Congratulations, you contradicted your entire position in the first two sentences.
You, like the other liberal-lefties on the forum, have a frequent tendency to do this.
And yes, it’s hilarious.
Urwrong?
In some countries, yes - in other countries, such as China, all belongs to the state.
What do you mean?
I failed to address Urwrong? Or I am Urwrong?
I thought I already was Parodites.
Maybe Im all of you.
(Speaking of a psychology of ownership…)
I think I generally am considered to be anyone here who is a strong writer and a consistent thinker. Ill take the compliment.
…it’s something Urwrong has said, is all.
Wishful thinking, yeah? 
Only I can do me, so no fear there, padre… 
Take away, babe…
Lol Just wondering because of the whole Parodites = Fixed Cross hoax. Its startling to see such things erupt about oneself. Not necessarily a bad thing, but thought provoking.
But yes, I agree with Urwrong on these issues, along with most of the conservative world. These are basic logics.
Ownership needs to be unpacked to get to a sufficient understanding of it.
It’s being too easily conflated with associated physiological reactions that feel like familiarity, attachment, security, reliance, desire (as has been mentioned), the fight/flight response, proximity etc. - and with all the very real and immediate, human feelings, instincts, emotions and reflexes that accompany what’s really going on - even beyond just humans in fact, to animals and beyond even that.
The problem is that all the absolutely valid ingredients that you can think of to cook up ownership can be completely present, even all in combination with one another, toward something you do not own.
One might be sufficient to the other, but not necessary.
It’s only half the intellectual job to think up all these different scenarios that feel like ownership throughout various kinds of lifeforms and what their natures might be.
You have to actively try and intellectually challenge what you think seems to hold true about the world, otherwise you’re just feeding your own intuitions and wishful thinking (which is known as “Confirmation Bias”).
How can anyone fail to understand the difference between having and owning? This is the very core of e.g. sharing: give something you “own” to someone for however long, and they “have” it. Do they ever own it? Yes/no? It’s not that simple.
And this is the whole point: how you can have all your computer equipment at work, tools, desk, office etc. - all your stuff you need to do your job. As an employee, you don’t own any of that. You can “take ownership” of your “role” in the sense that you “act like” it was all actually yours and all a product of your own authentic decisions independent of anybody else and all that bad faith mentality that you’re encouraged to role-play and pretend to the extent that the vast majority seem to genuinely internalise for the benefit of whoever bought your time, skills and effort.
By the same token, you can want a mate that you don’t have, you can have a mate that you don’t own, you could even own a mate that you don’t want - none of this matches up, but you need to put in this intellectual work to unravel the ideology or you’re forever taking it for granted, keeping it alive, and adopting the tribal narrative of others instead of thinking for "your"self.
And I say "your"self, when not only could “having”/“wanting”/“owning” etc. not apply to the body/mind/spirit/whatever satisfies “habeas corpus” (as it historically didn’t for slaves and whatnot), it’s not even clear what the notion of “you” as a self means in the first place!
Preference either way could even be the universal consensus, but to act like ownership is some kind of “clearcut physiological given” is complete philosophical ignorance. The matter is based on a question of “what is” objectively, not “what we might prefer” subjectively. Sub specie aeternitatis ownership means nothing, and even if we all would prefer it to mean something to us, we have to construct it out of what actually “is” us in some way or other that we would prefer at the time.
All this presumptuous sass…
…simply assumes that if others question the fundamental legitimacy of “ownership”, they’ll still somehow unquestioningly afford a sense of ownership specially reserved for you after such a transaction… just not for them.
That’s a complete non-sequitur.
It doesn’t mean they’re not still questioning their own ownership when they consider or even follow through with the scenario, it especially doesn’t mean they’re only questioning your ownership and not theirs - they question ALL ownership. Let’s “hand it over to you”… - what does that mean to a person who questions ownership? An implicit expectation of force to back up the decision? It’s one social contract of potentially many. Sure, it’s based on real feelings, but organised arrangements we make up based on these very real feelings are whatever we decide them to be, depending on whatever grounds we feel justify our collective reactions to our very real feelings.
Good thread - I like the reasonable questions and the way the arguments were presented without any loaded implications, inbuilt biases and clear agenda that you sometimes put into your content.
You want to know an even worse Non-Sequitur???
That micro-biology has ‘ideologies’ by which they “own” things.
As presented by your friend and accomplice, Magnus… lol!
Perhaps Parodites is simply… Parodites, but who knows… though he is an intriguing character, I’d say.
Do you recall when I was asked if I was the Black Jew Witch, who was posting at KTS? I took grave offence to that, but not because of ‘black’ or ‘Jew’, but because no-one remembered my actual ethnic makeup… I’m all about anti-misrepresentation of self by others, you see.
Would you take offence if I said that I really liked your shirt and missed wearing mine for work, but mine were less masculine? someone did, on Wednesday… now that I’m starting to venture out again, I’m finding myself walking into such minefields of disgruntlement. I didn’t think what I said would.
Mainstream UK Conservatism differs from that of most countries, regarding intensity, in that ours’ is less-intense in many aspects of the notion of Conservatism.