[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
summation of individual actions[/quote]
Uh-oh!
[quote]kamui wrote:
self awareness requires intelligence, which require concepts, which requires language.
now, i suppose you can build a very broad concept of self awareness, which doesn’t require language.
but then boar and ants are self aware too.
and i suppose you won’t grant them property rights. [/quote]
You know 0 about anything. language is built on concepts. You must have concepts to create language. language expresses existing concepts. not the other way around. And no, language is not required to be intelligent. Literally there are thousands of autistic people in this world that are very intelligent, are entirely self aware, and have no language. Your imput is getting dumber and dumber.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not to mention prenatal and ongoing pediatric care, diapers, education, formula…etc.[/quote]
Oh you mean the individual doctor who takes care of her, or the individual that invented the diaper, or the individual who decided to become a teacher?[/quote]
Because we all know your individual doctor was born asexually, raised as a hermit, and invented modern medicine. Fortunate you.
So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept. And since unanimous consent is impossible for what can or should be property, and how it should be distributed, even capitalism is slavery.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
summation of individual actions[/quote]
Uh-oh![/quote]
Yes, the group is a label for EXACTLY summation of individual actions and ABSOLUTELY nothing more.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not to mention prenatal and ongoing pediatric care, diapers, education, formula…etc.[/quote]
Oh you mean the individual doctor who takes care of her, or the individual that invented the diaper, or the individual who decided to become a teacher?[/quote]
Because we all know your individual doctor was born asexually, raised as a hermit, and invented modern medicine. Fortunate you.[/quote]
No, he had individuals do those things for him too.
All your ship are belong to us.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
summation of individual actions[/quote]
Uh-oh![/quote]
Yes, the group is a label for EXACTLY summation of individual actions and ABSOLUTELY nothing more. [/quote]
Yep. That’s the power of groups. That’s why we see this summation in action, and the product of their efforts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept. And since unanimous consent is impossible for what can or should be property, and how it should be distributed, even capitalism is slavery.[/quote]
“So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept.” how exactly did you arrive at that deduction?
And the rest, we’ve been over. I answered all your qualms. and you had no further rebuttal. So you either need to come up with a rebuttal or accept my argument.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept. And since unanimous consent is impossible for what can or should be property, and how it should be distributed, even capitalism is slavery.[/quote]
“So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept.” how exactly did you arrive at that deduction?
And the rest, we’ve been over. I answered all your qualms. and you had no further rebuttal. So you either need to come up with a rebuttal or accept my argument.[/quote]
I’ve rebutted your argument. You have none. I pulled back the covers on a philospohy only actually seen, believed, and practiced, by true-blue hermits.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept.” how exactly did you arrive at that deduction?
[/quote]
Well…it isn’t self-aware.
as long as we speak about humans, it’s neither one way nor the other.
language and concepts are interlinked.
depends on your definition of intelligence.
i thought we were speaking about humans.
and btw, even if we take non-verbal and pre-verbal intelligence into account, that doesn’t change the fact that your notion of individuality is neither non-verbal nor pre-verbal.
your atomistic notion of individuality (as the source of all rights) is actually a very recent cultural construct.
[quote]
Literally there are thousands of autistic people in this world that are very intelligent, are entirely self aware, and have no language.[/quote]
saying that autistic people have no language is a gross oversimplification.
they often have no speech capacity. that doesn’t means they have no linguistic capacity at all, nor that they have no comprehension of language at all.
they have deficient linguistic capacity, and deficient cognitive functions.
both are indissociable.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I find it absolutely hysterical that people on here think that Lincoln “went to war” over economics first and foremost. If Lincoln was so concerned about money, why would he have run on a platform that would have virtually guaranteed the loss of revenue from cotton production?
Why did he oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, basically an opposition of an extension of revenue into the territories?
When the war began to drag on much further than most anticipated it would, why did Lincoln then change his stance and decide that not only should slavery not extend into the territories, but it should also not exist anywhere?
If Lincoln was so concerned about money, why did he not offer some sort of amnesty and the guarantee that slavery could continue to exist in the seceded states if they rejoined the Union?
Why would Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation and virtually permanently remove the very thing that guaranteed that cotton production would remain economically viable for the entire country?
If Lincoln was so concerned about the revenue stream from the South (which was dwindling more and more each year as the Industrial Revolution made its way across the Atlantic from Europe), why would he undermine it by beginning to import cotton from India and Egypt?
