Those Darned Politics Mods!!!!!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
arnfinn...any responses to this yet?

[ QUOTE ]
1) I have possession of the apple. You have agreed to this.

2) You haven't demonstrated any entitlement to it.

What do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

See one post above.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between "mine" and "in my possession"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the difference, however as most people I don't think who has physical possession means much, what matters is who owns it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.

[ QUOTE ]
As an example from reality, I had a customer. They decided to transport a piece of technology, they wanted to hire a transport company, but I offered to transport it myself as I considered it to be too valuable to be handed over to a transport company. Then I go and pick it up, sign no papers and then put it in my car. Suddenly I have physical possession of something very valuable that they would be completely chanceless of proving was theirs. And then somewhat magically the burden of proof has been transfered to them and since they can't prove it, it is mine? Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in all of the examples we're talking about, the apple was never previously in the possession of those claiming it. They had no previous ownership, they simply wanted what I had, and argued that it wasn't mine.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, then who "owns" it if not the one in possession of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this differs. How can you not see this? I worked for a large company. I was in possession of much of their money, yet I didn't own it. I put my car inside a parking house, they have possession, I own it. I owned a flat, but I didn't even have keys since I gave them to a broker. Do you really need examples to realize this?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
They had no previous ownership,

[/ QUOTE ]

Claim, not fact. It is you who create this definition of ownership.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They had no previous ownership,

[/ QUOTE ]

Claim, not fact. It is you who create this definition of ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Just keep changing the parameters as we go along.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody made such a promise in this case. In this analogy, you're just showing up and taking $10k by saying you own it without any case for entitlement -- how would the world work like that? Seriously, Arnfinn, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. You can accept this simple analogy without undercutting all socialist thought.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

More changing parameters. There has been no promise by me to give anyone apples.
This sideshow is over. HAND.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

More changing parameters. There has been no promise by me to give anyone apples.
This sideshow is over. HAND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, change it to he stealing 1k from me and never promising to give it back. I still don't accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They had no previous ownership,

[/ QUOTE ]

Claim, not fact. It is you who create this definition of ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Just keep changing the parameters as we go along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't accept the fundamental parameter which you claim is the foundation for justice etc., you can't force me to debate on basis of a parameter you think is right that I don't share.