One Principle To Live By

[TakeMyCrabs]

One Principle To Live By

Cheers!

Haven't been here in awhile, lots of things changed. Maybe I've matured! (Let's see)



I believe in one principle: (everyone has to start with at least one assumption and follow where the reasoning leads)

People own their time.


Do most people agree? Is there any other assumptions that you make?

That single assumption is the basis of my reasoning for the purpose of laws.

For example, since you own your own time, you own the fruits of your labor. Taking away someone else's time is illegal (assault, murder, etc).

What issues would arise from this approach?

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Would you extend that back one step to:

People own their bodies.

One issue that could arise though is that unquestioned ownership of the fruits of your labor would presumably allow people to abandon any children they have without a shred of support.

 

[TakeMyCrabs]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Would you extend that back one step to:

People own their bodies.

By virtue of owning their own time. I believe the two to be equivalent, just an issue of semantics.

One issue that could arise though is that unquestioned ownership of the fruits of your labor would presumably allow people to abandon any children they have without a shred of support.

I agree. While this seems like a crappy situation, I don't really see way around it. However, for real-world purposes, I don't consider children to have the same time/body-ownership as full fledged adults.

Can't have infants running around demanding unemployment! :thumbsup:

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

By virtue of owning their own time. I believe the two to be equivalent, just an issue of semantics.

Possibly, though I'm sure we can both think of examples where nuances in words lead to things being very heavily debated.

I agree. While this seems like a crappy situation, I don't really see way around it. However, for real-world purposes, I don't consider children to have the same time/body-ownership as full fledged adults.

Can't have infants running around demanding unemployment! :thumbsup:

So green light on child abandonment? I mean - it's not like it's all that rare for people to try to avoid supporting their children already.

 

[TakeMyCrabs]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Possibly, though I'm sure we can both think of examples where nuances in words lead to things being very heavily debated.

Example?

So green light on child abandonment? I mean - it's not like it's all that rare for people to try to avoid supporting their children already.

Do you propose that people that have no relation to the baby/parents should be forced to use their time to punish others?

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Possibly, though I'm sure we can both think of examples where nuances in words lead to things being very heavily debated.

Depends on what you mean by "nuances".

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

don't mess with other people.

this is the cause of all the negative stuff of humanity. if everyone folowed this principle all the negative stuff humans have done would be gone.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

People own their time.


Do most people agree? Is there any other assumptions that you make?

I agree, but I do also make other assumptions myself though I don't think it's relevant for the thread, which I believe is about your assumption.
There's one exception however, even though people own their time, it does not mean they can always be certain to have the possibility to use their time as they want (like going to jail when you really rather wanted to be out working to get some cash). That way eventhough you still own your time, the value of your time have probably been limited in your eyes.

So green light on child abandonment? I mean - it's not like it's all that rare for people to try to avoid supporting their children already.

If someone wants to abbondon their child do you really think the child is at its best in the hands of those people?

don't mess with other people.

What if messing with someone for one actually equals giving a friendly advice for the other? Don't we end up in a situation where everyone is afrad of socialising? Wouldn't this actually in the end become world devastating? What I believe is needed is information spread out so people can understand eachother, as I don't think anyone have any interest in doing harm and only does so because the other didn't understand them. (Like when some will start hitting people just because they can't argument against them, while others would never do that, if the two parts understood eachother, the one who hits wouldn't do so, as this part would realise it means something completely different for the other part, likewise the part who doesn't give a break in the debate would do so, as this part would understand that the other part really can't stand it).

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Example?

The second amendment springs to mind, though that's more a punctuation rather than word choice issue. Though even then I've seen the word 'arms' debated heavily. Another example springing to mind is the word 'kill' in the bible where the nuances between 'kill' and 'murder' have been debated extensively. Likewise the word 'adultery'.

Do you propose that people that have no relation to the baby/parents should be forced to use their time to punish others?

Do you propose to allow biological parents to abandon their children?

I'm not sure what your statement is saying either? It looks like you're saying that people who have no relation to either party in a crime/dispute/event should not be forced to use their money (hence earnings from their time, hence time) to fund punishing the person in the wrong?

