

Sounds more like a hyena, vulture, fungus, or war profiteer. :P  You must have the strength of will and position available to not be drawn into the struggle between the other powers and the strength of stomach to feast upon carrion.

I understand your premise.  We are agreeing, just in different ways.  The most mighty have the furthest to fall and are targets for the next guy in line.  It is safer to be farther down the ladder or on a different ladder altogether.  I think you are looking at the grand scale of things and I am looking at the individual events.
[right][snapback]77773[/snapback][/right]

I always look at the grand scale of things. I have made plans that have taken decades before bearing fruit. I plan carefully and shape events of things around me so that whatever happens later can be worked out in my favour, should I need it to. People look at a situation and think "How can I cash in on this now?" I look at the same situation and think "How can I cash in on this later when it's worth more?"

Rot brings life. Life ends in death. Death goes the way of rot. All cycles are valuable. All must be examined, carefully thought out, and then you must decide which is the most valuable to you. When something dies, why waste the corpse? Why waste the remains? It is still serviceable... Think of it as compost. Cultivate it. Be patient. Wait. And in time, use this compost to make your garden grow. Bring new life. And from this life, consume. Kill. Cause death. And use those remains to add to the compost pile. This is life. Waste nothing. Preserve the balance. Leave no scrap behind and make the most of everything. Some times one must get his hands dirty looking for the seeds left in the rotton fruit. If left on their own, they will grow for themselves. If planted by your hands in your garden, they will grow to serve you.

Er, I thought today I was meant to do insane ranting. This is entirely to coherent.

Bah humbug.

[Guest]

Good.  Now this is at least starting to get somewhere closer to a discussion  :)

Why does nobody have the right to own anybody?  I did not see this in your list of axioms... in fact, if I gave somebody to someone else, then (by your axioms) they are owned by somebody... as long as you don't give them to their parent (whom created them thus violating axiom 2 :P ) ... to be fair however, you didn't say that your list of axioms was complete...

If you don't grasp why nobody has a moral right to own anybody,then I can't explain further.Someone can't be given to someone else since humans are not objects.An object can be owned,a subject can't.
You take your right to own your body as granted ,I guess.Then why asking for what is obvious? There is no logical axiom here, it's just a matter of Morality/Ethics.

As to the second statement, why are Humans subjects instead of objects.  What makes them this way, and where (if anywhere) can a line be drawn?  Apes?  Animals?  Plants and viruses?  In-organic compounds?  It seems that you are implying that subjects can't be owned, yet from what you have provided and my claim that everything is a subject (unless you define subject specifically??) the conclusion would be that nothing can be owned at all.  This does not contradict any of your axioms, but does ~feel~ a bit absurd... comments?
[right][snapback]77710[/snapback][/right]

I thought that it was obvious for everybody that humans are subjects/not objects.

Freedom/free will make them this way.The line is drawn when there is free will.Only humans have this free will.However,even though animals(except Man) don't have free will,they are not objects such as a feather or a stone.They are living beings and as such they deserve respect and their own freedom.

[Griselda]

Here is some information on logic. It's good to be well grounded in logic before tackling philosophy.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I typically stay out of these discussions, seeing as how they have much more depth then ones on other forums I frequent...

But, to quote the BOFH, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

With an elephant gun.

At point blank range.

In the head.

If you don't grasp why nobody  has a moral right to own anybody,then I can't explain further.Someone can't be given to someone else since humans are not objects.An object can be owned,a subject can't.

You still haven't defined where the line between "Objects" and "Subjects" is.

You're also saying that people shouldn't own land, or resources on it, in your previous posts. Yet, by most definitions, land, or resources on it, is an object. So, are we allowed to own objects or not?

I thought that it was obvious for everybody that humans are subjects/not objects.

Freedom/free will make them this way.The line is drawn when there is free will.

So, something without free will is an object?