If money was what motivated Lincoln, the why did he not allow the Southern states to rejoin the Union as slave states or make any attempt to create legislature that would have protected the institution of slavery (and therefore the main factor behind the profits from cotton). Why did he “go to war” at all, given that war in the South was guaranteed to undermine any economic power that the South had?
If those who truly believe that Lincoln was motivated purely or primarily by economic gain, then answer these questions, because his actions, his speeches and his private correspondences fly in the face of this “economic motivation” theory.[/quote]
You haven’t the first clue about economics.
Edify yourself and then rejoin the discussion.[/quote]
This is your response to my questions? A fucking pdf file a mile and a half long that does nothing to directly and specifically address the questions I posed to you? I asked YOU the questions so I was hoping that you would answer them, rather than provide some immaterial discourse on the nature of economics that entirely avoids the nature of my questions.
What a copout! Why don’t you try answering these questions I posed to you yourself? Think for yourself and answer them. I’m sure you really enjoy debating the abstract meaning of lines and property and so forth, but try answering the questions I posed to you with your own responses for a change.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
a fully functional human is the result of the collective effort of a group. [/quote]
Lie. A human born wild with no human contact is self aware. To be human is to be self aware. You can not claim that is the product of a group.[/quote]
Self aware, yes… but a human born in isolation will not develop anywhere near the cognitive abilities of a human born into a society. Self awareness is hardly the measuring stick of “functional.”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All done by individuals. entirely the exact product of the summation of the products of individuals with no added value from a group entity. You fail the question.[/quote]
The group working as a group moving iron, plus the group working as a group setting rivets, plus the group working as a group to oversee…[/quote]
all the exact summation of individual actions. 2+2=4. Where is the added value?[/quote]
Wait!
Seriously, DD… are you trying to say that there is no leverage in intelligence and capability in a group versus an individual???
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept. And since unanimous consent is impossible for what can or should be property, and how it should be distributed, even capitalism is slavery.[/quote]
“So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept.” how exactly did you arrive at that deduction?
And the rest, we’ve been over. I answered all your qualms. and you had no further rebuttal. So you either need to come up with a rebuttal or accept my argument.[/quote]
I’ve rebutted your argument. You have none. I pulled back the covers on a philospohy only actually seen, believed, and practiced, by true-blue hermits. [/quote]
If by rebutted, you mean stop responding to that line of questioning, then yeah, you rebutted it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“So, property isn’t self aware, and is simply a concept.” how exactly did you arrive at that deduction?
[/quote]
Well…it isn’t self-aware. [/quote]
What does it being self aware have to do with anything? I said self awareness proves the concept of self is an inherent natural thing and not invented like a group. How exactly are you twisting that to talk about the self awareness of property? This makes no sense.
[quote]kamui wrote:
as long as we speak about humans, it’s neither one way nor the other.
language and concepts are interlinked.
depends on your definition of intelligence.
i thought we were speaking about humans.
and btw, even if we take non-verbal and pre-verbal intelligence into account, that doesn’t change the fact that your notion of individuality is neither non-verbal nor pre-verbal.
your atomistic notion of individuality (as the source of all rights) is actually a very recent cultural construct.
Now you are just making up stuff and talking out of your ass. You obviously have never read anything on early childhood development. Thoughts and concepts are not dependent on language in any way. Period. And yes, concept of self is entirely independent of language.
And I never claimed the individual is the source of rights.
And you also apparently know nothing about autism. There are many people/children that can not communicate. And saying that it’s simply due to deficient cognitive functions is beyond retarded. It simply is not true. Many times these same people have much much higher cognitive capability. They simply lack social and language ability. In many respects autistic children are actually smarter. Quit running your mouth, you sound like a fool.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
a fully functional human is the result of the collective effort of a group. [/quote]
Lie. A human born wild with no human contact is self aware. To be human is to be self aware. You can not claim that is the product of a group.[/quote]
Self aware, yes… but a human born in isolation will not develop anywhere near the cognitive abilities of a human born into a society. Self awareness is hardly the measuring stick of “functional.”[/quote]
Nice made up fact there.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
a fully functional human is the result of the collective effort of a group. [/quote]
Lie. A human born wild with no human contact is self aware. To be human is to be self aware. You can not claim that is the product of a group.[/quote]
Self aware, yes… but a human born in isolation will not develop anywhere near the cognitive abilities of a human born into a society. Self awareness is hardly the measuring stick of “functional.”[/quote]
Nice made up fact there.[/quote]
Hardly.
The Making Of Intelligence by Ken Richardson, Columbia Press. It supports most of what Kamui has stated as well.