From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid
On 2/6/26 10:58 AM, Creon wrote:
> At Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:36:41 -0500, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:18:45 -0500, Wilson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2026 10:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/26 6:07 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>> On 2/5/2026 4:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/26 9:30 AM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> body rights do not extend to property
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your body is your property, you own it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> negative, u do not "own" your body, you *are* your body
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can't force me to get a COVID shot. Where did you get that
>>>>> crazy idea, Nick?
>>>>>> u cannot sell ur whole body to another owner like you can with
>>>>>> property, therefor the rights are very much distinct.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your body is your body. You own it. You have a right to self
>>>>> defense. Don't let them take your body, Nick. It's your mind too.
>>>>> Don't get brainwashed into thinking you have no human rights.
>>>>
>>>> i have *human rights*, and because i *am* my body, my body has
>>>> those rights as well and *i* am inseparable from *my body*
>>>>
>>>> ownership rights are not needed for my body because i and my body
>>>> all have human rights...
>>>>
>>>> property/ownershp rights are for property, the fact there is some
>>>> overlap kinda, does not then imply they are the same things.
>>>>
>>>> that's a *false equivalence*, and ultimately just liberal nonsense
>>>> trying to pathetically justify the continued use of coercive
>>>> capitalism
>>>
>>> First off, coercive capitalism is not a real thing.
>>
>> If you are at the top of the money chain, and you measure success and
>> what matters in terms of that. If that, then you don't feel
>> especially coerced. Because you are doing the coercion.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Also:
>
> https://infidels.org/library/modern/constructing-a-logical-argument/#lazarum
>
> Argumentum ad lazarum
>
> The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is
> sounder or more virtuous than someone who’s wealthier. This fallacy is
> the opposite of the Argumentum ad Crumenam. For example:
>
> “Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as
> they have given up the distractions of wealth.”
wealth definitely trends to have a corruptive power on the minds of
those who have it, due the ivory tower effect isolating them from the
realities of the world they lord over
there's a reason we declare conflicts on interest in academia
same should be said over those declaring certain kinds of philosophy
>
>>
>>
>>> The concept of self-ownership, the idea that individuals have
>>> exclusive moral and legal control over their own bodies, is a
>>> foundational ethical and legal principle.
>>
>>
>>> You have rights to bodily integrity, autonomy, and inviolability.
>>> This is the basis for prohibitions on assault, battery, and
>>> non-consensual medical treatment.
>>>
>>> Legally property rights don't extend to one's body, but in a deeper
>>> moral sense the principle of self-ownership treats the body as the
>>> original and most fundamental "property" an individual possesses.
>>>
>>> Individuals own themselves because they own their labor, and the
>>> body is the instrument of labor. Or as John Locke said, "Every man
>>> has a property in his own person". This is the foundation for all
>>> rights to external objects. And it's the idea that underpins all of
>>> modern human rights theory.
>
>
>
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
