Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Cockfighting  (Read 11670 times)

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2009, 03:05:58 pm »

Your definition of ownership is certainly an accurate description of the physical act of controlling or possessing something, but not ownership. Ownership means someone has a legal right to control or possession, or since we’re talking about philosophy here and not law, a moral right to control or possession.

Well, that's just offering a different definition, which I wouldn't accept. For a number of reasons, but namely the definition has been shifted to depend on what a "legal right" should be; and necessarily that a lack of a legal system would mean things could not be owned. Instead, you can have unlawful, wrongful, immoral, etc. ownership of something. One could define ownership in many ways, and it certainly has been defined many ways (and that's fine, as long as you know what it means when you see it). Some definitions, like the one I suggested, encompass merely having possession, custody, control, etc. And I think that's the better one in the descriptive context. As we're not specifically talking about law (until you said ownership is a legal right), it should not be assumed automatically that all ownership is lawful, rightful, moral, etc. Surely in the legal context (e.g. a thief stealing loot), we often hear the word "ownership" and assume the word means that the acts of ownership are lawful: in everyday speech, most people assume acts are done not unlawfully. So, in the context I am speaking of, care must be taken to distinguish "what is" from "what is right".

Well, this all just a choice of semantics now, and I’ll continue to use ownership to mean legitimate possession (by whatever standard of legitimate we’re using in context, be that legal, moral, or whatever), and possession to mean merely the act of holding or controlling something.

Using the word ownership without regard to legitimacy makes the word synonymous with possession, so why even have two words? And it’s certainly useful to have one word to automatically distinguish that an act of possession is not only possession in fact, but possession by right: ownership.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2009, 03:45:39 pm »

Using the word ownership without regard to legitimacy makes the word synonymous with possession, so why even have two words?

Why have two words? A lot of words in English have synonyms. There's no central authority on English to prune redundant words. Maybe they have different origins? I know possession has a Latin root. Don't know about "own"; could be germanic/saxon/norman, etc. Whatever.  ... where's the shrug emoticon?

Possession means to have. I own my desk chair (if you try to pull it out from under me, I'll probably swat you good). I also possess it. I leave for Tahiti--I no longer possess my chair. --I still own it, dammit! And if you take it while I'm gone, I'll be pretty pissed off and I swear upon all that is holy I will hunt you down and retake my chair. Ownership, possession: not quite the same thing. More: Volkswagen has ownership of my car, which they leased to me. I have possession of the car. Volkswagen does not have possession of the car, even though Volkswagen has ownership of "my" car. --I could try to claim ownership of the car. But I'd lose in the end ;) The words, imho, are not synonymous. And it absolutely is a question of semantics.

And it’s certainly useful to have one word to automatically distinguish that an act of possession is not only possession in fact, but possession by right: ownership.
It would be convenient, surely. But we don't have total information about the world, and we shouldn't pretend we do. You're walking down the sidewalk. Some guy has possession of a purse. But does he have ownership of it? Or, his ownership of the purse lawful or unlawful (right,wrong,etc)? But he has possession of it. Now, some lady comes along and tries to take it away from him. She swats him with a, uh, tennis shoe, gets the purse, and runs off. Is her possession lawful or unlawful? You don't know. At least not yet (and you might never get the whole story). So, in this context, you don't know who is right or who is wrong. But you can say who possesses the purse and who asserts ownership over it. Maybe the guy runs after her and continues to assert his ownership. Whether either is rightful or wrongful, we'll find out much later...
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2009, 04:29:08 pm »

Using the word ownership without regard to legitimacy makes the word synonymous with possession, so why even have two words?

Why have two words? A lot of words in English have synonyms. There's no central authority on English to prune redundant words. Maybe they have different origins? I know possession has a Latin root. Don't know about "own"; could be germanic/saxon/norman, etc. Whatever.  ... where's the shrug emoticon?

True, but when getting into philosophical or legal debates, it helps to have one word mean one thing, and another word to mean another.

A stop, a detention, and an arrest all mean essentially the same thing in common parlance (arrêt is actually French for, literally, stop), but those are three explicitly different things in legal parlance.

Possession means to have. I own my desk chair (if you try to pull it out from under me, I'll probably swat you good). I also possess it. I leave for Tahiti--I no longer possess my chair. --I still own it, dammit! And if you take it while I'm gone, I'll be pretty pissed off and I swear upon all that is holy I will hunt you down and retake my chair.

I would actually say you continue to possess the chair so long as you maintain control of it—while on vacation, it remains in your house, which I presume is locked, so it’s still under your control.

More: Volkswagen has ownership of my car, which they leased to me. I have possession of the car. Volkswagen does not have possession of the car, even though Volkswagen has ownership of "my" car. --I could try to claim ownership of the car. But I'd lose in the end ;)

Good point. They can delegate possession to someone else, but still maintain ownership. This indeed means that ownership doesn’t imply possession, but reinforces my point that ownership implies a kind of right of possession over something, even if you don’t possess it at this exact moment.

And it’s certainly useful to have one word to automatically distinguish that an act of possession is not only possession in fact, but possession by right: ownership.
It would be convenient, surely. But we don't have total information about the world, and we shouldn't pretend we do. You're walking down the sidewalk. Some guy has possession of a purse. But does he have ownership of it? Or, his ownership of the purse lawful or unlawful (right,wrong,etc)? But he has possession of it. Now, some lady comes along and tries to take it away from him. She swats him with a, uh, tennis shoe, gets the purse, and runs off. Is her possession lawful or unlawful? You don't know. At least not yet (and you might never get the whole story). So, in this context, you don't know who is right or who is wrong. But you can say who possesses the purse and who asserts ownership over it. Maybe the guy runs after her and continues to assert his ownership. Whether either is rightful or wrongful, we'll find out much later...

This has nothing to do with the definition of the word, though, just when the word should be applied to a specific situation. When we have or believe we have complete information, we can begin applying the proper words to the situation.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2009, 05:00:36 pm »


Blah blah blah.


Yak yak yak.


Blah blah blah.

I'm enjoying the conversation, but I noticed this is still in the "Cockfighting" thread. Aaaand, it's moving far, far away from FSP material. SO, I'm going to bow out. I'm sure we'll finish it some other time :)
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2009, 08:54:11 pm »


Blah blah blah.


Yak yak yak.


Blah blah blah.

I'm enjoying the conversation, but I noticed this is still in the "Cockfighting" thread. Aaaand, it's moving far, far away from FSP material. SO, I'm going to bow out. I'm sure we'll finish it some other time :)

One of the moderators can split it off.

Although, “cockfighting” is an amusingly àpropos title for so many libertarian debates… ;D
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2009, 09:29:43 pm »

Although, “cockfighting” is an amusingly àpropos title for so many libertarian debates… ;D

That totally hit me about 10 minutes after the last point...
Logged

stefyblueyes

  • Guest
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2009, 01:34:03 am »

From a medical standpoint, cockfighting can spread avian flu to humans when the cock owner must suck blood out the wounded bird's throat. Therefore, there would be some precedent to ban it for the "public good".
Logged

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2009, 08:19:47 am »

From a medical standpoint, cockfighting can spread avian flu to humans when the cock owner must suck blood out the wounded bird's throat. Therefore, there would be some precedent to ban it for the "public good".

how often do Cock owners suck the blood out of the wounded bird' throat?
Logged

stefyblueyes

  • Guest
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2009, 10:58:03 am »

From what I've been told when the lungs are punctured or the throat becomes too engorged.
And about eating gamecock... I think that falls under the category of why you should not eat racehorse meat: steroids and stimulants. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up