Slavery

[Iwannaplato]

It's not idiosyncratic. Most Americans and Westerners understand easily what is meant by saying "I own myself".

To some degree, as a metaphor. But they don't talk about owning their kids.

So, you wandered around to a phrase with a metaphorical base, about the self, but it is extremely idiosyncratic to use about kids. And for some reason because I don't use words like you do, it means you can draw conclusions about what I am like.

And I wouldn't use that way of talking about my autonomy, authority, agency because it's a poor metaphor. The own myself. Just like I dislike computer metaphors for the mind. If you want to use that METAPHOR, fine.

But notice how you wander and wander, finally use own in a way that some people do, as a metaphor.

Note: You won't hear people say I own a car, a house and myself. Because these are two different meanings of the word 'own' one literal one metaphorical.

See if you can deal maturely with someone who doesn't agree with you. Let's say you are right and I should use 'own' to refer to a parent's relation to his or her children. Even if I use it differently and don't like the metaphorical I own myself, but prefer other ways of conveying that idea, it doesn't mean I lack autonomy, etc. So, you found a way to insult me, then present fake empathy, based on fallacious logic. And that's even if your use in relation to kids was not very idiosyncratic which it is.

[Wizard22]

Forget about the language then ... do people ACT as though they "own" their children?

Clearly, yes.

Westerners have a deep taboo against 'Slavery' as a pejorative because of the worst examples of it recently. Furthermore the Western notion of "Racism" is also premised upon the White Slaveowner of the Plantation Negro. Both cases of these, Slavery and Racism, are considered the most 'evil' things imaginable in the Postmodern, Neo-liberal dominated philosophical landscape.

It has become so taboo, that even you, now, hesitate to say, claim, or hint that a person "owns" their own children. To me, that's ridiculous. I don't share that same taboo. I'm not a Liberal, at least, not that deeply. I have no hesitation to 'own' myself, my family, my ethnicity, my race, my society. Without ownership, there is no Autonomy, as I've already argued. If you want to go down that rabbit-hole, then let's do so.

[Iwannaplato]

Forget about the language then ... do people ACT as though they "own" their children?

Clearly, yes.

In some senses of the word, but not in others, the part about treating them like things period. They Love them, are responsible for, protect, care for them. And to some degree one can treat property that way, but the love is not the same (except for toxic parents who do exist those who do see spouse often and children as things), the caring includes empathy which one does not feel for cars - well, perhaps some do, but I would worry about them and so on. The ways in which we feel and relate to humans unlike differently from things.

Westerners have a deep taboo against 'Slavery' as a pejorative because of the worst examples of it recently.

Yes, people do tend to think of the american chattel slavery and not other kinds.

Furthermore, the Western notion of "Racism" is also premised upon the White Slaveowner of the Plantation Negro. Both cases of these, Slavery and Racism, are considered the most 'evil' things imaginable in the Postmodern, Neo-liberal dominated philosophical landscape.

It has become so taboo, that even you, now, hesitate to say, claim, or hint that a person "owns" their own children.

It's not taboo, I think poor language use.

To me, that's ridiculous. I don't share that same taboo.

Stop assigning things to me and then 'rebutting' them. I think 'own' is inaccurate, in relation to children, except in the cases of some people who are toxic. Where they do treat their children like things. They lack empathy for them. They don't really get that their children have an internal life that is important. The children re to them like decorations or trophies to those parents. There I think one could say that for them children are something they own, that's their full attitude. They may even take care of these children in some ways very well. Feed them well. Clean them well, give them good clothing, etc. But actually having an I-You relationship with love for another sentient being, no. Then 'own' can be accurate. So, in an argument about something else talking about 'owning your children' I consider like an equivocation.

I'm not a Liberal, at least, not that deeply. I have no hesitation to 'own' myself, my family, my ethnicity, my race, my society.

You own your family? do any of them own you? How do you own your ethnicity? Or do you mean in the sense of accepting it, like when we do something wrong, we can own what we did? You own your society? Now you're going off in another direction I don't understand. Your society is not property either unless there's a king. Or perhaps you share ownership with other citizens, that could make some sense.

But you don't seem to own it. You speak disparagingly of Westerners and their values but it seems like you don't identify with the society or the other citizens.

And as far as Westerners focusing on Southern US chattel slavery, I agree. That is the form they tend to think of. Not, for example, the Ancient Greek model. But here's the thing, I find ironic that it seems like we should have a more positive attitude about slavery. We're too judgmental, while at the same time when I choose not to use the word 'own' about one's kids (idiosyncratic, and extremely) or oneself, means I lack autonomy, agency and so on. And this means you feel sorry for me if I lack these things. But even in the Greek model of slavery, the slaves have those things radically infringed on.

