here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=671945 time=1696658446 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671820 time=1696594580 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=671484 time=1696368300 user_id=16237]


Seems, 'PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here', happened even quicker, simpler, and easier than I was even expecting.

But we, obviously, still await to see if absolutely ANY one can show and prove that "henry quirk'" 'legitimately owns' a part of planet earth, and when for how long exactly some proposed 'legitimate ownership' began and lasts for
[/quote]

Everyone has the right to a common share of the accumulated wealth of humanity and the lowest that can mean is a place to be without someone else's permission. Ergo, everyone born legitimately owns part of Earth.
[/quote]

SO, what part of earth, exactly, do 'you', supposedly, 'own' "advocate"?
[/quote]

I don't supposedly own any of it, I legitimately own all of it, as it's part of the universe. I think you are purposefully ignoring parts of the argument, like that actual/practical and legitimate ownership are separate. You've switched from legitimate to actual and from universe to planet, and you don't see how you're straw manning?

[commonsense]

I don't supposedly own any of it, I legitimately own all of it, as it's part of the universe. I think you are purposefully ignoring parts of the argument, like that actual/practical and legitimate ownership are separate. You've switched from legitimate to actual and from universe to planet, and you don't see how you're straw manning?

Have I got this right? It seems to me that there can be multiple legitimate owners. But it seems that you’re claiming to be the only legitimate owner because you are the best philosopher and there can only be one best. Have I captured your argument correctly?

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=672018 time=1696698467 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=672012 time=1696693666 user_id=15238]

I don't supposedly own any of it, I legitimately own all of it, as it's part of the universe. I think you are purposefully ignoring parts of the argument, like that actual/practical and legitimate ownership are separate. You've switched from legitimate to actual and from universe to planet, and you don't see how you're straw manning?
[/quote]

Have I got this right? It seems to me that there can be multiple legitimate owners. But it seems that you’re claiming to be the [b][i]only[/i][/b] legitimate owner because you are the best philosopher and there can only be one best. Have I captured your argument correctly?
[/quote]

No.

I didn't say so but i concur.

There are undoubtedly many people who have a legitimate right to access everything because they'd do good things with it. I'm only addressing the most obvious point, that it can be established rationally that at least the best philosopher is the legitimate owner, to prove the possibility. Whoever else might have a similar claim will have to be established by a different argument. Saying the best philosopher is merely A legitimate owner doesn't diminish the point, legitimate ownership of everything is a reasonable idea, when separated from legal and actual ownership, and must include at least whoever had the best philosophy, which may be established in various ways, <at least two of which, Truth and Practical Wisdom, are valid>.

Now to that contingency, which is a separate argument than the OP makes.

•Anyone who doesn't want to harm others has a right to access anything in their power to understand, because not wanting to cause harm includes wanting to know whether you're causing harm and not wanting to interact with things you don't understand which may inadvertently cause harm. Such a person is inherently harmless and had the right to do as they please by default because no one else has the right to interfere with them.

•Anyone who understands more than everyone else has a legitimate right to access anything because no one else can possibly have a right to tell them how to behave.

•The best philosopher in Truth Wisdom ATM happens to be the person most likely to do good, but that will be someone in Practical Wisdom someday.

•Or the yet-to-be-established set of criteria for best Philosopher in Truth Wisdom have already been met and someone else is a better best philosopher, but aren't yet known as such.

There are some other contingencies that can establish legitimate owners of the universe. I don't believe they would conflict, because part of any variety of legitimacy must include not wanting to restrict other beings' access unnecessarily, so all who can access their part of the universe without causing externalities for someone else can coexist legitimately, as well as actually and legally if allowed.

[Impenitent]

legitimate? can you prove that your parents were married when you were born?

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

'owner of the universe' is a phrase a bit like 'driver of a carrot.'

[Iwannaplato]

The universe includes people. I don't want people to be owned by Advocate.

I don't really want him to own the Moon or the oceans either. But I thought I'd start with the easy stuff.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=672724 time=1697088432 user_id=3619]
[size=150]
'[i]owner of the universe[/i]' is a phrase a bit like '[i]driver of a carrot[/i].'[/size]
[/quote]

If you use it in its generic, practical sense it doesn't make sense, which is why i don't.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=672725 time=1697088792 user_id=3619]
The universe includes people. I don't want people to be owned by Advocate.

I don't really want him to own the Moon or the oceans either. But I thought I'd start with the easy stuff.
[/quote]

It may be presumptively stipulated that a person with Legitimate access and control wouldn't want to control someone else unless it was necessary to prevent harm. Or do you mean to say that a parent/child or caregiver relationship is invalid because they're illegitimate certainty of access and control?

