Your argument broken down goes like this: "If you can't touch it, it isn't natural, therefore disregard it"
It's more of an acknowledgment that our concept of ownership is derived from the scarcity of the objects we may own. Whether the thing over which someone claims ownership is natural doesn't enter into it.
You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand.
I don't think GP is convinced there is a genuine issue at hand.
It's more of an acknowledgment that our concept of ownership is derived from the scarcity of the objects we may own. Whether the thing over which someone claims ownership is natural doesn't enter into it.
You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand.
I don't think GP is convinced there is a genuine issue at hand.