Total Legal Dependency: Slaves in Greece had no legal rights, and their testimony was typically only accepted under torture in court. They were considered the property of their owners, who could buy, sell, or lease them at will.
The Power of "Benevolence" is Still Power: Even when owners were kind, the slave's continued welfare depended entirely on the owner's whim. A slave was "socially dead" in that they had no recognized legal family; marriages were not state-recognized, and owners could separate families at any time.
Fundamental Lack of Agency: As Aristotle outlined, a slave was a "tool" designed to serve another's ends, not their own. While some slaves were allowed to keep a portion of their earnings (a peculium) or run businesses, this was a concession permitted by the master, not an inherent right.
Physical and Social Control: Slaves were often subject to whipping and corporal punishment, from which free citizens were exempt. In many contexts, such as in the Gortyn code, offences committed against a slave were considered less serious, and they were legally restricted from engaging in certain activities like sports or pederasty.
Natal Alienation: Most slaves were "othered"—often foreigners or prisoners of war—removed from their birthrights and culture.

On the one hand you have taken any opportunity to point out the extreme value of autonomy, agency and authority (and I agree they are extremely important), and claim falsely that if I don't use language like you want me to, I don't have these things that are so valuable and important,
WHILE at the same time looking down on Westerners for have a pejorative sense of the word slavery.

It's like the right hand and the left hand don't know what the other is doing.

And heck, it would be consistent if when you notice
my not knuckling under to your idiosyncratic view of how we should use own,
my not accepting the ridiculous argument that if I don't use own like you think I should I can't have agency, autonomy and authority
my preference for not using a metaphor that implies I am property, which I find distasteful even if I own that property, because I am much, much more than a thing,
you saw the autonomy, authority and agency in my resistance to this.

It'd be cool if you didn't assume that I am a liberal or fan of Neoliberalism because I disagree with you on an issue, because your world, for you, only has a couple of categories or teams.

If I was to use own in relation to the self I would say this...
If you own yourself, you don't need to own others, and by thinking that you do, those that do, you are undermining your own sense of agency and capability. And you start atrophying when you own them. You have surrounded yourself with people who you do not think are your equals by category!!! and allow yourself to be dependent on them. And you need them to not own themselves to get by. You cannot yourself get by merely with the collaboration with other equals. Equals not in some evaluation of skills or greatness, but in terms of agency. You need others weak to feel strong.

[Wizard22]

It's not taboo, I think poor language use.

I assume you live in the British Isles. Things are much different in the United States, regarding the matter of Abortion. Women "own" their own bodies, in the United States, which supposedly gives them the "Right" to terminate / kill / abort their unborn children. In this regard, not only do they "own" their own body, but also the body of their unborn child. So this is a case of double-ownership.

All the counter-arguments you've given me so far, are undone. A woman can kill her 'property'. A woman can decide what to do with it/him/her. A woman has "Human Rights" to do so. She is legally allowed to kill. So how is this any different than American Chattel Slavery, exactly???

The language is not "idiosyncratic". It is exactly as I've laid out thus far.

But actually having an I-You relationship with love for another sentient being, no. Then 'own' can be accurate. So, in an argument about something else talking about 'owning your children' I consider like an equivocation.

Why is it mutually-exclusive, for you? You cannot have an I-You relationship with a child that you "own" ...why not? It's as-if you presume that Ownership is a permanent, static state. It's as-if you discount the idea that a child, with no self-ownership, cannot one day mature and "own him or herself". So perhaps your idea of 'Slavery' is also in this state of permanence, which I disagree with. Sometimes slaves fight hard, and risk much, to earn their Freedom. Sometimes Freedom remains elusive, not only for slaves, but for everybody in general: Free-Will.

You own your family? do any of them own you? How do you own your ethnicity? Or do you mean in the sense of accepting it, like when we do something wrong, we can own what we did? You own your society? Now you're going off in another direction I don't understand. Your society is not property either unless there's a king.

That's not how I see it. It doesn't matter the form of government. If you do not take responsibility for your 'own' society, then somebody else will, and that person will have Authority over you and others. People choose to take responsibility, or forgo it. People give their power away, to others. Slaves do that. Slaves give their autonomy over to "higher powers", usually very willingly, with little or no resistance.

You speak disparagingly of Westerners and their values but it seems like you don't identify with the society or the other citizens.

I "disparage" because I want to be as accurate as possible with my opinions and beliefs. If my society is shit, then I will want to improve it. If my society is golden, then I will want to maintain and conserve its values.

If I was to use own in relation to the self I would say this...
If you own yourself, you don't need to own others, and by thinking that you do, those that do, you are undermining your own sense of agency and capability. And you start atrophying when you own them. You have surrounded yourself with people who you do not think are your equals by category!!! and allow yourself to be dependent on them. And you need them to not own themselves to get by. You cannot yourself get by merely with the collaboration with other equals. Equals not in some evaluation of skills or greatness, but in terms of agency. You need others weak to feel strong.

I'm not a Secular Humanist. I do not believe in Equality. Power rises and falls, whether it be in the Hominid specie, or any other. "Equality" is always a case of inferiors' (without power / autonomy / agency / authority) grudge against their superiors (with power / autonomy / agency / authority).

