The USA and Israel

[Age]

World Economic Forum. Look it up, or read the book, and you'll know.
But ALSO the elections. And in just the right way to get Biden elected. Coincidence? The Dems would like you to think so. But there's plenty of evidence they took every advantage of that situation. Mention any of it, and you're a "conspiracy theorist."
"COVID 19: The Great Reset." It's all there. Now you're aware of it.
You maybe would: but only if you didn't have the evidence. But in the case of Biden's senility or the so-called "Laptop from Hell," you certainly do; and yet, you'll still be a "conspiracy theorist" if you mention it.

Sorry, but this just missed the deadline for my attention span expiry. My interest in the subject has left the building.

Well, it's funny how your attention span "runs out" at exactly the moment your grounds for protest do.

To 'protest' or speak of against what you say and claim here has already been done.

I think "harbal" was just relaying what I was also feeling, and that is just 'boredom' was setting in and i could not be bothered with 'this' anymore.

The evidence is on hand. The willingness to engage it, you'd have to manufacture for yourself.

I am not sure how many times that you people here will have to be told and informed that 'evidence' is not 'proof', before this is comprehended and understood. 'Evidence' can be just about absolutely anything, when one claims that 'that' is 'evidence' for this or that.

Obviously here "immanuel can" you have a very fixed and rigid view and belief. So, what this means is that when you are looking at, and/or seeing, things, you then 'see' and 'find' what you call 'evidence' for your 'currently' held onto belief or view. To which you 'then claim', backs up and supports what you are saying and claiming, without ever recognizing and noticing that what you are actually doing is just providing examples of, and/or showing and proof, of just how 'confirmation bias' works, exactly. This phenomena can be observed throughout this forum by all of these posters here.

For example, two people with directly opposing presumptions or beliefs could read the exact same text, literature, and/or book, and both could 'come back' saying and claiming, see 'the evidence is on hand', and that 'the evidence' there backs up and supports what I have been saying and claiming here. These people are, literally, just 'seeing' what they want to see.

So, which one is right? Considering that they both have completely opposite views or beliefs but are both still claiming that 'The evidence is on hand', for their position, side, view, or belief.

[Age]

That entirely misses the point. If it turns out to be true then it was never a 'conspiracy theory' in the first place.

'conspiracy theories' never turn out to be true. That's the whole point of them. They never turn out to be 'anything'.

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

'They', whoever 'they' are, also love ones who worry, fear, or are concerned about 'the label'.

For example, like the one appears to be who said and wrote here; ' If you recognize that there were beneficiaries, you'll get called a "conspiracy theorist."

And again, 'Why worry, fear, or be concerned here?'

Who cares what you get called?

[Age]

'conspiracy theories' never turn out to be true. That's the whole point of them. They never turn out to be 'anything'.

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

Who are 'they'? I'm well aware that actual 'conspiracies' do happen, but those are not what interest 'conspiracy theorists'. FFS.

So, are you here implying that there is, absolutely, and without any doubt at all, one, and only one, type of 'conspiracy theorist', and that absolutely every one who suggests a 'theory' for what might be a 'conspiracy' will always only have an interest in 'conspiracies' that will always and forever more never ever be true?

If yes, then this sort goes completely against the words 'theory', 'theorizing', and/or 'theorist' does it not?

Forget it.

Just maybe this one recognized in one way or another where they have been Wrong here. But, then again, maybe not.

It's like trying to explain something to a gibbon. Why are there so many morons on this site?

Is it always 'the other' who is 'the moron', on this site?

There are millions of people on Twitter who have no problem understanding this. It's really not that 'deep'.

There may well be millions of people on 'x', who understand that a so-called 'conspiracy theorist' will never ever conspire to theorize about actual 'conspiracies', which do actually happen. But, millions of people have been known to be Wrong before, and/or have been known to think something through, fully, neither.

Also, millions of people can form some sort of group and discuss issues while at the same time have and/or hold one very specific view about some thing, which the other billions of people may have or hold, or may not have nor hold at all.

[Age]

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

Who are 'they'?

