From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 18:58:06 +0000, 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.   
      
   Certainly those at the top do not think they are coercing, while   
   others think they are.   
      
   So, it is rubbish for those well off to dismiss this observation as   
   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.”   
      
   >Argumentum ad lazarum, or appeal to poverty, is a logical fallacy where a   
   conclusion is deemed correct simply because the speaker is poor.   
      
   That would be correct, but not what your assertion says   
      
   >“Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as   
   >they have given up the distractions of wealth.”   
      
   The important thing is not that they are poor, but that they have   
   chosen to not be influenced by the distractions of wealth.  That is   
   what makes them more likely to possess insight.   
      
   Again, that point will be invisible to the wealthy.  Or as jesus said,   
   seeing that would be like them passing through the eye of a needle.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > 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.   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)