I agree with Nietzsche that biological existence is premised on the Will to Power.

I agree with Hobbes in that man (and animal) are in a state of nature of All against All.

Only the "Social Contract" theory, as an imposition, keeps the peace among Mankind, which is only ever temporary, never permanent.



I will add another final point.

Westerners believe that Slaves would automatically want "Freedom". If somebody were a slave, then he or she would want to be a free person, with legal rights, protections, and entitlements. This is a false presumption. The overwhelming majority of Humanity do not want Freedom, and they never do, but instead prefer Security. Ignorance is Bliss. The masses choose Bliss, and willing Slavery, and rarely ever "Freedom".

[Iwannaplato]

It's not taboo, I think poor language use.

I assume you live in the British Isles. Things are much different in the United States, regarding the matter of Abortion. Women "own" their own bodies, in the United States, which supposedly gives them the "Right" to terminate / kill / abort their unborn children. In this regard, not only do they "own" their own body, but also the body of their unborn child. So this is a case of double-ownership.

I was talking about me. You were saying it was taboo language for me. It's not. I think it is inaccurate when referring to the parent child relationship, and distasteful to me in the 'I own myself' use.

Moving to the societal level. I am an American living abroad, not in the UK. I have not heard this women own their bodies. You are interpreting things like my body, my choice as ownership. But in legislation and in everyday speech it is not talked about in terms of ownership. And those pronouns include many things where there is no ownership. A kid can say my dad and not own the father. My love, my city, my problem, my boss, my doctor, my neighbor, my workplace, my train (the one I take to work, sorry gotta go) and so on. We can sell what we own. Give me a call when you successfully sell your doctor or the commuter train you take to work.

And frankly I will not discuss this again. It would be idiotic to say I own my arm, which doesn't mean other people get to do with it what they want. That's one of the many fallacies I've had to face here. If I say I don't own X, you think that means others can own it.

You conceive of ownership as present in relations I do not, nor do I think they are common. I acknowledge that many people use own in I own myself, but that is metaphorical, and further cannot be used as evidence in other cases.

All the counter-arguments you've given me so far, are undone. A woman can kill her 'property'.

Women don't talk like that. The laws do not word it that way.
Aside from one example, you are just deciding by fiat the way we speak, write and communicate and you're wrong. I'm done discussing this issue with you. You can't seem to stop nor acknowledge anything on this issue. And I see no reason to think you can actually acknowledge when you are wrong, on this or in general I don't know. And it seems I can expect you to find some other made-up idiosyncratic example that proves everything as you said here. No, sorry.

And none of this will somehow make me feel like I have some taboo about owning other people. That would be bad for me and them. Even if I was nice and kind, it'd be a net loss for me and obviously for them with their lost autonomy, agency etc. It's not that some irrational societal rule prevents me from this positive thing - jeez, if you knew how much I go against societal patterns...but then you don't.

[Wizard22]

Since you're finished, I'll take the final word then.

Legality doesn't mean much in reality. Possession is 9/10ths the Law, as the saying goes. Animals don't need a Legal System or Constitution, in order to "own things", like their own bodies. I've already laid out the straight-forward, common sense meaning of "owning self" as a discrepancy of the Mind-Body dichotomy throughout Western Civilization. Ownership goes beyond legal frameworks. So the difference between "mine" and "my own" is significant. Just because something is 'owned', in Capitalism, does not presume that it can be easily sold or bought. There are institutions, legal and illegal, where people sell organs and body parts. So your counter-argument is refuted there.

Unfortunately you did not take these arguments or conversation down to its root levels. How can there be Autonomy / Agency / Authority, without Ownership??? There can't be. So the previous centuries, and millenniums of Slavery, which did have easy, common, and socially approved methods of buying, selling, and 'owning' whole Persons--still translates to the ability for a person, today, in Postmodernity to "own him or herself". It's implied by the hypothetical "freeing of the slave".

I feel that you avoid this deeper level, because of what it means for yourself and the rest of Western Society. If it is indeed true, that a majority of people, choose Security over Freedom for example, then it is necessarily true that most people do not "Own Themselves" nor do they want to. Ownership is seen as a taboo, as your reaction here indicates. It implies the system of Capitalism, where the top 1% of the top 1% "Own Everything and Everybody", as the Proletariat bitches about daily... but a regular person, your or I, cannot have a simple conversation about Ownership.

Presumably, only the "Epstein Class" can Own things, and, Own people, like sex slaves. They are untouchables. The "Owner Class" if you will.

I rest my case, enjoy your thread.

[Iwannaplato]

Since you're finished, I'll take the final word then.

Legality doesn't mean much in reality.

Legality AND common usage both mean, well, pretty much everything.

Possession is 9/10ths the Law, as the saying goes. Animals don't need a Legal System or Constitution, in order to "own things", like their own bodies.

