explicitClick to confirm you are 18+


opart07Mar 4, 2019, 6:59:32 PM

now this is an interesting concept . . . . but can man ever truly be "the owner" ?

take a look at the definition for own, owner, or ownership and in each you will find this idea of "legal or rightful title to" which makes it clear that there is an argument in the making, for whenever "legal" gets involved the disagreement has already begun.

in light of the fact that "legal" is a key part of "owner", then isn't ownership really just about control?

if so, then let's keep this simple and look at a statement like, "it's my life, and i can do with it what i want."

if one "owns" his/her life, then does that not imply control? if so, then i challenge any man or woman to stop their breathing for say 8 hours, and then, without any outside intervention, start breathing again. in other words, if it is "your" life, then prove it by laying it down for a period of time which exceeds the spontaneous heart beating and breathing that we all share. maybe 8 hours is too long, so how about 4 hours. 

because ownership implies control, and you "own" your life, then illustrate to one and all that you have ultimate control over what you "own".

what's that? you can't stop your heart or your breathing without terminating this thing you call life? i thought you said it was your life . . . . i thought you were in control . . . . . . . wait, so you can't control your basic bodily functions like breathing, but you think you own your life?!? would not the "one", the "force", the "time", the "destiny", the thing outside of you, that thing which does control just how long you are able to breathe . . . . are you not beholden to that entity for this thing you call life? are you not in debt to the one who has issued the credit you call breathing? if your heartbeat is a gift, then should we not be more grateful to the one who made that gift available? should man in some way honour the one who made the "heart beat" available to him/her?

if man does not truly "own" his/her life, then how can they truly "own" anything else when the thing closest to them, the body they inhabit, is not 100% in their control? if one has 99.9% control, yet someone/something else has 100% control, then does that not imply a higher priority; does that not provide evidence for an authority with greater priority and therefore bonafide ownership?

does it not stand to reason that one is more akin to manager, agent, executor, trustee, slave, spouse, bondsman, servant, steward, friend, something based on the trust one has established with the authority, yet something that can never truly qualify as "owner"?!?!?!?