Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[henry quirk]

and the way in which a 12 week fetus owns itself that a dog doesn't is?

As I say up-thread...

All the biological machinery we associate with a human person is in place in lil fetus-person by week 12 of pregnancy. Before that we have complexifyin' human cells. Full disclosure: as a deist I don't think we ought to be flushin' those human cells down the shitter either, but that's my religion which isn't about (obvious) fact. So: abort them cells; give birth to that person.

Rover, at any stage, doesn't have that machinery (in complexity or design).

-----

uwot,

The thing is I have never seen a moral argument based on a premise that can be demonstrated with the same clarity and certainty as, for instance, 'If I drop my pint, it will smash on the floor.' All the moral arguments I've encountered are of the type 'If I drop my pint, it will be a disaster.'

Have I made such an argument? I don't recall promisin' disaster (only possible consequence) if a man is leashed.

-----

Karen,

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:40 am
Much ado 'bout nuthin'...by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu

He kept repeating this despite not having any intelligence to do so.

Aren't you late for the latest riot, or statue topplin', or free love-psilocybin fest?

For the record, Karen: by the end of April it was apparent beer virus wasn't the Caronapocalypse. That Doomsayin' is still goin' on is a testament to the commitment of propagandists to the story- and party- lines.

-----

Pete,

your premise doesn't entail your conclusion

Give me an example of a premise that does entail a conclusion (not bein' a bonafide philosopher, I don't know shit from shinola when you all start philosophizin').

Mebbe an explanation (instead of a lecture) might set me straight, turn me into another subjectvist, have me deny ownness.

Then we could be best buds and join Karen at the love-in.

[Lacewing]

Karen,

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:40 am
Much ado 'bout nuthin'...by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu

He kept repeating this despite not having any intelligence to do so.

Aren't you late for the latest riot, or statue topplin', or free love-psilocybin fest?

Who is Karen? Is that someone on another forum who also thinks you're full of shit like I do?

[henry quirk]

Karen,

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:40 am
Much ado 'bout nuthin'...by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu

He kept repeating this despite not having any intelligence to do so.

Aren't you late for the latest riot, or statue topplin', or free love-psilocybin fest?

Who is Karen? Is that someone on another forum who also thinks you're full of shit like I do?

typical Karen

[Lacewing]

Who is Karen? Is that someone on another forum who also thinks you're full of shit like I do?

typical Karen

Your mind appears to be losing its grasp even more than your usual bullshit does.

[Lacewing]

For the record, Karen: by the end of April it was apparent beer virus wasn't the Caronapocalypse. That Doomsayin' is still goin' on is a testament to the commitment of propagandists to the story- and party- lines.

You're ridiculous. The virus is STILL spreading... people are still dying... and people are still fully immersed in it and talking about it, as it continually affects our world in SO MANY WAYS. Your claim "by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu" was wrong and foolishly over-stated, as many of your one-sided conspiracy claims are.

Then we could be best buds and join Karen at the love-in.

You would be a complete drag at a love-in. But this Karen person sounds interesting.

[Lacewing]

typical Karen

Ah! I looked up "Karen" on the urban slang dictionary (as I don't keep up with such things like you who are steeped in online stupidity)... and I see that it's something you're trying to insult me with, and you're not even using it correctly. Doesn't fit... and doesn't belong at the love-in.

[FlashDangerpants]

and the way in which a 12 week fetus owns itself that a dog doesn't is?

As I say up-thread...

All the biological machinery we associate with a human person is in place in lil fetus-person by week 12 of pregnancy. Before that we have complexifyin' human cells. Full disclosure: as a deist I don't think we ought to be flushin' those human cells down the shitter either, but that's my religion which isn't about (obvious) fact. So: abort them cells; give birth to that person.

Rover, at any stage, doesn't have that machinery (in complexity or design).

This doesn't tally with stuff like...

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?

The dog gets hungry, and feels the hunger, which is real, but not to anybody else man or dog. The fetus doesn't, not yet, not for quite a long time.