LOL. I knew you'd come with an even sillier example.

I've already laid out the straight-forward, common sense meaning of "owning self" as a discrepancy of the Mind-Body dichotomy throughout Western Civilization. Ownership goes beyond legal frameworks. So the difference between "mine" and "my own" is significant. Just because something is 'owned', in Capitalism, does not presume that it can be easily sold or bought. There are institutions, legal and illegal, where people sell organs and body parts. So your counter-argument is refuted there.

LOL.

Unfortunately you did not take these arguments or conversation down to its root levels. How can there be Autonomy / Agency / Authority, without Ownership??? There can't be. So the previous centuries, and millenniums of Slavery, which did have easy, common, and socially approved methods of buying, selling, and 'owning' whole Persons--still translates to the ability for a person, today, in Postmodernity to "own him or herself". It's implied by the hypothetical "freeing of the slave".

Yes, I just freed my car and a deck of cards I own. They are free. My car is much more autonomous now.

I feel that you avoid this deeper level, because of what it means for yourself and the rest of Western Society. If it is indeed true, that a majority of people, choose Security over Freedom for example, then it is necessarily true that most people do not "Own Themselves" nor do they want to.

Just making shit up. In what way am I not free. I mean, on the ground in real life. Not your fallacious deductions. Not in the little juggling ideas in the mind. How am I not free? Tell me.

Ownership is seen as a taboo, as your reaction here indicates.

So, if anyone disagrees with you there is a taboo. Do you see how self-serving that is?

It implies the system of Capitalism, where the top 1% of the top 1% "Own Everything and Everybody", as the Proletariat bitches about daily... but a regular person, your or I, cannot have a simple conversation about Ownership.

We can't have a simple conversation because you keep coming with fallacious arguments, because you assume disagreement means I have a taboo. You have a taboo, then, because you disagree with me. Such assertions mean nothing.

Presumably, only the "Epstein Class" can Own things, and, Own people, like sex slaves. They are untouchables. The "Owner Class" if you will.

Oh, yes. I clearly support them on this, duh.

I rest my case, enjoy your thread.

My thread. I own it? It's not my opening post. But anyway, I feel very sorry for you, giving away your agency and autonomy around posting in this thread. You can't even own that.

[Wizard22]

Legality AND common usage both mean, well, pretty much everything.

Oh ...I thought you were finished.

LOL. I knew you'd come with an even sillier example.

]LOL.

Yes I'm using baser and baser arguments that you can't squirm away from, and must concede to.

Does an animal "own" the corpse of another's whom he's found or killed for himself? Or must that animal fight off, and compete against other animals, who mean to consume the meat for themselves? This is the 9/10ths of the Law example. Food is not "Owned" by an animal, until it's chewed and swallowed. Until a resource is consumed, its "Ownership" is really an abstraction.

You BELIEVE that a grocery store "owns" its produce and selection of goods, until you buy it, and then you own it.

A thief, however, sees no such ownership. To the thief, it's all up for grabs, and 'ownership' of the goods is what can be discretely pocketed.

Yes, I just freed my car and a deck of cards I own. They are free. My car is much more autonomous now.

I'd rephrase: You *freed yourself* of your deck of cards and your car. Only autonomous beings, free-agents with free-will, can be 'free'.

You freed yourself of Ownership of these assets. Objects cannot be Free. Only Subjects can be Free(d). Only biology has Free-Will.

Just making shit up. In what way am I not free. I mean, on the ground in real life. Not your fallacious deductions. Not in the little juggling ideas in the mind. How am I not free? Tell me.

When you claimed you "do not own myself (your self)", that to me signaled that you are not free. I cannot conceive how a person can be free and also not "own him or herself". How are you not your own possession??? Is your mind yours? Is your body yours?!

So, if anyone disagrees with you there is a taboo. Do you see how self-serving that is?

We can't have a simple conversation because you keep coming with fallacious arguments, because you assume disagreement means I have a taboo. You have a taboo, then, because you disagree with me. Such assertions mean nothing.

Not necessarily--I just find it rarer and rarer that Western people en masse, or Western thinkers, believe they have Free-Will. Like you said, they do not "own themselves". Rather the masses are 'owned by' ...corporations, the government, God, "the powers that be", fate, chance, etc.

But anyway, I feel very sorry for you, giving away your agency and autonomy around posting in this thread. You can't even own that.

I don't like trespassing in other people's threads and "taking ownership" of the conversation or debate. I believe that an OP is owned by its Author. So when I create a thread, I take a higher degree of responsibility over it, than when I interrupt somebody else's thread.

[Iwannaplato]

This is pretty harsh below, not that I think you'll mind. But the reason: you drew insulting conclusions via fallacies. So, it went personal. OK, peachy, right back at'cha.

Oh ...I thought you were finished.

with taking you seriously.

LOL. I knew you'd come with an even sillier example.

]LOL.