Only humans have this free will.However,even though animals(except Man) don't have free will,they are not objects such as a feather or a stone.They are living beings and as such they deserve respect and their own freedom.

So, even though by your previous claim, things without free will are "objects", you claim that animals are "subjects"?

If not, why do they need freedom, if they have no "free will"?

And how can you be so sure that they don't have free will?

By the way, nice leather shoes you've got there. :lol:

[Chaerophon]

You mean to tell me that philosophy has fallen into using it's looks like some cheap harlot? Why, that crusty old bitch can't possibly get by on her looks...

So tell me, what look is in this year for philosophy? Or shall we just call her Sophie... Would the Nihlistic Goth statement be fashionable and hip, or something, I dunno, something grand and steeped in tradition... Like capitialism and consumerism and the mindsets involved? We could dress her up like the great ol' Whore of Babylon. Oh look! Bulls on parade! Now with stylish consumption obcessed attention whores riding bareback. Or is that bear back? Would the Whore of Babylon do business with both the bulls and the bears? Did I just open a can of worms?

Brazen hussy... I know what real Philosophy looks like... She damn sure aint a blonde... That's artificial stupidity right there, the curtains don't match the carpet. She's a redhead, and let me tell you, nothing out does the coppercrotch.

What? Why is everybody staring at me?
[right][snapback]77774[/snapback][/right]

Actually, the hottest trend this undergrad season seems to be the anarchist look. Non-matching colours, unconventional camouflages, ripped clothing. The occasional mohawk/shaved head and forelock. Very trendy. Sophie's gone alternative for the summer. :D

[Doc]

:D
[right][snapback]77823[/snapback][/right]

What? :rolleyes:

You mean somebody got it... Nuts.

[Doc]

I have been called an Anarchist. I have been accused of being an Antichrist.

Poor Sophie. Social outcast.

What's wrong with being an Anarchist anyway? I mean, a real one, not some wannabe punk with an A carved into their arm with a razorblade. Real dangerous Anarchists like Emma Goldman... And how does one 'look' like a bloody Anarchist anyway? We are more like bloody psychotic sociopathic killers... We look like everybody else. Is Anarchist now a style, a brand of clothing being mass manufactured and sold from the Gap? If so... Somebody must pay.

Oh noes... I am ranting. It's late at night and I am ranting. And I even mentioned an American Counter Culture Figure that most folk probably don't know about and I bet some are furiously Googling.

We take offense that we have become a pop culture term. We don't bother with lawyers, but expect to hear from us during the next outbreak of mass hysteria. :shuriken:

[Occhidiangela]

From the "why do I waste my time" file (read to the bottom for the "I'm not elitist" disclaimer)...

A suggestion:

1.) as a first step, try typing "design argument" into google.

2.) read and realize that what you are producing, if it is original thought at all, is incoherent crap.

3.) read some more.  This is how real philosophers think.

4.) ponder. 

5.) think some more.

6.) look at some of the other arguments/positions that are mentioned in the first ten pages of the google search post.  They may not directly relate to design, i.e. Locke on property, etc. 

7.) now, if you think that you can, make a decent argument.

It would be fine if you had realized that your original post fell short of its intent.  If you hadn't made out your points to be absolute proof, I wouldn't be throwing real philosophy at you.  It's fair to ponder such things without a grounding in philosophy; however, to assume that you are an authority is ludicrous.  I couldn't even finish reading your post, as it was absolutely riddled with untested assumptions and incoherent statments.  Nobody here would fault you for that if you could at least realize that you haven't quite got it figured out.  Unfortunately, you insist on pushing the issue.  Until you understand what real philosophy looks like, I fear that you will continue to make an ass of yourself.
[right][snapback]77772[/snapback][/right]

Crisp.

