|
United States43350 Posts
On July 11 2008 13:04 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 12:58 Kwark wrote:On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote:
As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light. Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you. thats how we do it in korean night clubs girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING i gotta go NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock) *okay  * NO REALLY I WANT YOU TO STAY LETS HAVE A DRINK *OKAY  *
I don't really see this as in any way an argument against my post but more the start of a new debate about exactly what is wrong with Rekrul.
|
On July 11 2008 13:01 Ryot wrote:
I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
See my earlier example with the all-you-can-eat buffet.
Consumption is not the same thing as ownership. The consumed item no longer exists as such. Permission to consume is different from permission to take ownership.
Note that he didn't consume the wafer. He pretended to consume it, by putting it in his mouth, so he could conceal his theft.
|
On July 11 2008 13:04 L wrote:Show nested quote +I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back... If i feed you, you don't own the food i give you. You are eating my food. ... that's not a complex thing. The buffet example is perfect. Your contract is being able to eat my food, but paying for access doesn't mean the food belongs to you.
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
|
United States43350 Posts
All Tasteless did was say that he found it funny that people believe wafers can also be flesh. It seems very closed minded and completely lacking in empathy to say you have no idea where he's coming from there, or how he could possibly be that closed minded and that you actually lose respect for him for being so ignorant.
I was simply calling out the hypocrisy. Christians should be open minded enough to say "lol, I admit it sounds a little weird but it's just what we believe" instead of getting angry that someone finds their beliefs funny. It doesn't take much empathy to understand why the wafer=flesh thing might sound strange.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:46 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 12:36 L wrote:
He didn't steal and he's allowed to be disrespectful.
If a priest gave me some wafer and I then chose to piss on it then that's none of their business. It's my damn wafer, he gave it to me and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
1) He did steal. He went to recieve communion and walked away, when told to eat it he hid it in his mouth and took it out later. This shows he was clearly cognizant of how important the host was, and took it anyways. He was talked to later about it and then he decided to keep it in a ziplock for spite. The priest doesn't give you a host for you to walk around and make into a pet bread piece. He gives it to you as part of the rite of communion which you're supposed to eat. Basically, your line of reasoning says that i can go to my friend's house, have him serve me a wine and steak dinner, toss the steak on the floor and skate around on it while splashing wine on everything. Its my steak and wine. Fuck him. 2) If he's allowed to do whatever he wants, so is the religious community. Even Rekrul pointed out that double standard. The chaplain said he'd sit down and talk with him about how important the host is... clearly that's going crazy on his ass, right? I can understand if the kid was beaten up or some shit, but that didn't happen. Someone grabbed his hand. Wow. Cry more. Campus politics are FULL of stupid shit like this. To your first point about him hiding it. That simply proves he thought the easiest way to get it out was to sneak it out, even if he had the right to walk out with it. Better to try and get it out without causing a scene then start an incident over it. If I went round to a friends house and he served me an excellent dinner then I'd be within my rights to spurn it. It would be very rude of me and I wouldn't be invited around again. This is the same here. There's a difference between what a person can do with their own body and own possessions (which is anything they want to) and what a person should do to conform with social norms.
![[image loading]](http://media.canada.com/67bc2623-9886-4c71-9f03-edf992a0aa3a/jseinfeld_375x375.jpg)
What's the big deal?
|
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me? No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
|
United States43350 Posts
By the way, I am in no way Christian, I have never been baptised, nor confirmed and I rarely go to Church (only to debate with the vicar who is a pretty cool guy) but I have consumed the host. I was curious what all the fuss was about and I wanted the free blessing (can't hurt) so I went up and recieved it. I treated it with as much dignity as a man can give a wafer he intends to eat, chewed several times with my mouth closed and then swallowed.
|
On July 11 2008 13:18 L wrote: No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that:
1. I'm being given food
2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want.
Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On July 11 2008 13:08 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 13:04 Rekrul wrote:On July 11 2008 12:58 Kwark wrote:On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote:
As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light. Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you. thats how we do it in korean night clubs girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING i gotta go NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock) *okay * NO REALLY I WANT YOU TO STAY LETS HAVE A DRINK *OKAY * I don't really see this as in any way an argument against my post but more the start of a new debate about exactly what is wrong with Rekrul.
its no an argument against you just a random interjection, i do that sometimes
though it could be the start of a debate about why america is fucked up and korea owns!
|
Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that:
1. I'm being given food
2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
I already said, no one wants to own fecal matter, so after its in you, its kind of a moot point until it comes out. No one's going to cut you open.
what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Again, generalize it to any food: do you want to own food that someone's thrown up? No.
Now assume that the wafer was made of gold that dissolves in your intestines and costs 10k each to make; they'd want it back. Assume further that shit was hyper expensive; all you can eat restaurants might require that you poop before you leave. And hosts would probably frown on eating a lot without leaving a thank you poop.
Either way, fecal and semi-digested matter arent' really sought after property, so no one cares what happens to them after you've swallowed them. Swallowing a condom full of cocaine then pretending its yours after vomiting it up, however, might get you on the bad side of some drug lords.
I really don't get why this is so hard to understand :/
|
On July 11 2008 13:27 Ryot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 13:18 L wrote:Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me? No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me. Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that: 1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours. Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want. Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions?
These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument.
You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid. Obviously, a balance has to be found in between.
There's not much left to argue about,unless you want to begin the philosophy of where in between these two extremes we should lie.
|
If no one cares what happens to them after you've swallowed them, then why doesn't it change ownership?
I don't think it matters if most people wouldn't want to own it. The point is according to you that through the food you're feeding me you can exert control over me and what I do with said food. What's stopping you from saying that I can only take a dump with your food when you say? This is why I think at some point food has to change ownership. Because I can only do with your possessions what you let me.
When should the food change ownership? Well you say that nobody wants semi-digested matter. But I could argue that nobody wants food that's already been inside someone's mouth. And if the church can ask for a cracker back after being in somebody's mouth, what's stopping them from forcing you to throw-up your semi-digested cracker?
|
MURICA15980 Posts
I disagree a lot with the Catholic church and how they sometimes handle cases like this, but honestly people, how can you possibly defend a punk ass douche bag like this? He obviously did it to be a prick and disrespect a group of people who were honestly and legitimately going about their own business. All philosophical arguments, anti or pro-religion bias, and other bullshit aside, at the end of the day, you either are on the side of a douche trying to be cool or just some honest, legitimate (religious) people.
|
United States43350 Posts
I'm going to go to sleep so I'll recap.
Although he was in the Church he had an implied invitation. This means they could terminate it (by asking him to leave) and he would be obliged to leave. However by accepting the implied invitation he is in no way committed to not offending the beliefs of those inside.
Once inside he takes a wafer. If he is allowed to take a wafer he has been given (with the assumption he will consume it) is questionable. Whether intended purpose at the time of giving is a factor upon recieving is debated above. He does something with the wafer that the Catholics find offensive. I find this the equivalent of 'the farmer does something with the cow (like shoots it) that the Hindus find offensive'. Admittedly he's doing it to their face, in their place of worship which makes it very disrespectful but when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal in offending people. He's broken the rules of social conduct and he's acting like an asshole. But he's not acting illegally.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
The thing they did that was in my mind absolutely wrong was to allow their religious beliefs to be manifested in physical force, ie restraining him and attempting to force the wafer from him. It is on that ground alone that I am objecting to the Church here. If they had asked him to leave they would have been a model of tolerance and temperance. Just as a Hindu cannot forcibly disarm a farmer before he shoots a cow just because he believes the cow is sacred, so the Catholic cannot forcibly restrain this guy.
|
On July 11 2008 13:35 kiero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 13:27 Ryot wrote:On July 11 2008 13:18 L wrote:Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me? No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me. Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that: 1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours. Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want. Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions? These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument. You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it. I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it. Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid. Obviously, a balance has to be found in between. There's not much left to argue about,unless you want to begin the philosophy of where in between these two extremes we should lie.