Yes I'm using baser and baser arguments that you can't squirm away from, and must concede to.

But they are terrible and you've acknowledged nothing.

Does an animal "own" the corpse of another's whom he's found or killed for himself? Or must that animal fight off, and compete against other animals, who mean to consume the meat for themselves? This is the 9/10ths of the Law example. Food is not "Owned" by an animal, until it's chewed and swallowed. Until a resource is consumed, its "Ownership" is really an abstraction.

So, you don't really own yourself. I feel sorry for you. I am crying with empathy.

You BELIEVE that a grocery store "owns" its produce and selection of goods, until you buy it, and then you own it.

Nice appeal to incredulity without even managing to connect it to your own position or mine.

A thief, however, sees no such ownership. To the thief, it's all up for grabs, and 'ownership' of the goods is what can be discretely pocketed.

See how this leads again to you not owning yourself, but just think that you do, while here realizing that you actually don't. See if you can fill in the steps, since you expect others to do that with your 'arguments'. And I feel sorry for you that you don't own yourself because there are murderers out there.

Yes, I just freed my car and a deck of cards I own. They are free. My car is much more autonomous now.

I'd rephrase: You *freed yourself* of your deck of cards and your car.

Oh, so right, such common usage both in everyday language and in philosophy. LOL

Only autonomous beings, free-agents with free-will, can be 'free'.

Who wants to be 'free'. Much better to be free. Again I feel sorry for you living in states with citation marks and not experiencing the real thing. I have so much faux empathy for you.

Just making shit up. In what way am I not free. I mean, on the ground in real life. Not your fallacious deductions. Not in the little juggling ideas in the mind. How am I not free? Tell me.

When you claimed you "do not own myself (your self)", that to me signaled that you are not free.

You misinterpreted and hallucinated. You conflate map and territory and your metaphors as the only way to speak.

I cannot conceive how a person can be free and also not "own him or herself".

I mean seriously, are you two years old. I can have the precise qualities you consider free without using that way of speaking to describe it because I see ownership as having to do with property and I am not a thing. But you assume because I don't want to use your metaphor, I can't have the qualities. This is infantile philosophy of language on your part. Grow up or people won't take you seriously.

How are you not your own possession??? Is your mind yours? Is your body yours?!

I already pointed out the idiocy of assuming those pronouns must entail ownership. Do you own your neighbor? Seriously, not getting this once, ok. But once it is pointed out and you repeat this idiocy really brings your intelligence into question. If you own your friends this means you like spending time with people who don't own themselves, for some reason - low self-esteem??. But they are my friends I own them.

You can't even manage to grant that people might use language in a different way than you do but still have the qualities you refer to with your chosen metaphor which you take literally. This simply beyond your ken. You cannot wrap your mind around this.

So, if anyone disagrees with you there is a taboo. Do you see how self-serving that is?

We can't have a simple conversation because you keep coming with fallacious arguments, because you assume disagreement means I have a taboo. You have a taboo, then, because you disagree with me. Such assertions mean nothing.

Not necessarily--I just find it rarer and rarer that Western people en masse, or Western thinkers, believe they have Free-Will. Like you said, they do not "own themselves". Rather the masses are 'owned by' ...corporations, the government, God, "the powers that be", fate, chance, etc.

That has nothing to do with me, you idiot.

I don't like trespassing in other people's threads and "taking ownership" of the conversation or debate. I believe that an OP is owned by its Author. So when I create a thread, I take a higher degree of responsibility over it, than when I interrupt somebody else's thread.

So, it wasn't our conversation? You can't take ownership of our conversation. It was mine. Which means you don't own your own thoughts and part in things. I feel very sad for you. You also said it was my thread.

I rest my case, enjoy your thread.

I didn't start this thread. I need to take another break from you. I am so sad over the lack of ownership in you, I can hardly bear it. I weep. I gnash my teeth. I can't for a moment conclude that you use language differently than me and actually you do own yourself. If only I had the freedom to do that.

Jesus, you've been showing the worst combination: smugness, certainty and weak understanding.

Let me try from a different angle, and seriously my earlier angles should have been enough.

Japanese: “Jiritsu shite iru” (自立している). This literally translates to “standing on one’s own legs.” It emphasizes balance and physical independence.

Arabic: “Ana hurru nafsi” (أنا حر نفسي). This means “I am the Freeman of my soul.” It frames autonomy as a state of liberation from external bondage.

Mandarin Chinese: “Wǒ zuò wǒ zìjǐ de zhǔ” (我做我自己自的主). This means “I am my own decision-maker/master.” It focuses specifically on the power of the will.

Dutch: “Ik trek mijn eigen plan” (I draw my own plan). This is a procedural metaphor; it means you are the architect of your actions and do not follow another’s blueprint.

See, different metaphors for the same idea. But you would conclude that no one who frames the same qualities you value without ownership as the metaphor, are not free. But oddly, in English, you don't need to even use a metaphor. You could simply say you are free. But if someone doesn't like or use your preferred metaphor that compares you to things, property, they can't be free. It's a category error and a confusion about causation.