Two Guinness, Ogden, for my friend Chaerphon. Oh, and two for me. :lol:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

If you don't grasp why nobody  has a moral right to own anybody,then I can't explain further.Someone can't be given to someone else since humans are not objects.An object can be owned,a subject can't.
You take your right to own your body as granted ,I guess.Then why asking for what is obvious? There is no logical axiom here, it's just a matter of Morality/Ethics.

I thought that it was obvious for everybody that humans are subjects/not objects.

Freedom/free will make them this way.The line is drawn when there is free will.Only humans have this free will.However,even though animals(except Man) don't have free will,they are not objects such as a feather or a stone.They are living beings and as such they deserve respect and their own freedom.
[right][snapback]77785[/snapback][/right]

Them's fightin' words, mister.

Subject: one ruled by a king or other aristocrat. One whose life hinges upon the decisions and good will of said aristocrat. One whose fate and destiny, and freedom, are in every way, shape, and form OWNED and possessed by said aristocrat.

A subject is PWNED in a way a citizen never can be. I own firearms. You try to make a subject of me, I will kill you. Smilie Nazi says "no smilie for you!"

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I have been called an Anarchist. I have been accused of being an Antichrist.

Poor Sophie. Social outcast.

What's wrong with being an Anarchist anyway? I mean, a real one, not some wannabe punk with an A carved into their arm with a razorblade. Real dangerous Anarchists like Emma Goldman... And how does one 'look' like a bloody Anarchist anyway? We are more like bloody psychotic sociopathic killers... We look like everybody else. Is Anarchist now a style, a brand of clothing being mass manufactured and sold from the Gap? If so... Somebody must pay.

Oh noes... I am ranting. It's late at night and I am ranting. And I even mentioned an American Counter Culture Figure that most folk probably don't know about and I bet some are furiously Googling.

We take offense that we have become a pop culture term. We don't bother with lawyers, but expect to hear from us during the next outbreak of mass hysteria. :shuriken:
[right][snapback]77827[/snapback][/right]

"Steal This Thread."

Abbie Hoffman, if he was Lurker.

Occhi

[Doc]

Them's fightin' words, mister.

Subject: one ruled by a king or other aristocrat.  One whose life hinges upon the decisions and good will of said aristocrat.  One whose fate and destiny, and freedom, are in every way, shape, and form OWNED and possessed by said aristocrat.

A subject is PWNED in a way a citizen never can be.  I own firearms.  You try to make a subject of me, I will kill you.  Smilie Nazi says "no smilie for you!"

Occhi
[right][snapback]77829[/snapback][/right]

**Claps** And not the kind you need a shot for either.

Firearms guarentee equality. Firepower is a voice in democracy. Disturbing folk like Occhi or my self would only make you die of lead poisoning. We have different reasons though. Occhi defends from all threats foreign and domestic, while I would do it just because I am a mean bastard and I don't like abusive authority in general.

Freedom is a price paid in bullets and bloodshed. No more should a common man live under a bootheel.

[Occhidiangela]

**Claps** And not the kind you need a shot for either.

Firearms guarentee equality. Firepower is a voice in democracy. Disturbing folk like Occhi or my self would only make you die of lead poisoning. We have different reasons though. Occhi defends from all threats foreign and domestic, while I would do it just because I am a mean bastard and I don't like abusive authority in general.

Freedom is a price paid in bullets and bloodshed. No more should a common man live under a bootheel.
[right][snapback]77832[/snapback][/right]

Whoops, I was late, I just realized the troll has been sent to "that great bridge in the sky."

Occhi

[Doc]

Whoops, I was late, I just realized the troll has been sent to "that great bridge in the sky."

Occhi
[right][snapback]77835[/snapback][/right]

So farkin what.

Needed to be said. People seem to forget it. And most folk now are all pussified and it's not politically correct to say the truth. I admire you for a bold statement in public, even if it's just a forum online.

