N) And yet, if the object belongs to you it's yours to do with or break or otherwise treat as you wish, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others by doing so. Perhaps it's not socially accepted to cut up bedsheets and sleep in them as a 'nest', and to do it in another's house with another's belongings is almost unthinkable, but in one's own house with one's own belongings there's no reason not to. One of the most important rights reserved by the individual, for the sake of being allowed to be individual: the right to be harmlessly weird.
Hmm. Then in the case of a religious text, which one group wants to revere and treat with cleanliness and awe and another group wants to burn, it would be acceptable either to revere it and treat it with cleanliness and awe, or to burn it, but not to treat it the same way as any other collection of bound pages with words on them in one's collection?
The first premise: described in the first paragraph. The second premise, that which wasn't addressed in the second paragraph: *looks carefully; breaks down again*
'the claim [claim] is not a wholly void statement, assuming that [X] and [Y]'
Assumption Y: 'that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules)': a text may do anything, including making wild claims about the Earth and giant purple creator god toads or insisting that on certain days the reader shuns the colour blue. It may suggest how to care for it, but that in itself doesn't create any obligation for the reader to follow thes suggestion: especially in the case of caring for a book, as it belongs to the reader, by ignoring the instructions of care the reader only harms himself in that the book may fall apart faster (in which case the bookbinders will probably profit, if he then buys another copy to replace the old one).
Assumption X: 'that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text)': the first paragraph addresses that. There are behavioural norms, but they do not concern what one does in the privacy of one's home, or even in public so long as no one else is harmed by it. Even if public non-harming-of-others behaviour is illegal, as we can imagine a society which makes it illegal to let one's hair be seen, or to pick one's nose, as long as it harms no one else the only person being harmed by the doing of the illegal action is the actor.
There, though, we get into slightly complicated territory. So, ignoring the public for now: in the privacy of one's own home, so long as it harms no one else, I claim that behavioural norms, behavioural expectations, societal expectations, all the complex social rules which govern daily public interactions have no bearing. What one does with oneself and one's solely owned belongings is one's own business, no one else's, and no one has anything resembling a right to try to control your actions or obligate you to do anything during that time.
Note that this does not apply when one's actions or lack thereof have effects on others, and note that living animals could be included in the category 'others' (or not, as the case may be), depending on point of view.
'If that didn't make any sense, let me know.': likewise.
no subject
Hmm. Then in the case of a religious text, which one group wants to revere and treat with cleanliness and awe and another group wants to burn, it would be acceptable either to revere it and treat it with cleanliness and awe, or to burn it, but not to treat it the same way as any other collection of bound pages with words on them in one's collection?
The first premise: described in the first paragraph.
The second premise, that which wasn't addressed in the second paragraph: *looks carefully; breaks down again*
'the claim [claim] is not a wholly void statement, assuming that [X] and [Y]'
Assumption Y: 'that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules)': a text may do anything, including making wild claims about the Earth and giant purple creator god toads or insisting that on certain days the reader shuns the colour blue. It may suggest how to care for it, but that in itself doesn't create any obligation for the reader to follow thes suggestion: especially in the case of caring for a book, as it belongs to the reader, by ignoring the instructions of care the reader only harms himself in that the book may fall apart faster (in which case the bookbinders will probably profit, if he then buys another copy to replace the old one).
Assumption X: 'that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text)': the first paragraph addresses that. There are behavioural norms, but they do not concern what one does in the privacy of one's home, or even in public so long as no one else is harmed by it. Even if public non-harming-of-others behaviour is illegal, as we can imagine a society which makes it illegal to let one's hair be seen, or to pick one's nose, as long as it harms no one else the only person being harmed by the doing of the illegal action is the actor.
There, though, we get into slightly complicated territory. So, ignoring the public for now: in the privacy of one's own home, so long as it harms no one else, I claim that behavioural norms, behavioural expectations, societal expectations, all the complex social rules which govern daily public interactions have no bearing. What one does with oneself and one's solely owned belongings is one's own business, no one else's, and no one has anything resembling a right to try to control your actions or obligate you to do anything during that time.
Note that this does not apply when one's actions or lack thereof have effects on others, and note that living animals could be included in the category 'others' (or not, as the case may be), depending on point of view.
'If that didn't make any sense, let me know.': likewise.