Dear OP, I find the premise of not having a “puter” when I die to be very speculative, and not particulatly reflective of the world we live in. Individuals carrying smartphones in their pockets is very commonplace, and I find it very probable that I will indeed have one on my person when I die. If not, it’s likely that I’m at home, where I possess several computers.
Perhaps you meant this to be more of a “you cannot use a computer after you’ve already died” situation, but I have to interpret based on the information I’ve been given. A few words in a title is all I have to go by, so I am required by Internet law to debate those words as-is. I will await your rebuttal, as is custom in the “facts and logic” forum.
Whilst I do not disagree with your argument entirely, I must play devil’s advocate and highlight that the title lacks sufficient context to draw any conclusions regarding the intended meaning of the word “have”. As you yourself said, you might well have a phone on [your] person when you die, but this phrase is more than merely “hav[ing] a puter” because of the addition of “on [your] person”. From the title of the post, I now assume you concluded that an item that belong(ed) to you as a living person being near you after death is sufficient to fulfil the requirement of “hav[ing] a puter”.
Going my the definition in Merriam Webster’s dictionary, your interpretation of “have” aligns with definition 1c: “to hold, include, or contain as a part or whole”, or definition 3: “to stand in a certain relationship to”. However, the same dictionary offers a range of other meanings of the word, such as definition 1b: “to hold in one’s use, service, regard, or at one’s disposal”. Definition 1b implies, to my understanding, a level of agency of the subject that has an object; a corpse cannot actively use an object or have it at their disposal since they lack agency. Similary, definition 1a defines “have” as holding something as a “possession, privilege, entitlement, or responsibility”. While corpses are, to an extent, protected by law and therefore allowed certain privileges, such as protection from desecration, the presence of “responsibility” in particular implies once again an active role of the subject that has an object, which is a role a corpse cannot assume.
I do not wish do disregard your argument entirely, but it could certainly be improved by paying closer attention to the intricacies of language. We must be careful with how we use terms that we assume are commonly understood because such nuances can alter the meaning of not just sentences but entire paragraphs.
Dear OP, I find the premise of not having a “puter” when I die to be very speculative, and not particulatly reflective of the world we live in. Individuals carrying smartphones in their pockets is very commonplace, and I find it very probable that I will indeed have one on my person when I die. If not, it’s likely that I’m at home, where I possess several computers.
Perhaps you meant this to be more of a “you cannot use a computer after you’ve already died” situation, but I have to interpret based on the information I’ve been given. A few words in a title is all I have to go by, so I am required by Internet law to debate those words as-is. I will await your rebuttal, as is custom in the “facts and logic” forum.
Whilst I do not disagree with your argument entirely, I must play devil’s advocate and highlight that the title lacks sufficient context to draw any conclusions regarding the intended meaning of the word “have”. As you yourself said, you might well have a phone on [your] person when you die, but this phrase is more than merely “hav[ing] a puter” because of the addition of “on [your] person”. From the title of the post, I now assume you concluded that an item that belong(ed) to you as a living person being near you after death is sufficient to fulfil the requirement of “hav[ing] a puter”.
Going my the definition in Merriam Webster’s dictionary, your interpretation of “have” aligns with definition 1c: “to hold, include, or contain as a part or whole”, or definition 3: “to stand in a certain relationship to”. However, the same dictionary offers a range of other meanings of the word, such as definition 1b: “to hold in one’s use, service, regard, or at one’s disposal”. Definition 1b implies, to my understanding, a level of agency of the subject that has an object; a corpse cannot actively use an object or have it at their disposal since they lack agency. Similary, definition 1a defines “have” as holding something as a “possession, privilege, entitlement, or responsibility”. While corpses are, to an extent, protected by law and therefore allowed certain privileges, such as protection from desecration, the presence of “responsibility” in particular implies once again an active role of the subject that has an object, which is a role a corpse cannot assume.
I do not wish do disregard your argument entirely, but it could certainly be improved by paying closer attention to the intricacies of language. We must be careful with how we use terms that we assume are commonly understood because such nuances can alter the meaning of not just sentences but entire paragraphs.
The title will be edited.
I advocate rules I refuse to live by lol