[Occhidiangela]

I was going to make a thread on the elitism of the Lurker Lounge, but with my slant. I wonder if people would get offended. I have not rode on the trollmobile for a while. ;)
[right][snapback]77766[/snapback][/right]

Do it, at least you are not an imbecile. You have a working brain. Stand by for some real fun and games from the elitists, in which company you reside. Does that mean that you will be talking to yourselves? :D *smoke comes out of rogue's ears.* Brain starting to hurt already, and you have not even started the thread!

EEEEEEEPP!!

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

So farkin what.

Needed to be said. People seem to forget it. And most folk now are all pussified and it's not politically correct to say the truth. I admire you for a bold statement in public, even if it's just a forum online.
[right][snapback]77836[/snapback][/right]

Kinky Friedman is running for governor in Texas, 2006. I really want to work for his campaign. Need to be financiallly able to take a year or two off. He too is against pussification.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I tip my cap to you, well said, and with far fewer words than I used. Please post your well reasoned wit as often as you can, your train of thought is very easy to digest.

Thanks.

Occhi

I realize I'm a late-comer in this discussion, but I will add a few ideas of my own.  To start, I believe there's little that can truely be said about your ideas because, as others have stated, you take leaps and bounds in the logical aspects of the theory.  To say something is true is one thing.  To show a reason for it being true is another.
This concept has the same "flaws" as most similar concepts about any moral rights.  It is Euthyphro's Dilemma.

"Is something moral because we say it is moral, or do we say it is moral because it is?"

You are clearing stating the second side of this argument, but the first portion does still exist.  You are calling ownership of land morally wrong, yet it could easily be argued that you want it to be so because you are calling it so, rather than it being the truth of the universe.

We can even get into the argument about whether morality is known or learned.  If it is learned, than how can it be true that things are natually moral?  On the other hand, if it is natural, why are there so many distinctions between the moral rights and wrongs of differing ethnic groups?

Having not read much of the thread in an effort to save time, I'm not 100% sure if any of this was addressed.  I will say that I find your idea hard to take as truth.

The fact that man is part of nature does not imply that taking ownership of land is morally wrong.  Even if it is true that it is morally wrong, there is more to this idea than simply man being a part of nature.

As a final statement, there's a large hurdle to be passed before any ground can be made in this argument, and it's one I don't believe can be passed easily, if at all.  Your argument rest on the assumption that there are universal truths in morality.  This concept is one of the most fought concepts in philosophy, and as far as I've been able to tell sits almost as high as the meaning of life and free will as philosophical concepts that require answers.

Even if you were to state plainly that this is a basic assumption to your argument, you would be struggling to gain any support from those that don't believe in its truth.  This, sadly, is one of the reasons that little ever gets decided 100% in philosophy.
[right][snapback]77707[/snapback][/right]

[Archon_Wing]

Do it, at least you are not an imbecile.  You have a working brain.  Stand by for some real fun and games from the elitists, in which company you reside.  Does that mean that you will be talking to yourselves?  :D  *smoke comes out of rogue's ears.*  Brain starting to hurt already, and you have not even started the thread! 

EEEEEEEPP!!

Occhi
[right][snapback]77837[/snapback][/right]

Ack, the problem is that our friend here got banned, and he's become too passe to make fun of. But I will reserve it for the next person who makes the accusation of elitism.
:mellow:

Edit: Hah, screw it. If it's funny for two seconds, I should do it.

[Doc]

You elitist white tower dwelling pigs!

[Guest]

Do you really have to ask?

What's wrong with being an Anarchist anyway?
[right][snapback]77827[/snapback][/right]

Do you know what an anarchist really is?

Personally I find the teenage punks ranting against the world they dont understand yet to be better people than the real anarchists.

[Chaerophon]

Crisp. 

Two Guinness, Ogden, for my friend Chaerphon.  Oh, and two for me.  :lol:

Occhi
[right][snapback]77828[/snapback][/right]

Much obliged, but I must owe you for at least one of those (probably a few more, to boot)! :D Ever tried Kilkenny?