Proles

OrnotBitwise said:
You choose to interpret that instinct/reflex as "property". That is your interpretation, not mine. I find yours stretched to the point of near absurdity, frankly.

Territoriality and assertion of status are instinctive. Property is not. Even posession is not, except as an expression of territoriality and status. Property is a social construct the purpose of which is to help regulate and mitigate conflict over territory and status.
Click to expand...
I believe that this is egocentrism. Anybody watching two dogs fight over a possession know that they understand "mine". This is an instinct.

Believing that their social structure was not created to protect possessions from being taken, I believe is more egocentrism.

Humans want to believe that all things are special to them. Some things are. We create greater societies and increase protections for property, but the establishment of societies to protect property is not unique to the human animal.
 
No you did not use dogs and rape together, you jumped around to make your point, and did not stick with your dogs for the discussion.
 
But the protection of the property of the weak owner is pretty much if not entirely a construct of human society Damo.
Hence the "dog eat Dog" saying.
 
uscitizen said:
But the protection of the property of the weak owner is pretty much if not entirely a construct of human society Damo.
Hence the "dog eat Dog" saying.
Click to expand...
Once again, only when speaking of within the "us". Even the weakest dog gets protection from an outside pack and is allowed to eat from their kill.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that this is egocentrism. Anybody watching two dogs fight over a possession know that they understand "mine". This is an instinct.

Believing that their social structure was not created to protect possessions from being taken, I believe is more egocentrism.

Humans want to believe that all things are special to them. Some things are. We create greater societies and increase protections for property, but the establishment of societies to protect property is not unique to the human animal.
Click to expand...
It is your interpretation that dogs are fighting over posession. Most animal psychologists would disagree. Dogs fight over dominance and territory. Dogs do not have the same concept of posessions that we do. A domestic dog's territoriality may be focused on movable objects, yes, but that is not true among wild canines where territoriality does not have to be sublimated.

It is you who's indulging in egocentrism, I deem. You're trying to force all human instinctive responses into the framework dictated by your ideology.

It's all about status and territory, not property. Property rights are purely social constructs, albeit early and important ones. As such, your property rights are what society says they are: no more and no less. This is why they've changed so much over time and continue to evolve now.
 
uscitizen said:
If there is any left after the stronger ones have their fill.
Click to expand...
True. I did state only between "us", they get protection from "them"...

Their society is a bit different, they are a different animal and are not basing most of this on intelligence.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It is your interpretation that dogs are fighting over posession. Most animal psychologists would disagree. Dogs fight over dominance and territory. Dogs do not have the same concept of posessions that we do. A domestic dog's territoriality may be focused on movable objects, yes, but that is not true among wild canines where territoriality does not have to be sublimated.

It is you who's indulging in egocentrism, I deem. You're trying to force all human instinctive responses into the framework dictated by your ideology.

It's all about status and territory, not property. Property rights are purely social constructs, albeit early and important ones. As such, your property rights are what society says they are: no more and no less. This is why they've changed so much over time and continue to evolve now.
Click to expand...
The instinct is to protect their territory, their property. I stated it was instinct from the beginning.

This is again egocentrism. Humans are driven to feel superior.
 
Yep property rights continue to evolve , peasants can now own property, unless the govt wants to take it away from them. In a way we only pay each other to stay off our property with our rental fees (taxes) from our govt. If we don't pay those fees the government takes the property.
 
I even stated that the human animal created greater societal constructs and extended greater protections. However pretending that this society does not protect property instinctually is pretense.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep property rights continue to evolve , peasants can now own property, unless the govt wants to take it away from them. In a way we only pay each other to stay off our property with our rental fees (taxes) from our govt. If we don't pay those fees the government takes the property.
Click to expand...
And they take them by force, using their superior strength to dominate the weaker individual.
 
Damocles said:
True. I did state only between "us", they get protection from "them"...

Their society is a bit different, they are a different animal and are not basing most of this on intelligence.
Click to expand...
The us and them still exists inside the pack level as well.
The pecking order and the weakest eating last....
 
uscitizen said:
The us and them still exists inside the pack level as well.
The pecking order and the weakest eating last....
Click to expand...
Which is what I stated. Only you can find contention in agreement. However even the weakest are extended protection from a "them". So you can find both among the dogs. It was a far better analogy than I first thought.
 
Damocles said:
Which is what I stated. Only you can find contention in agreement. However even the weakest are extended protection from a "them". So you can find both among the dogs. It was a far better analogy than I first thought.
Click to expand...
The weakest only live in times of plenty, the strongest survive all the time.
Where is the protection of property in that for the weak ? The weak just get the left overs. hmm might be more like humans after all ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top