 

[stephan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

When applied to the real world, the assumption doesn't mean anything.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

"don't mess with some one" -HK

let me clarify:

my "mess" means NEGATIVELY "messing" with some one.

POSITIVE "messing" would NOT be "messing with some one".

my view/opinion:

whether something is negative or positive depends on the person that u are messing with. letting the person who is messing with some one decide if his actions are positive or negative is a slippery slope. u don't ask a criminal if they think they commited a crime or not. u ask the target if they feel victimized or not. a 3rd party is the same as well. only the target knows if he is a victim or not. not the target'ER or a 3rd party. ONLY the target knows if they are a victim or not.

unfortunately, even the target can lie or possibly "over-react" but again it's a slippery slope, as who decides and what makes one person right over another person. it's really a mess when humans are involved. the fairest and most just thing is to just let them fight it out to the death, but human society is probably never gonna go back to that...

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

"don't mess with some one" -HK

let me clarify:

my "mess" means negatively "messing" with some one.

my view/opinion:

whether something is negative or positive depends on the person that u are messing with. letting the person who is messing with some one decide if his actions are positive or negative is a slippery slope. u don't ask a criminal if they think they commited a crime or not. u ask the target if they feel victimized or not. a 3rd party is the same as well. only the target knows if he is a victim or not. not the target'ER or a 3rd party. ONLY the target knows if they are a victim or not.

In the United Union (I believe that's their name) it's been agreed that it's illegal to raise critic of religion. Sure the religious people are feeling victimized, but if we cannot critizise something like religion, which in cases tells people to kill eachother, then we're removing the freedom of speech. Do you want to make such a sacrifice? What if the next thing would be you may not think about certain stuff, because that would make someone feel victimized if they knew?

I believe that those who are living have rights, religion aren't living, it's a book of morale that one can agree or disagree with. Those who disagrees are not just going to stand there and say "Hey I disagree", they are hopefully going to tell why (criticising).

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

anyone who thinks criticism is harm/victimization to them, needs to get professional medical help.

criticism is NOT "messing" with some one, unless it turns into harrassment (persistant unwanted pestering or other things like personal attacks or whatever) or other crimes like slander/liable or defamation or fraud or etc.

i never said anything about criticism, why did u bring it up ?

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

anyone who thinks criticism is harm/victimization to them, needs to get professional medical help.

criticism is NOT "messing" with some one, unless it turns into harrassment (persistant unwanted pestering or other things like personal attacks or whatever) or other crimes like slander/liable or defamation or fraud or etc.

i never said anything about criticism, why did u bring it up ?

Because, as I understood it, you wrote it's the one who's victimized that decides what it is to "mess up with someone".

 

[BobCox2]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Time is not something I think we can really measure or understand fully. (some points below)

Fruits of labor include resources of the planet and alternative costs. If you did not claim ownership of the resource and alter it via your efforts over time what would it have continued being and for how much longer?

Life by it's very nature

Spoiler

( life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).[4][5])

increases entropy over what the non-living effects would be, so in a way you can measure all it's long term total effects as a increase in the devaluation of the universe, but I get what you are implying on the other hand.

The choices we make can increase relative value to other life of the basic resource. I am just pointing out that there is a difference between the value via physics and the laws of thermodynamics AKA the potential energy used that always hastens the heat death of the universe, and the results in terms of space, time, and mass changes effected by the choices and efforts expended as valued by a Society.

What you via your efforts expend that potential energy on, and the relative value for the time and place you as a life-form inhabit, as well as the alternative exchanges available now in time, determine that value to you and others and with most such exchanges result in relative winners and losers.

This is why people in the past can seem incredibly wasteful, they don't yet know the better choices the people that come later have, and why we understand that those who came before and discovered things that we now take as accepted fact are owned a debt we cannot repay other than by acknowledging it.

"The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life."

The Big Question introduced is by the second post in the tread is, at what point does the sperm egg zygote gamete or Child become a Person?

Tough Questions

For more details on my basic definitions of terms and viewpoints see the review of valuable source material for a intelligent person to make such judgments with at my homepage in my profile.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Life increases entropy by it's nature over what the non-living effects would be

Non-living effect does also increase entrophy, we're extremely small compared to the size of the earth and the processes that happens inside earth uses much more energy than we do.

