[Retra]

That's a self-defeating argument. Your objection to the concept of ownership would apply to just about every concept, including your own morality, which leaves your thoughts about what _should_ be a little out of place. That is, unless you think there's something very special about ownership in the grand scheme that is not true of other abstractions...

[Supermancho]

> That's a self-defeating argument.

I don't think so.

> Your objection to the concept of ownership would apply to just about every concept,

Except he constrained it to specific concepts. How you interpret those is likely different, but you didn't really ask as much as define and declare an outcome. That's not constructive.

[Retra]

You seem to be satisfied to do the same.

I at least explained what the problem was with the argument. "I don't think so" is not any kind of improvement there.

[Supermancho]

> "I don't think so" is not any kind of improvement there.

"I don't think so" is not about the core discussion, but a reflection of different interpretations to how you interpreted the statement. I then went on to explain what I meant, including how to bring the discussion back to concrete arguments, rather than making up my own interpretation (I don't like the term straw-man, which implies a bad-faith argument). You have a specific set of assumptions, which I take to be in good faith. I read the arguments and understand that there are a different set of assumptions to make (vis a vis different interpretations).

I'm sorry if you don't find it constructive in whole or in part.

[laumars]

I don't agree with the GP's point but I do agree with the defence against your counterargument. The GP clearly stated "owning land" - you might consider other forms of ownership a logical extension but that wasn't the context of the GP's point and thus you're being a little disingenuous to argue it in that way (one could even say you presented a "straw man argument").