The Fallacies
False Dilemma: You are falsely limiting the options to only two: either you use their specific metaphor (self-ownership), or you must not possess the quality that metaphor describes (freedom/autonomy). This ignores the option that one can possess autonomy while describing it through different metaphors, such as authorship or navigation.
Exact Word Fallacy: This occurs when someone insists that a specific term or definition must be used to acknowledge a concept. When I reject your metaphor, you falsely claim I am denying the underlying reality simply because you aren't using their "exact words."
Reification Fallacy: This involves treating an abstract metaphor (the self as "property") as if it were a literal, concrete fact. You have "reified" the ownership metaphor to the point where they believe the metaphor is the autonomy, rather than just one way to describe it.

And even a moment's actual reflection could lead you to respect the fact that as biology, as you say, as a human, I prefer not to refer to myself as property as a thing, even in a metaphor. I am not trying to force you to speak about your autonomy with some other metaphor. But you can't deal with someone else who prefers other ways of describing himself, and not as a thing. You could respect the fact that I am showing autonomy in relation to your wanting everyone to speak the same way with the same metaphor, that my not knuckling under to your fallacies demonstrates my autonomy and the reason for my not liking that metaphor has to do with self-respect. You could still prefer your own metaphor, but you cannot manage to recognize the autonomy I am showing in both choosing how I would want to describe those qualities and the reasons why I don't like that metaphor.

But you don't really respect other people's freedom and choices, even when they don't infringe on your freedom. You present faux sorrow about what you think proves I am not free, rather than managing to respect someone else, who you throw a bunch of unjustified insults at (in the guise of this false empathy). And you do this using the fallacies I mentioned above.

Me, I'm not going to pretend I feel sorry for you except as parody.

[Wizard22]

Does an animal "own" the corpse of another's whom he's found or killed for himself? Or must that animal fight off, and compete against other animals, who mean to consume the meat for themselves? This is the 9/10ths of the Law example. Food is not "Owned" by an animal, until it's chewed and swallowed. Until a resource is consumed, its "Ownership" is really an abstraction.

So, you don't really own yourself. I feel sorry for you. I am crying with empathy.

...you do understand how Analogies work, right?

Am "I" a piece of food? Or am "I" something already internalized? What is the Mind-Body Divide? What is the Philosophy of Dualism?

A thief, however, sees no such ownership. To the thief, it's all up for grabs, and 'ownership' of the goods is what can be discretely pocketed.

See how this leads again to you not owning yourself, but just think that you do, while here realizing that you actually don't. See if you can fill in the steps, since you expect others to do that with your 'arguments'. And I feel sorry for you that you don't own yourself because there are murderers out there.

How can a "Self" be stolen??? Tell me.

I cannot conceive how a person can be free and also not "own him or herself".

I mean seriously, are you two years old. I can have the precise qualities you consider free without using that way of speaking to describe it because I see ownership as having to do with property and I am not a thing. But you assume because I don't want to use your metaphor, I can't have the qualities. This is infantile philosophy of language on your part. Grow up or people won't take you seriously.

How are you not your own possession??? Is your mind yours? Is your body yours?!

I already pointed out the idiocy of assuming those pronouns must entail ownership. Do you own your neighbor? Seriously, not getting this once, ok. But once it is pointed out and you repeat this idiocy really brings your intelligence into question. If you own your friends this means you like spending time with people who don't own themselves, for some reason - low self-esteem??. But they are my friends I own them.

You can't even manage to grant that people might use language in a different way than you do but still have the qualities you refer to with your chosen metaphor which you take literally. This simply beyond your ken. You cannot wrap your mind around this.

You seem to miss the point of your own side of the argument...

Human History has had Slavery for, what, millenniums? So it already WAS commonplace that one person 'owns' another. That's not a mystery. That's not a surprise. What is a surprise, in historical terms, is Post-Modernity where Western Civilization now claims that people do NOT OWN one-another. Or worse, your current arguments, that you do NOT even own yourself... I'm just astonished, really.

Let me try from a different angle, and seriously my earlier angles should have been enough.

Japanese: “Jiritsu shite iru” (自立している). This literally translates to “standing on one’s own legs.” It emphasizes balance and physical independence.

Arabic: “Ana hurru nafsi” (أنا حر نفسي). This means “I am the Freeman of my soul.” It frames autonomy as a state of liberation from external bondage.

Mandarin Chinese: “Wǒ zuò wǒ zìjǐ de zhǔ” (我做我自己自的主). This means “I am my own decision-maker/master.” It focuses specifically on the power of the will.

Dutch: “Ik trek mijn eigen plan” (I draw my own plan). This is a procedural metaphor; it means you are the architect of your actions and do not follow another’s blueprint.