Also, you know what you can do with your ad hominem.

[Iwannaplato]

The universe includes people. I don't want people to be owned by Advocate.

I don't really want him to own the Moon or the oceans either. But I thought I'd start with the easy stuff.

It may be presumptively stipulated that a person with Legitimate access and control wouldn't want to control someone else unless it was necessary to prevent harm. Or do you mean to say that a parent/child or caregiver relationship is invalid because they're illegitimate certainty of access and control?

Also, you know what you can do with your ad hominem.

An ad hom is when someone argues that your conclusions or arguments are wrong because of facts or judgments of you. I did not do that. I don't want to be owned by anyone, but given that you are specifically claiming legitimate ownership of the universe, I expressed what I felt in that context. It wasn't even an insult, let alone an ad hom, which would mean it was part of a fallacious step in an argument.

Parents are, well, parents. Not owners. Children are not objects or businesses or land.
Caregivers are not owners, the are....caregivers, not owners.

If you're going to go into some argument about how 'really' parents are owners, that's just a useless defense of poor communication.

I have access to the books in the library and, when it's open to the library itself. I don't own the books or the library. I have access to the streets of the city I live in, but....I'm sure you can finish that thought. I have access to my spouse. I don't own her. An employer can tell people what to do, within limits, but they don't own the employees.

At some point you in the exchanges here you seemed to leave the door open for other legitimate owners. If that is the case them the definite article 'the' in the title is misleading.

I don't care if you are an academic philosopher or not.
But your use of language is confused.

[Age]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

If the word and letter 'I' in the opening post is referring to the human being known here as "advoacate", and the one known as "advocate" here is claiming that 'it' is the so-called 'legitimate owner' of the Universe, Itself, then the very reason why NO has responded with a 'meaningful refutation', from 'your perspective', is because 'your' claim here "advocate" is so Truly ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and STUPID NO one has even taken 'your' CLAIM as worthy of even need ANY refutation, let alone A MEANINGFUL refutation.

Also, 'your' CLAIM that 'you' are the so-called 'best philosopher' does NOT even NEED 'refutation', as 'you' have, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET PROVED that 'you' are even the so-called 'best philosopher' anyway.

That there is, or even could be, NO one so-called 'best philosopher' goes without saying, and thus is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute here anyway.

Only a Truly VERY FOOLISH one would think or believe that there could be just one 'best philosopher'.

Furthermore, even on 'prima facie', first glance, first sight, first view, or based on first impression 'your' argument, or claim, here "advocate" does NOT 'stand' AT ALL.

In fact even on the very first impression 'your' claim and argument here FELL ABSOLUTELY FLAT and TUMBLE DOWN COMPLETELY. Although, 'you', obviously, BELIEVE otherwise.

I say "here's how you can tell the legitimate owner of the universe, by way of them being the best philosopher, for these specific reasons". and you say "nuh-uh". Nice talk.

I SAY and WRITE WORDS here in CLEAR PRINT, and 'you', "advocate", STILL could NOT SEE, and HEAR, EXACTLY what I SAID, and WROTE.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=672874 time=1697190517 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=672838 time=1697153352 user_id=15238]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=672725 time=1697088792 user_id=3619]
The universe includes people. I don't want people to be owned by Advocate.

I don't really want him to own the Moon or the oceans either. But I thought I'd start with the easy stuff.
[/quote]

It may be presumptively stipulated that a person with Legitimate access and control wouldn't want to control someone else unless it was necessary to prevent harm. Or do you mean to say that a parent/child or caregiver relationship is invalid because they're illegitimate certainty of access and control?

Also, you know what you can do with your ad hominem.
[/quote]An ad hom is when someone argues that your conclusions or arguments are wrong because of facts or judgments of you. I did not do that. I don't want to be owned by anyone, but given that you are specifically claiming legitimate ownership of the universe, I expressed what I felt in that context. It wasn't even an insult, let alone an ad hom, which would mean it was part of a fallacious step in an argument.

Parents are, well, parents. Not owners. Children are not objects or businesses or land.
Caregivers are not owners, the are....caregivers, not owners.

If you're going to go into some argument about how 'really' parents are owners, that's just a useless defense of poor communication.

I have access to the books in the library and, when it's open to the library itself. I don't own the books or the library. I have access to the streets of the city I live in, but....I'm sure you can finish that thought. I have access to my spouse. I don't own her. An employer can tell people what to do, within limits, but they don't own the employees.