All the folks illegitimately using the "conspiracy theory" label to dismiss reasonable controversy.

But what sort of rational thinking human being would dismiss 'reasonable controversy' on just those two words alone?

Absolutely no one could, actually, use those two words to, actually, 'dismiss reasonable controversy'.

But I have continually said and pointed out here, in this forum, you human beings, back when this was being written, would just just about anything in the hope that it would somehow back up and support what you were, 'currently', believing was true.

These people are looking for exactly the reaction you're providing for them.

And, for those who just worry, fear, and/or are just concerned about those two very little words.

If it is a "conspiracy theory," then those who say that owe us to prove to us that it fits the label.

Which 'we' are still waiting for you to do here "immanuel can"

They can't just throw it at something, and expect it to stick. But far too often, we, the public, let it stick anyway; because nobody wants to get labelled as buying into a "conspiracy theory."

Once more 'we' can see the actual fear, worry, and/or concern people had, back then, in the days when this was being written, just here in this last sentence of "immanuel can's" here.

'immanuel can" is explicitly expressing and showing the actual fear, worry, and/or concern that it, and others, actually had, back then, in regards to just those two words also.

[Age]

Let me close, for the evening, with this...

Why would we need to protect them from 'just a cold'?

We don't, didn't, need to. But if nervous nellies like you and pussies like dub actually wanted to do sumthin' productive, it would have been to shelter your old and weak (assuming your old and weak were also dim and incapable of doin' for themselves).

Instead, folks like you and dub, empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world. Them monsters got a leg up on us all becuz of you.

And what if it had been deadliest on the young and healthy, like the spanish flu epidemic?

And what if it melted eyeballs? And what if it turned blood into grape juice? And what if...?

What actually happened?

Folks over-reacted to the threat of a strain of cold virus and they did so cuz they were told to by people who don't deserve trust but have it anyway.

Why would 'they' not deserve trust, especially they were considered 'the ones' to be trusted for these sort of scenarios, and were voted in?

The world was hoodwinked.

That's it, that's all.

And you and the rest of 'the world' are still being hoodwinked "henry quirk", you, however, just cannot yet see this Fact.

[Age]

What was the reason for this "scam" that most of the world participated in?

Those events occurring in the world today, all require interpretation. The flooding of Europe and the US with immigrants for example, are seem by some factions as engineered events by “elites” who have the power to run the show. Examine each hot-button issue (referred to as conspiracy theories) and you will find interpretation.

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon.

Is this true for every and all 'conspiracy theory'?

I thought considering that it was difficult to prove 'conspiracies', because they literally pertain to the information being held within, or conspired within, other heads, then providing a 'theory' about a 'conspiracy' was about the closest people can really get, without having actual proof first of course. And, considering the Fact that, by definition, 'a conspiracy' is not the type of information that is wanted to be spread out past 'those' who have conspired it, nor spread out any further from those who are within the 'conspiracy ring', then 'theories' about 'conspiracies' is really about the closest and as far as most people can get to discovering, finding out, and knowing the actual Truth here.

Are you absolutely sure that there has never been, is not 'now', and never will be a 'conspiracy theory' in regards to what could have been an actual and real 'conspiracy'?

Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious.

Could some people have 'conspired', up, while they were devising ways to take more and more money from 'the people', a way to manipulate people into believing that if absolutely anyone says or writes absolutely anything in regards to or about 'us', and/or about the way 'we' are deceiving 'the people' to rid them of 'more money', for 'us', then what was said and/or written was just a 'conspiracy theory', which will then lead them to believe that absolutely all 'conspiracy theories' were started with the deliberate propagation of misinformation, or something similar?

Or, is this not a possibility, and thus is also now just a 'conspiracy theory', which must have been deliberately started with misinformation as well?

In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory,

But have the full and specific details of the now so-called 'covid conspiracy theory' become known and shared yet?

Obviously some people benefited from the billions of dollars of profits made during what was sometimes referred to as the 'covid crisis', back in those 'olden days'.

