From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/6/2026 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.”
>
I'm not sure someone didn't just make that up.
We studied this in junior college: Lockean Labor Theory
John Locke argued that individuals have a natural right to own the
fruits of their labor, a concept known as the Lockean labor theory.
In his Second Treatise of Government, he stated that because every
person owns their own body and labor, when you mix working with your
hands and labor with natural resources, you create private property.
According to Locke, every individual has an absolute, natural right to
their own body and the labor it produces. The foundational ethical and
legal principles.>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