At some point you in the exchanges here you seemed to leave the door open for other legitimate owners. If that is the case them the definite article 'the' in the title is misleading.

I don't care if you are an academic philosopher or not.
But your use of language is confused.
[/quote]

You did mention me and you didn't mention everyone, so your response was Definitely against the man, not against the idea.

You've ignored my explicit definition of ownership as certainty of access and control. By that definition, parents own children, and soccer that's accurately descriptive, not prescriptive, parents do own their children insofar as anyone owns anything; moderated by state and culture.

And then you want on to ignore just the control part. Ownership isn't just access OR control, but both, and books in the library aren't either one because they can close and you can't stop them.

Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control because that's a). necessary and sufficient and b) encompasses most use cases.

[Iwannaplato]

You did mention me and you didn't mention everyone, so your response was Definitely against the man, not against the idea.

So, you ignored the part of the definition of ad hom that means...it wasn't an ad hom. And you added nothing here on the other point. Of course, I mentioned you. You're claiming to be the legitimate owner of the universe. Why would I mention someone else? I promise to if someone else makes a similar claim.

You've ignored my explicit definition of ownership as certainty of access and control.

Well, then you don't have ownership of the universe. You have no access to most of it. You have no control of most of it. Case closed.

By that definition, parents own children,

I could say parents eat children by defining this as dining with them. Parents don't own their children.

and soccer that's accurately descriptive, not prescriptive, parents do own their children insofar as anyone owns anything; moderated by state and culture.

No, they don't. Not by any remotely common usage of the term. And you'll see the idea frowned upon by a wide spectrum of contrasting religious and secular groups.

And then you want on to ignore just the control part. Ownership isn't just access OR control, but both, and books in the library aren't either one because they can close and you can't stop them.

So, let me see if I get this right: you have control and access to the Moon. You have the access and control of me. You have access and control of libraries, which are....I hate to tell you... part of the universe. You are not the legitimate owner of the universe by your own definition, silly as it is. And let's be clear, I am again talking about you because....drumroll...the thread includes an assertion about you.

I cannot possibly respond to the topic of thread without going....drumroll...to the man, you. However this is not an ad hom, because I am not saying your argument is wrong because you didn't get in to Mensa. That's an ad hom. I mean, maybe you are in Mensa. But that's an ad hom.

Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control because that's a). necessary and sufficient and b) encompasses most use cases.

Let's assume for the sake of argument thats a good definition of ownership. Then you are not the owner of the universe and can never be it. Legitimate or otherwise. And obviously you have no right to be the owner of other people's children, by your own assertions, since they are their children's owners, according to you. Drumroll, because other people's children are part of the universe you are not and cannot be the legitimate owner of the universe.

The entire thread is a category error and then it contains category errors inside it. It's almost embarrassing that, despite my yes, playing also, I have responded as if this thread is remotely near a coherent, non-irrational set of ideas. That's I have even taken the time to point out the utter silliness of it doesn't reflect well on me. Like anyone will take your claim seriously.

I can only hope for your sake you are taking the piss.

But seeing as you are the legitimate owner of the universe, could you stop the war in the MIddle East with all that access and control?

Or if you meant you have a legitimate claim to being the owner of the universe 1) let us know when your claim is confirmed and 2) recognize that whoever you make that claim to and who grants you ownership is the real owner of the universe and 3) then stop the war in the Middle East with your access and control.

I mean, seriously, what is it about this forum?

As you were, I'll leave it here. Good luck with the application process.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=672946 time=1697232286 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=672925 time=1697219696 user_id=15238]
You did mention me and you didn't mention everyone, so your response was Definitely against the man, not against the idea.[/quote]So, you ignored the part of the definition of ad hom that means...it wasn't an ad hom. And you added nothing here on the other point. Of course, I mentioned you. You're claiming to be the legitimate owner of the universe. Why would I mention someone else? I promise to if someone else makes a similar claim.

[quote]You've ignored my explicit definition of ownership as certainty of access and control.[/quote]Well, then you don't have ownership of the universe. You have no access to most of it. You have no control of most of it. Case closed.

[quote] By that definition, parents own children,[/quote]I could say parents eat children by defining this as dining with them. Parents don't own their children.

[quote] and soccer that's accurately descriptive, not prescriptive, parents do own their children insofar as anyone owns anything; moderated by state and culture.[/quote]No, they don't. Not by any remotely common usage of the term. And you'll see the idea frowned upon by a wide spectrum of contrasting religious and secular groups.