Also, let us not forget that a lot of the people who run governments do not really care iota what happens with the money the government 'takes' from 'the people' because:

1. They do not have to 'actually do any work', to get their money.

2. It is not even their money that they get to use, and spend.

So, if any of 'that money' ended up in their pockets and/or in their friends pockets, then they certainly do not care. After all it was not their hard earned money, from working, which was being used, and spent.

and what could the nature of those interests possibly be?

Monetary.

Let us not forget that some people release viruses into computer systems, so that they can then on sell more anti-virus software/vaccines.

This is what puzzles me.

Maybe you might be just a little less 'puzzled' now.

Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

But this would be 'the purpose' of a virus not with the ability to think, plan, nor consider.

[Age]

know now that the whole thing was a scam.

What was the reason for this "scam" that most of the world participated in?

Well, THAT it was a scam is beyond question.

So, there was absolutely nothing at all about the 'covid virus' that was not a so-called 'scam', to you?

If it had been the real deal, we'd all be social-distancing, masking and vaxxing to this day.

What made you come to 'this conclusion', exactly?

Was the 'great influenza epidemic' to you the so-called 'real deal?

Or, was 'world war 2', to you, the 'real deal'?

People are certainly not doing 'now', when this is being written, what people were doing when then 'things' were occurring. That is; if they were the 'real deal', right?

But we aren't: and even the most ardent advocates of the COVID crisis aren't doing it now; nor are they still trying to sell their old story that COVID 19 is a "pandemic" or some kind of impending plague of Biblical proportions.

Are/were you under some sort of belief that if something becomes a 'pandemic', then this thing and 'the pandemic' has to last forever, for 'it' to be the 'real deal'?

We've all changed our tune. And that proves conclusively we all know now we were wrong.

you all know now that you were all very wrong about 'what', exactly?

Was there not a coronavirus existing, previously?

But WHY? Why did it get started, and why get the overblown reception it did?

What is the first 'it' word here referring to, exactly?

If 'it' is the coronavirus, then how 'it' got started is still up for discussion.

What is the second 'it' word here referring to, exactly?

If 'it' is the coronavirus, then why you adult human beings gave 'it' an overblown reception was, again, because of panic.

However, in saying this here the 'it' words may well be referring to something else completely.

We await, to see.

Was the worldwide health infrastructure just that incompetent?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

Were the politicians all just stampeded into panic at the first sniffle of a bad cold? I don't think either of those things sounds right. So there were other reasons; and I have ideas about what they might have been, as do many others...but nothing we can prove beyond all possibility of doubt.

Okay. Will you share with 'us' what some or all of 'your ideas' are, exactly?

If no, then why not?

After all it is you who claims that the 'whole thing' was a scam, (whatever the 'whole thing' words is even referring to, exactly).

However, none of that is really to the present topic, so it should probably be moved to a thread about COVID, shouldn't it?

None of 'that' has been really related to the present topic for quite some time 'now'. But this did stop you earlier on.

Maybe you want to 'shift direction' and/or 'deflect' at exactly the moment your grounds for the 'whole thing being a scam' has actually been recognized to based on absolutely nothing at all whatsoever other than your own made up presumptions and/or beliefs here.

[Age]

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon. Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious. In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory, and what could the nature of those interests possibly be? This is what puzzles me. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced.

But, by one just saying, stating, or writing the words 'conspiracy theory' would never 'damn' absolutely anything. If one wants to share what they consider to be 'a theory' about 'a conspiracy', then why not go on ahead. There is absolutely nothing that is actually stopping, nor 'damning', you to.

The term "conspiracy theory" has now become a tool of obscurantism by the mass media, just as "disinformation" has become the excuse for silencing dissent in other areas.

When one uses words, and/or words like exampled above here, then this never actually stops nor prevents from another sharing 'their words'. They also never actually counter nor refute what is being actually said or written. And, any Truly OPEN person would never take those two exampled words on 'face value' alone. See, a Truly OPEN one would question and/or challenge on what is actually being meant and/or referred to with those words.