The Big Question introduced is by the second post in the tread is, at what point does the sperm egg zygote gamete or Child become a Person?

I disagree, it's just a question about when you've responsibility over another person.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Because, as I understood it, you wrote it's the one who's victimized that decides what it is to "mess up with someone".

yes, in terms of like actual negative stuff (like rape, bullying, harrassment, slander, liable, defamation, fraud, abuse, insults, assault, battery, threats, etc..)

criticism is NOT negative. i never said it was. i never said criticism.

you brought criticism up. not me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
when does life begin "debate":

there is NO debate.

science FACT:

life as we understand it, has it's own unique DNA. it's this unique DNA that allows not only for different species to exist, but also for individual organisms to exist within a species. it is what makes me, me, and you, you.

the instant that the female half (23 chromosomes) DNA and the male half (23 chromosomes) DNA joins to make a new human DNA (46 chromosomes=human being), is the instant a new human life exists.

this occurs at conception. concpetion is when the male sperm inside the female's womb releases an enzyme to dissolve a hole in the egg so that it may release the male halved DNA into the egg to connect with the female halved DNA in the egg, creating a new human life in that instant. that single cell with a different 46 chromosomes than the female mother's 46 chromosomes is NOT of her body. it is a baby human. killing it is murder. infanticide.

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Another follow on question on time ownership:

How much time does a person have to wrongfully hold the products of time taken from someone else before they rightfully own their ill gotten gains?

I disagree, it's just a question about when you've responsibility over another person.

Guess again.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

yes, in terms of like actual negative stuff (like rape, bullying, harrassment, slander, liable, defamation, fraud, abuse, insults, assault, battery, threats, etc..)

criticism is NOT negative. i never said it was. i never said criticism.

Now you're the one who decides what it is to "mess up with someone" suddenly, hey what if I like to get in a fight with my friends while having a drink? What if they like it as well?

What is "actual negative stuff" will vary from person to person and therefore I don't think your argument holds.

you brought criticism up. not me.

Yes because clearly some people in some countries sees this as being just as bad what you call "actual negative stuff".

when does life begin "debate":

there is NO debate.

science FACT:

life as we understand it, has it's own unique DNA. it's this unique DNA that allows for individual organisms to exist. it is what makes me, me, and you, you.

the instant that the female half (23 chromosomes) DNA and the male half (23 chromosomes) DNA joins to make a new human DNA (46 chromosomes=human being), is the instant a new human life exists.

this occurs at conception. concpetion is when the male sperm inside the female's womb releases an enzyme to dissolve a hole in the egg so that it may release the male halved DNA into the egg to connect with the female halved DNA in the egg, creating a new human life in that instant.

So is a string of DNA life?
I disagree with your definition of life, I define life as to actually be consciousness, anything that's not consciousness is something I do not believe to be alive. Yes I know that we don't know when something is actually consciousness in the sense of awareness, but it's the definition I'd use, otherwise we should give the same rights you and I have to stuff like skin cells that fell off and becomes an "individual", etc.

Guess again.

I still disagree, first when something is under your responsibility you have to acknowledge it.

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

life as we understand it, has it's own unique DNA. it's this unique DNA that allows not only for different species to exist, but also for individual organisms to exist within a species. it is what makes me, me, and you, you.

the instant that the female half (23 chromosomes) DNA and the male half (23 chromosomes) DNA joins to make a new human DNA (46 chromosomes=human being), is the instant a new human life exists.

this occurs at conception. concpetion is when the male sperm inside the female's womb releases an enzyme to dissolve a hole in the egg so that it may release the male halved DNA into the egg to connect with the female halved DNA in the egg, creating a new human life in that instant. that single cell with a different 46 chromosomes than the female mother's 46 chromosomes is NOT of her body. it is a baby human. killing it is murder. infanticide.

If the beginning of life is the creation of a 'unique' (identical twins? clones?) dna sequence then surely the ending of life is the destruction of the dna sequence. So if I shoot someone in the head with a shotgun their DNA is still intact (and indeed for some time their cells will still be alive) and so they're still alive?

Or if I blow their head off, take a DNA sample and clone them - they're still alive and no murder has been committed?