|
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
And yes, Diginut, I didn't offer much evidence; just like yourself I was merely playing with definitions but instead of keeping a narrow approach based strictly on theory, I was approaching the issue with a wider scope and looking more at the practical application of your suggestions (e.g. role of the Queen). |
That's interesting, please elaborate. I maintain that I haven't played with any definitions, and if you think I have, I humbly ask that you point to specific instances of this.
Your widening of the scope is precisely the problem here. Practical definitions of ownership don't have such a wide scope. You even went so far as to assert that actual ownership isn't physically possible (which, by the way, is precisely what anarcho-socialism is, and it's the furthest thing from the democratic capitalism that actually drives Canada's economic and political activity), and this is a strong indicator that you're using a definition of "ownership" with a scope far too wide to be of any practical use.
You can accuse me of playing with definitions, and claim that your argument trumps mine because you uh... looked at the big picture? But that doesn't make any of it true. I've mentioned several facts in support of my stance and while I haven't cited a reference for every single one of them, most of them are easily cross-checked on Google or Wikipedia. I don't think you've stated any facts in support of your own argument, aside from some highly specious ones about the royal family; you are merely, as you yourself put it, playing with definitions, and in broader terms, playing the relativism card.
Let me tell you right now that relativist arguments won't sway me, and are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't already agree with your position. Without objective definitions and objective measurements and observations, any kind of constructive debate is impossible. So please, if you think something's wrong with my definition, then state yours and explain where you got it from. Otherwise, you aren't providing much more than a chimerical tautology.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
lol 