In both cases, the point is to shut down the critique before it can even begin, and discredit the discussion before it can be had, without having to justify the silencing or censorship beyond that it's preventing a theory allegedly already known to be hair-brained to be aired.

But, the only one that allows what is to be said to be 'shut down', is the one who was making the first claim in the beginning.

Example: The fact of Joe Biden's cognitive decline has been abundant and impossible not to recognize.

And, the Fact that "donald trump" tells lies and untruths has been abundant and impossible not to recognize. Unless, of course, if one has some pre-existing firmly held onto and well maintained beliefs and/or presumptions.

Let's face it: at this point, not just Republicans but Democrats too are very apprehensive about Biden's possible re-election. And a rudimentary cognitive test performed on Biden would show whether or not such anxiety was even remotely justified...but the Democrats will not allow such a test to be made, or made public.

Do so-called "republicans" allow "donald trump's" lies and untruths to become public and/or public knowledge?

The adult human beings, back then, really were either on 'one-side' OR on 'the other side'. And, in so many things also.

Now, do you believe that:

Shutting down the critique before it can even begin, and discredit the discussion before it can be had, without having to justify the silencing or censorship beyond that it's preventing a theory allegedly already known to be hair-brained to be aired.

Only happens on 'one-side' of politics, and especially only on 'one-side' of the politics in the country Wrongly known as the "united states of america"?

Did the Democrats know, during the last election, that they were putting up a cognitively impared candidate? Of course they did. We all knew. We just had to see the man on TV for five minutes, and every one of us could see there was something badly wrong with the guy. However, that has not at all stopped the defenders of that choice from claiming any statement about Biden's incompetence is a "conspiracy theory." And that speaks to just how extreme the weaponized use of the term has become -- it's used to prevent a public discussion of the most powerful man in the world's mental competence, even when every last one of us knows he's got a problem.

That's a fair bit of power for a propagandistic term to have, isn't it?

But people only so-call 'propagandize' a word or words, or see words as 'propagandized', if they have some underlying intention or ulterior motive.

And, one also really only sees a term as being a so-called 'propagandist term', and not see what could actually be something else, when they, "themselves", have already been inflicted or indoctrinated with, through, and/or by 'propaganda', itself, and so now are only on 'one-side' of things.

See, 'propaganda' and/or 'propagandist' words and/or terms are always used by 'those' on the 'other-side', and never ever by 'those' on the 'same-side'.

[Age]

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced. The term "conspiracy theory" has now become a tool of obscurantism by the mass media, just as "disinformation" has become the excuse for silencing dissent in other areas. In both cases, the point is to shut down the critique before it can even begin, and discredit the discussion before it can be had, without having to justify the silencing or censorship beyond that it's preventing a theory allegedly already known to be hair-brained to be aired.

Example: The fact of Joe Biden's cognitive decline has been abundant and impossible not to recognize. Let's face it: at this point, not just Republicans but Democrats too are very apprehensive about Biden's possible re-election. And a rudimentary cognitive test performed on Biden would show whether or not such anxiety was even remotely justified...but the Democrats will not allow such a test to be made, or made public.

Did the Democrats know, during the last election, that they were putting up a cognitively impared candidate? Of course they did. We all knew. We just had to see the man on TV for five minutes, and every one of us could see there was something badly wrong with the guy. However, that has not at all stopped the defenders of that choice from claiming any statement about Biden's incompetence is a "conspiracy theory." And that speaks to just how extreme the weaponized use of the term has become -- it's used to prevent a public discussion of the most powerful man in the world's mental competence, even when every last one of us knows he's got a problem.

That's a fair bit of power for a propagandistic term to have, isn't it?

Not true.

All too easy to verify as true. The case above is a very clear case of just that phenomenon. It's not at all a "conspiracy" to say that Joe Biden is senile. We all know he is. We've known it for years, and he's getting worse all the time.

Just like 'we' know, and have known for years not, that "donald trump" is a "liar", and that this lying appears to be getting worse, at times.

But, we all also know that becoming 'senile' can be just a very normal part of human beings 'aging', and because so is something that rarely, if ever, gets better. Which is unlike lying, which can all the time get less, thus improve, get better, and even stop, if one so just chooses to.