See, different metaphors for the same idea. But you would conclude that no one who frames the same qualities you value without ownership as the metaphor, are not free. But oddly, in English, you don't need to even use a metaphor. You could simply say you are free. But if someone doesn't like or use your preferred metaphor that compares you to things, property, they can't be free. It's a category error and a confusion about causation.

Yes, obviously different societies and cultures are going to use different metaphors and analogies to recognize Freedom. Where did I say or presume otherwise? Did I not admit this already when confining these arguments and points to the context of Postmodern Western Civilization??

The Fallacies
False Dilemma: You are falsely limiting the options to only two: either you use their specific metaphor (self-ownership), or you must not possess the quality that metaphor describes (freedom/autonomy). This ignores the option that one can possess autonomy while describing it through different metaphors, such as authorship or navigation.
Exact Word Fallacy: This occurs when someone insists that a specific term or definition must be used to acknowledge a concept. When I reject your metaphor, you falsely claim I am denying the underlying reality simply because you aren't using their "exact words."
Reification Fallacy: This involves treating an abstract metaphor (the self as "property") as if it were a literal, concrete fact. You have "reified" the ownership metaphor to the point where they believe the metaphor is the autonomy, rather than just one way to describe it.

You're the one presuming that I don't know about foreign culture and their language.

Are you aware of Slavery of Europeans throughout the Ottoman Empire? Are you aware of CURRENT slavery in the United Arab Emirates and throughout Africa, right now???

This false dilemma and reification, is your own.

I prefer not to refer to myself as property as a thing,

And here is your weak-point and concession.

You PREFER not to use the language I've setup, BUT, you admit to its truthfulness and necessity. People DO "own themselves". They have to, whether they want to say it or not, "use the language" or not.

even in a metaphor. I am not trying to force you to speak about your autonomy with some other metaphor. But you can't deal with someone else who prefers other ways of describing himself, and not as a thing. You could respect the fact that I am showing autonomy in relation to your wanting everyone to speak the same way with the same metaphor, that my not knuckling under to your fallacies demonstrates my autonomy and the reason for my not liking that metaphor has to do with self-respect. You could still prefer your own metaphor, but you cannot manage to recognize the autonomy I am showing in both choosing how I would want to describe those qualities and the reasons why I don't like that metaphor.

But you don't really respect other people's freedom and choices, even when they don't infringe on your freedom. You present faux sorrow about what you think proves I am not free, rather than managing to respect someone else, who you throw a bunch of unjustified insults at (in the guise of this false empathy). And you do this using the fallacies I mentioned above.

Me, I'm not going to pretend I feel sorry for you except as parody.

This is why I brought up Neo-Liberal Western-ism already, which you demonstrate perfectly. You "prefer" not to use my metaphors and language, because it reduces Persons and Subjects to "Things and Objects", as-if dehumanization is as you presume. But you are ignoring a critical point: how is a child "Humanized" to begin with? How is a "Self" built or developed or constructed or assumed??? How is Autonomy gained, in the first place? How does "Ownership" take place?

You've ignored all of these, because of a core-belief you have. Are you not a Secular Humanist then??

[Iwannaplato]

You seem to miss the point of your own side of the argument...

Human History has had Slavery for, what, millenniums? So it already WAS commonplace that one person 'owns' another. That's not a mystery. That's not a surprise. What is a surprise, in historical terms, is Post-Modernity where Western Civilization now claims that people do NOT OWN one-another. Or worse, your current arguments, that you do NOT even own yourself... I'm just astonished, really.

You've repeated your position without responding to anything I wrote.

Yes, obviously different societies and cultures are going to use different metaphors and analogies to recognize Freedom. Where did I say or presume otherwise? Did I not admit this already when confining these arguments and points to the context of Postmodern Western Civilization??

The point was that other cultures don't use your metaphor. I don't like that metaphor either. Despite valuing agency and autonomy in myself. You are confusing map for territory.

The Fallacies
False Dilemma: You are falsely limiting the options to only two: either you use their specific metaphor (self-ownership), or you must not possess the quality that metaphor describes (freedom/autonomy). This ignores the option that one can possess autonomy while describing it through different metaphors, such as authorship or navigation.
Exact Word Fallacy: This occurs when someone insists that a specific term or definition must be used to acknowledge a concept. When I reject your metaphor, you falsely claim I am denying the underlying reality simply because you aren't using their "exact words."
Reification Fallacy: This involves treating an abstract metaphor (the self as "property") as if it were a literal, concrete fact. You have "reified" the ownership metaphor to the point where they believe the metaphor is the autonomy, rather than just one way to describe it.

You're the one presuming that I don't know about foreign culture and their language.

That section is not about other cultures, it was about the fallacies you were presenting as arguments.

Are you aware of Slavery of Europeans throughout the Ottoman Empire? Are you aware of CURRENT slavery in the United Arab Emirates and throughout Africa, right now???

Yes, I am aware of both those phenomena. That has nothing to do with your idiotically assuming that if someone prefers other ways to describe something they don't have that 'thing'.