Well I can understand if it seems silly. Originally I was wondering about "did he really steal the cracker", and since it was placed in his mouth and all, I figured he ought to have ownership of it. edit - interested in the legality of whether or not he really committed a crime.
|
United States43350 Posts
On July 11 2008 13:43 Klogon wrote:
I disagree a lot with the Catholic church and how they sometimes handle cases like this, but honestly people, how can you possibly defend a punk ass douche bag like this? He obviously did it to be a prick and disrespect a group of people who were honestly and legitimately going about their own business. All philosophical arguments, anti or pro-religion bias, and other bullshit aside, at the end of the day, you either are on the side of a douche trying to be cool or just some honest, legitimate (religious) people.
Again with the defending the right to be a prick without defending prickery.
|
On July 11 2008 13:35 kiero wrote:
These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument.
You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid.
The first "extreme" is the actual law. The opposing "extreme" is nonsense.
You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership. Once ownership is transferred, he can't take it back or tell you what to do with it. If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.
You can legally use or consume things which are not your property, with permission. When they are consumed, legally they are destroyed. They don't become your property, they become part of your body. At no point was the food or beverage yours: first it was the host's, and then it ceased to exist as a distinct individual object. This is not a complicated or subtle point.
We're not talking about opinion here. We're talking about principles of law The law does not compromise with your opinions. Even if it seems extreme to you, it won't "meet you in the middle" if you go to court.
|
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote:
You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership.
And shouldn't this be when the cracker is placed in your mouth? If you give someone your food, can you take it out of their mouth because it's still yours? What's done with the food later is obviously irrelevant if ownership has been vanquished.
|
On July 11 2008 13:44 Kwark wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to go to sleep so I'll recap.
Although he was in the Church he had an implied invitation. This means they could terminate it (by asking him to leave) and he would be obliged to leave. However by accepting the implied invitation he is in no way committed to not offending the beliefs of those inside.
Once inside he takes a wafer. If he is allowed to take a wafer he has been given (with the assumption he will consume it) is questionable. Whether intended purpose at the time of giving is a factor upon recieving is debated above. He does something with the wafer that the Catholics find offensive. I find this the equivalent of 'the farmer does something with the cow (like shoots it) that the Hindus find offensive'. Admittedly he's doing it to their face, in their place of worship which makes it very disrespectful but when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal in offending people. He's broken the rules of social conduct and he's acting like an asshole. But he's not acting illegally.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
The thing they did that was in my mind absolutely wrong was to allow their religious beliefs to be manifested in physical force, ie restraining him and attempting to force the wafer from him. It is on that ground alone that I am objecting to the Church here. If they had asked him to leave they would have been a model of tolerance and temperance. Just as a Hindu cannot forcibly disarm a farmer before he shoots a cow just because he believes the cow is sacred, so the Catholic cannot forcibly restrain this guy.
Nice post, lol, I really have nothing to argue with there. Why couldn't you have just posted that earlier?
|
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 13:35 kiero wrote:
These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument.
You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid. The first "extreme" is the actual law. The opposing "extreme" is nonsense. You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership. Once ownership is transferred, he can't take it back or tell you what to do with it. If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property. You can legally use or consume things which are not your property, with permission. When they are consumed, legally they are destroyed. They don't become your property, they become part of your body. At no point was the food or beverage yours: first it was the host's, and then it ceased to exist as a distinct individual object. This is not a complicated or subtle point. We're not talking about opinion here. We're talking about principles of law The law does not compromise with your opinions. Even if it seems extreme to you, it won't "meet you in the middle" if you go to court.
Your missing the point, I call it an extreme because it is an extreme, used as an example. To my understanding, you are not agreeing with my first extreme, because as I stated it, 'the item is always mine'. Obviously, this too is nonsensical.
And no, there is no such law. Not to my knowledge.
I do not believe a law exists which states 'If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.' This is why there is so much controversy in the first place. I would be very humbled if you could give an example of such a law.
What I am getting from your post is that the 'no one's ownership' time should occur when the item is 'legally destroyed'. Yet, how we define legally destroyed can be, indeed a very complicated point. When is it legally destroyed? When anything, in any way, changes its three dimensional location? When we no longer recognize the object? When we can no longer recreate the object with what we retrieve? When its molecular formula has changed? When all the atoms have been destroyed by an anti particle counterpart? For any situation, there is always a 'line of disctinctions'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