But if you doubt, we could settle it with a medical test today; but it won't be happening -- precisely because the Democrats know that what I'm saying is absolutely true. And I know you know it too.

Just like how everyone here has recognized "donald trump" lying. But, then again, some are so 'one-sided' that they are not able to see and recognize this.

Remember when the Biden laptop was called a "conspiracy"? It was right after it was called a "Russian plant." Does anybody anywhere believe either anymore? So there's another clear case. It happens all the time.

'Conspiracy theorist' is a term used to describe someone who believes anything as long as it's not true and has no actual evidence to support it. They get high on 'cloak and dagger' mysteries. Rational explanations are irrelevant to them. The more ridiculous the 'explanation' the more arounsed they get. It's political porn for morons.

That's the thing they want you to believe.

Just like 'they' or 'we' want "immanuel can" to believe that by just using the words 'conspiracy theory' or 'disinformation' will stop people from revealing 'them', or 'us'.

And they want you to believe they're right, every time they call something a "conspiracy theory," and that the sheer disgust at the label will keep you from checking.

Well 'you', "immanuel can", have been showing and revealing the real fear, worry, and concern that you have obtained, and have here.

That's exactly what they count on: your trust. Your willingness to accept the label and not to interrogate it at all. Your fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist" yourself.

Yes, listen to and look at what "immanuel can" is saying and writing here. "immanuel can" is right in what 'they' want here.

'They' want 'you' to fear and worry about 'them', that is; 'those' of the 'other-side', just like "immanuel can" does.

The threat is, "Stand with the party line we give you, or we will silence you immediately." And that threat is real. They will, if they can.

Yes, listen up everyone; 'They' will get you. So, be very, very careful of 'them', or maybe even of 'us'.

See, the unknown 'them' or 'us' are very, very scary things. As you can see and hear in "immanuel can's" writings and words.

[Age]

the entire medical profession on all continents...committed to shutting down the world

That didn't happen. There was and is no monolithic medical position on beer virus or beer virus mitigation anymore than there's 98% of climate scientists agreeing man is causing climate change.

You wrote: empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world.

Sounds monolithic to me requiring the collusion of the medical profession to accomplish by pretending it to be lethal when according to you and IC it's nothing more than a severe version of a head cold.

And I'm still waiting for an example of when your life is not your own, of when it belongs to someone else, of when another person rightfully can treat you as they choose,
I can give you examples of when you can, thru your choices, forfeit your life, but that's not the same as saying your life is yours except for when X.

I have a quirk of my own often waiting for three knocks before opening the door. Third knock accepted:

It's yours for as long it doesn't belong to someone else, as has been the case for many millions throughout history in which ownership of another human to whatever degree was considered neither immoral nor illegal. One way or another, humans have always treated each other as commodities according to status and regardless of age. It could manifest in myriad ways from absolute in which one's existence was itself a prerogative of the owner, to being indentured for whatever period of time with almost no recourse to protest any of the conditions subjected to. Though serfs too were not overtly slaves, they may as well have been by the conditions accorded to their status.

As mentioned, there are many ways in which your life is no-longer your own which subsisted throughout history, its morality and legality hardly ever in question from the most ancient times onward. It would take a huge volume just to define the most egregious types.

One kind I personally find most depressing happened not very long ago during the Industrial Revolution when children were forced into factories often working 16 hours a day. I read of one case in England where a child less than 10 years old fell asleep standing up, beaten back into awareness by a factory supervisor. At the end of his 16-hour day he was so exhausted his father had to carry him home. He fell asleep immediately but never woke up to return to life and what he considered to be his duty, which he took rather seriously to support the family.

In almost none of these instances did anyone forfeit their life by choice.

So my question to you - beyond merely stating it as if it were some objective religious or philosophical truth instead of the existential quandary it really is - when did any such absolute moral claim ever exist, when in practice both morality and legality colluded to endorse the ownership of another to whatever degree considered legal throughout history in almost every country?