[quote]And then you want on to ignore just the control part. Ownership isn't just access OR control, but both, and books in the library aren't either one because they can close and you can't stop them.[/quote]So, let me see if I get this right: you have control and access to the Moon. You have the access and control of me. You have access and control of libraries, which are....I hate to tell you... part of the universe. You are not the legitimate owner of the universe by your own definition, silly as it is. And let's be clear, I am again talking about you because....drumroll...the thread includes an assertion about you.

I cannot possibly respond to the topic of thread without going....drumroll...to the man, you. However this is not an ad hom, because I am not saying your argument is wrong because you didn't get in to Mensa. That's an ad hom. I mean, maybe you are in Mensa. But that's an ad hom.

[quote]Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control because that's a). necessary and sufficient and b) encompasses most use cases.[/quote]Let's assume for the sake of argument thats a good definition of ownership. Then you are not the owner of the universe and can never be it. Legitimate or otherwise. And obviously you have no right to be the owner of other people's children, by your own assertions, since they are their children's owners, according to you. Drumroll, because other people's children are part of the universe you are not and cannot be the legitimate owner of the universe.

The entire thread is a category error and then it contains category errors inside it. It's almost embarrassing that, despite my yes, playing also, I have responded as if this thread is remotely near a coherent, non-irrational set of ideas. That's I have even taken the time to point out the utter silliness of it doesn't reflect well on me. Like anyone will take your claim seriously.

I can only hope for your sake you are taking the piss.

But seeing as you are the legitimate owner of the universe, could you stop the war in the MIddle East with all that access and control?

Or if you meant you have a legitimate claim to being the owner of the universe 1) let us know when your claim is confirmed and 2) recognize that whoever you make that claim to and who grants you ownership is the real owner of the universe and 3) then stop the war in the Middle East with your access and control.

I mean, seriously, what is it about this forum?

As you were, I'll leave it here. Good luck with the application process.
[/quote]

Now you've ignored the difference between legitimate and actual ownership. Everything required to dismiss your responses is already in the OP.

[FlashDangerpants]

I mean, seriously, what is it about this forum?

It's a capricious place isn't it? I get how all the psychos arrivce here, they all think they are geniuses and that this sort of forum is where they can make their mark.

But we don't exactly give them all equal treatment and perhaps that is unfair. Why does VA get so much attention every day? Skepdick can nomally drag one person per day into his mad hatter universe in a little red square. And intermittently Age finds someone who isn't bored of him yet. None of those guys has really done anything new in years, the most progress comes from Age dropping the "clarifying questions" thing or VA moving from saying 'a thousand times' to 'a million times' when describing his own repetition.

When there's a new nutter, like Constantine was, or that GrandWizard22 fella, obviously they can take centre stage for a fairly long time if their psychiatric condition is amusing enough. That makes sense.

But Advocate, Eggnog7, Roydop.... these guys have been putting a shift and they aren't getting repaid for their effort any more. They've intiated plenty of quite insane threads, they spam as well as any other nutter, but they just don't get the same love. Handjob7 had to invent his own imaginary Spanish friend a while ago to ahve anyone to talk to at all.






I just think it's very sad. Has anyone seen the West Wing? We should have a PN big block of cheese day where we celebrate the forgotten madmen of Philosphy Now.

[Skepdick]

I mean, seriously, what is it about this forum?

It's a capricious place isn't it? I get how all the psychos arrivce here, they all think they are geniuses and that this sort of forum is where they can make their mark.

But we don't exactly give them all equal treatment and perhaps that is unfair. Why does VA get so much attention every day? Skepdick can nomally drag one person per day into his mad hatter universe in a little red square. And intermittently Age finds someone who isn't bored of him yet. None of those guys has really done anything new in years, the most progress comes from Age dropping the "clarifying questions" thing or VA moving from saying 'a thousand times' to 'a million times' when describing his own repetition.

When there's a new nutter, like Constantine was, or that GrandWizard22 fella, obviously they can take centre stage for a fairly long time if their psychiatric condition is amusing enough. That makes sense.

But Advocate, Eggnog7, Roydop.... these guys have been putting a shift and they aren't getting repaid for their effort any more. They've intiated plenty of quite insane threads, they spam as well as any other nutter, but they just don't get the same love. Handjob7 had to invent his own imaginary Spanish friend a while ago to ahve anyone to talk to at all.

I just think it's very sad. Has anyone seen the West Wing? We should have a PN big block of cheese day where we celebrate the forgotten madmen of Philosphy Now.

Isn't it strange how you always leave your name off the list of idiots?

You keep insisting philosophical discourse is a language game, then you keep getting upset when people employ every trick from game theory to fuck with the system. Maybe your social norms are the problem?

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.