Are you hiding anything mystical in all this? Something to do with a human being in some way more than an animal, something endemic beyond the mere capacity of cells, deity given perhaps?

As I mentioned with the donkey thing, all that's obviously missing is the ability to actually say that the dog owns himself, and that's years away for lil fetus-person.

[henry quirk]

The dog gets hungry, and feels the hunger, which is real, but not to anybody else man or dog. The fetus doesn't, not yet, not for quite a long time.

I brought up hunger as an example of a fact that isn't obvious, not as proof or evidence of personhood.

The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?

[uwot]

uwot,

The thing is I have never seen a moral argument based on a premise that can be demonstrated with the same clarity and certainty as, for instance, 'If I drop my pint, it will smash on the floor.' All the moral arguments I've encountered are of the type 'If I drop my pint, it will be a disaster.'

Have I made such an argument? I don't recall promisin' disaster (only possible consequence) if a man is leashed.

Well, If I drop my pint and it smashes there is broken glass and spilt beer; it's an objective fact. It might be a fact that I think my loss of beer is a disaster, but not everyone will agree, so it is not an objective fact, it's my opinion.
In your opening address you tell us:

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

But as we know, some men instinctually, invariably, unambiguously know they belong to some god. Much a I loathe the idea, I have to concede that it might be true, so I don't think anyone is in a position to insist they know.

[henry quirk]

Who is Karen? Is that someone on another forum who also thinks you're full of shit like I do?

typical Karen

Your mind appears to be losing its grasp even more than your usual bullshit does.

No, Karen, you can't see the manager.

[henry quirk]

For the record, Karen: by the end of April it was apparent beer virus wasn't the Caronapocalypse. That Doomsayin' is still goin' on is a testament to the commitment of propagandists to the story- and party- lines.

You're ridiculous. The virus is STILL spreading... people are still dying... and people are still fully immersed in it and talking about it, as it continually affects our world in SO MANY WAYS. Your claim "by the end of April: not a one will be talkin' about the Wu-Flu" was wrong and foolishly over-stated, as many of your one-sided conspiracy claims are.

Then we could be best buds and join Karen at the love-in.

You would be a complete drag at a love-in. But this Karen person sounds interesting.

You need to spend some time in the beer virus subforums, Karen.

[henry quirk]

But as we know, some men instinctually, invariably, unambiguously know they belong to some god

Seems to me: they learn that.

[FlashDangerpants]

The dog gets hungry, and feels the hunger, which is real, but not to anybody else man or dog. The fetus doesn't, not yet, not for quite a long time.

I brought up hunger as an example of a fact that isn't obvious, not as proof or evidence of personhood.

The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?

Oh, okay, I didn't get that. I don't see the point though, you appear to be arguing that this sense of self ownership is a logically private phenomenological deal, something too foundational to interrogate right? You have no reason to believe that dophins and apes don't share in that, or dogs and kittens.

Or this delightful goose


All you've really got is the language thing, these animals cannot make a verbal claim to self ownership. But they seem to have every necessary capacity to experience that self-ownership, which is very basic and primal right?

[FlashDangerpants]

The dog gets hungry, and feels the hunger, which is real, but not to anybody else man or dog. The fetus doesn't, not yet, not for quite a long time.

I brought up hunger as an example of a fact that isn't obvious, not as proof or evidence of personhood.

The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?

Oh, okay, I didn't get that. I don't see the point though, you appear to be arguing that this sense of self ownership is a logically private phenomenological deal, something too foundational to interrogate and thereby impossible to doubt? If so, you have no reason to believe that dolphins and apes don't share in that, or dogs and kittens.

Or this delightful goose


All you've really got is the language thing, these animals cannot make a verbal claim to self ownership. But they seem to have every necessary capacity to experience that self-ownership, which is very basic and primal right?

[uwot]

But as we know, some men instinctually, invariably, unambiguously know they belong to some god

Seems to me: they learn that.

I agree. Does it follow that they are wrong?