For the same length of time that all 'Morality' has existed, absolutely, within human beings for.

Now, if anyone recognizes this, or if one just overrides this with their own individual distorted or Wrong views, is a complete other matter.

In the light of all that reality, the real story denounces all your absolute moral claim propositions as nothing more than philosophic chimera.

But none of that 'reality' denounces at all "henry quirk's" claim of 'absolute moral claim', as 'this' actually exists.

That you adult human beings do not follow 'it' nor override 'it' with your own personal views and claims does not mean that 'it' does not exist.

All your stories above here do is just show, highlight, and reveal just how cruel you adult human beings can be, even though 'instinctively' you all know what is actually good and Right, in Life, although still existing only in the 'unconscious', as can be clearly seen here.

..a kind of idealism to be discussed and only that.

And, if absolutely any one would like to discuss what this one calls 'a kind of idealism', which, obviously, reveals what this one already Truly thinks or believes is true, then please let us do. I am sure that there is a lot to be exposed and revealed here.

To repeat: there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior.

I do not think 'behavior' was ever included in "henry quirk's" claim;
'A person, any person, every person, including you, has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property'.

But please correct me if I am wrong here "henry quirk".

All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

Well this obviously could be completely and utterly Wrong and Incorrect.

[phyllo]

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Oh, you were makin' a serious point.

Okay...

I didn't steal any land. As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot. To date: no one has stepped up with a claim. So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.

Do you wish to challenge my ownership, or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.

We're talking about events which took place maybe around 150 years ago.

It's unlikely that any individual has evidence of ownership of your exact piece of land. If it existed as a document of some sort, it probably would have been lost or destroyed.

Furthermore, a challenge to your ownership would go through the US court system. Which would undoubtedly uphold the position that the US government "legally" took possession of the land. That's how colonialism works.

Nobody is going to waste their time and money in court. Which is why "To date: no one has stepped up with a claim".

"You traded fairly for it."

Someone can steal a stereo and sell it to you. Then you can say that you "traded fairly for it", but it was never theirs to sell.

The US government stole the land and then they sold it or gave it to settlers. Then it got passed on from person to person in "fair and legal" transactions.

(Not to pick on the US because this has happened all over the world.)

This is your neck of the woods, isn't it:

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson. The law, as described by Congress, provided "for an exchange of lands with the Native Americans residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi." [a][2][3] During the presidency of Jackson (1829–1837) and his successor Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) more than 60,000 Native Americans[4] from at least 18 tribes[5] were forced to move west of the Mississippi River where they were allocated new lands as part of an ethnic cleansing.[6][7][8][9][10] The southern tribes were resettled mostly in Indian Territory (Oklahoma). The northern tribes were resettled initially in Kansas. With a few exceptions, the United States east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes was emptied of its Native American population. The movement westward of indigenous tribes was characterized by a large number of deaths occasioned by the hardships of the journey.[11]

The U.S. Congress approved the Act by a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. The Indian Removal Act was supported by President Jackson, southern and white settlers, and several state governments, especially that of Georgia. Indigenous tribes and the Whig Party opposed the bill, as did other groups within white American society (e.g. some Christian missionaries and clergy). Legal efforts to allow Indian tribes to remain on their land in the eastern U.S. failed. Most famously, the Cherokee (excluding the Treaty Party) challenged their relocation, but were unsuccessful in the courts; they were forcibly removed by the United States government in a march to the west that later became known as the Trail of Tears. Since the 21st century, scholars have cited the act and subsequent removals as an early example of state sanctioned ethnic cleansing, genocide and settler colonialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

"Allocated new lands" which were subsequently also taken away.

[Age]

To repeat: there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior. All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

If there is no such thing as morals, then why do people (including us) discuss it? What's the point of worrying about something that isn't there? If morality is relative, then it is power - whoever has power, has the right and the right to define "morality". And if it is so and so simple, then there is nothing to discuss. Get strong enough before you dare to say anything.

Morals are the product of evolution.

People have preferences based on what has worked in the past.