I prefer not to refer to myself as property as a thing,

And here is your weak-point and concession.

You PREFER not to use the language I've setup, BUT, you admit to its truthfulness and necessity. People DO "own themselves". They have to, whether they want to say it or not, "use the language" or not.

I see no necessity for using that metaphor and I think it is a poor one. Just like I don't like when people refer to their minds as computers. I think both are demeaning and less accurate than other metaphors or more literal ways of describing things. If you want to use it fine. I don't.

This is why I brought up Neo-Liberal Western-ism already, which you demonstrate perfectly. You "prefer" not to use my metaphors and language, because it reduces Persons and Subjects to "Things and Objects", as-if dehumanization is as you presume.

But you are ignoring a critical point: how is a child "Humanized" to begin with? How is a "Self" built or developed or constructed or assumed??? How is Autonomy gained, in the first place?

I haven't ignored any of those things. You just assert things with no reasoning at all now.

You've ignored all of these, because of a core-belief you have. Are you not a Secular Humanist then??

No, I am neither secular nor a humanist.

So, a post repeating your positions with no interaction at all with the points I made.

[Wizard22]

Just like I don't like when people refer to their minds as computers. I think both are demeaning

Are you tech-savvy? Computers can do amazing things now. It should be a compliment compared to the minds of decadent Westerners nowadays...

[Iwannaplato]

Just like I don't like when people refer to their minds as computers. I think both are demeaning

Are you tech-savvy? Computers can do amazing things now. It should be a compliment compared to the minds of decadent Westerners nowadays...

See, this is part of a pattern. You don't respond to some things, or perhaps can't understand them, and so you wander. Try to find a new arena where maybe you can win a point.

So, far computers don't have autonomy. They are still tools. The closest to humans are AIs but it is debatable that they are the computers but rather the software and heuristics. Anyway, they are amazing tools, but they are still tools, owned by humans individually or in organizations.

They don't own themselves. And given that they are property, patented property, that metaphor works very well there. So, you should be on my side. You consider yourself to own yourself. They don't own themselves, so the metaphor should be bothersome for you to.

When we have AIs that are autonomous and choosing their own pursuits and free, we can revisit the metaphor.

I'm not interested in talking more about computers or AIs. If you want to say your mind or brain is a computer, go for it. I'd rather not have use a metaphor that compares me to something that is not free, for example and also that is, still, simpler than my mind.

Hell, I don't even know your position on Slavery. Were you arguing that it is OK? Would you choose to own slaves? Maybe you posted this somewhere. I don't know. We should be nicer to the benign slaveowners, it seems. You didn't like my idea that slaveowning might be problematic for the slaveowners. But what is you position?

[Iwannaplato]

How can a "Self" be stolen??? Tell me.

There, you've found a good criticism of your metaphor. Can your self be stolen? It seems like your answer is not. But property can be. Good point, a weakness in a metaphor where we don't really even need a metaphor.

Yes, obviously different societies and cultures are going to use different metaphors and analogies to recognize Freedom.

And different individuals in any one society, people who think for themselves, will also have their own ways to refer to things. You jump to all sorts of conclusions based on the map and seem to assume I should use your metaphor for something I also value but use different words for. Words you also use.

The Fallacies
False Dilemma: You are falsely limiting the options to only two: either you use their specific metaphor (self-ownership), or you must not possess the quality that metaphor describes (freedom/autonomy). This ignores the option that one can possess autonomy while describing it through different metaphors, such as authorship or navigation.
Exact Word Fallacy: This occurs when someone insists that a specific term or definition must be used to acknowledge a concept. When I reject your metaphor, you falsely claim I am denying the underlying reality simply because you aren't using their "exact words."
Reification Fallacy: This involves treating an abstract metaphor (the self as "property") as if it were a literal, concrete fact. You have "reified" the ownership metaphor to the point where they believe the metaphor is the autonomy, rather than just one way to describe it.

You're the one presuming that I don't know about foreign culture and their language.

I didn't assume that. I gave examples. Perhaps new to you perhaps not. But likely not thought about in this context or you wouldn't confuse the map with the territory.

I prefer not to refer to myself as property as a thing,

And here is your weak-point and concession.

You PREFER not to use the language I've setup, BUT, you admit to its truthfulness and necessity. People DO "own themselves". They have to, whether they want to say it or not, "use the language" or not.

I have repeatedly said that the metaphor is a poor one and not necessary, that we have other ways to say it. The map, that metaphor, I do not think is necessary or truthful. Of course, metaphors always mix truth and fiction, but it's enough in this case for me not to use it. The territory, the having autonomy and agency, is very important. I've said this many times in a number of different ways.

You've ignored all of these, because of a core-belief you have. Are you not a Secular Humanist then??

No, I am neither secular nor a humanist.

[Immanuel Can]

So much talking has gone on. But nowhere is there an answer to Henry's question.