You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Free Speech is Everything.
My body is my private property
Your body is not your property, it is you. You cannot give it to someone else (which is a necessary property of property) without losing (parts) of yourself.
Semantics. I have nature-conferred, highest direct executive capacity over my body and mind.
Not semantics, but necessarily definitions.
It is not property if you cannot transfer it.
That is e.g. the reason why you today you only get a license to play a game, but not property of a copy of a game. So that you cannot transfer it, that is the whole point of that construct.
You can still do everythign esle with that game that you can do if it is your property. The only thing you cannot is to transfer it. (Okay, and change it, but that is also true of your body, or can you grow a third leg if you want to?)
You are honestly telling me my body is not proper to me? It's laughable, Lenny.
Prostitutes do not surrender (transfer through time and space) their sexual organs for money?
I do not exchange my body being at home for being at work moving to make money when I teach?
It's right there in the language. My body. You sound crazy, Lenny.
Well, can you imagine that you send your body out to do it while you do something else? Of course not, that does not work. Because your body is not your property but you. Back to square 1: Property is transferable.
That is because I and my body are together--one--for all practical intents and purposes. If it is not my body, then to whom does it belong, dearest Lenny?
And who made you the arbiter on what is and is not property? On what do you base your claims?
I just go with what is considered the definition of property for centuries or longer and which seems to me too is correct.
It belongs to you, but is not your property, as it is not the property of anyone else.
The air molecule in your lung also belongs to you for the moment, still it is not your property - and here we are talking about somethign that you could sell, we just all agreed to not do that, not own that, as indians agreed to not own rivers.
Lennstar argues that human bodies cannot be treated as property. This is contradicted by the institution of slavery. Slavery is the ownership of people's bodies, i.e. people's bodies are property that can be transferred. If someone can "own" another person as property, why can't someone "own" themselves? I don't get it...
Semantic fields cannot be isolated and treated as monolithic truths, they tend to overlap with or be overlapped by facts they cannot adequately encompass in and of themselves. It may be worth pointing out 'property' has at least 10 definitions; one of which is "a person, especially one under contract in entertainment or sports, regarding as having commercial value". This is why when arguing with syllogisms based on semantic fields we frequently use the qualifiers of 'some' not just 'all'. Here the qualifier of 'all' is the root of your disagreement with lennstar.
Let's write it out then: (A) Property is (B) transferrable. Your (C)body is not (B) transferrable. Thus your (C) body is not (A) property. Simplified: A=B, C≠B therefore A≠C : I believe this is a syllogistic fallacy known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If am in error, please correct me!
Thank you! Yes, you nailed it!
:D