But all individual preferences are just 'subjective'. So, if people have individual preferences based on what has worked, in relation to what is good and bad, in the past, then these 'preferences could be classed or considered 'subjective morals', which do not have to necessarily align with what is actually 'Moral', Objectively.

Remember, that there is absolutely nothing in Life where it states 'morality' has to be either 'subjective' OR 'objective' alone.

So morality "is there" and it's not just something imposed by the powerful. The strong can impose something temporarily but it doesn't last if it's not something that people agree with. When the tyrant is gone, they dance on his grave.

Very True.

Only when every one is in agreement on what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, then that is when actual 'Morality' is found, and where 'Morality' actually is, or lies.

And, by the way, how to find out what is actually 'Morally' Right, and Wrong, in Life is also an extremely very simple and very easy thing to do. Again, that is if absolutely any one is Truly interested in finding out 'HOW'.

[Age]

Now, as for how to get the eight or so billion individual human beings, which you speak of here, to share, then this is extremely simple and easy.

Then it should be extremely simple and easy to explain, yes?

Yes.

Please do.

Just get them to really look inwards, and reflect. See, you adult people here only look superficially and/or only look or play in 'the shallows'. Once you people start to really look inwards, start moving towards the 'deep end', and start delving truly deeply, then you will not just 'start to share' but will continuously desire more and more so 'to share'.

How to get you already abused, thus already harmed and damaged, adult human beings, however, to just begin to want to 'look at' "yourselves", fully, then absolutely no one can get 'you' to do that. Only 'you', and 'you' alone, can do this, and obviously 'you' have to have a serious Want to change, for the better, before 'you' would even want to begin to have a serious OPEN and Honest 'look at', and reflect on, "your" 'self', right "henry quirk"?

So, it only takes the finding of just one individual adult human being who Truly Wants to be Honest and Open about their wrong doing, and is seriously seeking to change, for the better, the this whole thing to begin. See, once one learns, and thus obtains the, 'know-how', then every one else can also learn and know 'H.O.W.', which, by the way, spreads, exponentially, like a wild fire.

For example, what is to be done to a man who does 'touch' or 'takes' another one's life, liberty, or property?

The question is too broad. All I can say is self-defense comes into play. Give me a specific circumstance if you want details.

A man walks into, what you call, "your home" at 3am.

So, when you are so-called 'defending' what you believe is 'yours', then it one ways is it possible to do this?

You mean shoot someone? I'll shoot someone who threatens my life, yes.

So, so much for the claim that EVERY man has a so-called 'absolute moral claim' to their life.

I think what you are meaning to say and claim is; Every one has a 'absolute moral claim' to their life, liberty, and so-called property, and to no one else's life, liberty, and so-called property UNTIL, for example, "henry quirk" decides otherwise.

I'll do nuthin' to the freak who steals a used toothpick offa my restaurant table. It's a used toothpick, for Crom's sake.

Wow, it is great to see you have, finally, 'changed your tune' here, as some might say now.

Before, if i recall correctly, you said and claimed you would kill your own wife and/or own child if they 'touched' your toothpick without your permission. But, maybe and hopefully I am completely Wrong here.

Also, just out of curiosity, what would you do to the so-called "freak" who stole your yet to be used toothpick? Would you just let them walk away, and thus literally allow them to get away with it?

To defend them from who and/or what, exactly?

Murderers, rapists, slavers, thieves.

And, in what ways are permissible to defend another's life, liberty, and property in what you 'maintain' here?

Again: you want details, give me a specific circumstance.

Someone drives off in your car.

The very 'land', which you claim is 'your property', is 'stolen land'.

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

The Fact that it had to have been taken from others and/or had to have been Wrongfully claimed as "mine", previously.

You assert but offer no evidence.

I will say and state 'this' once more.

I have asserted and claimed many, many things throughout this forum, and I then leave the assertions and claims open, waiting for those who are interested in learning more, or at least show interest and curiosity in wanting to learn more and/or anew.

I know each and every one of my assertions and claims stand, on their own. I just wait, patiently, for those who are Truly interested. As I can and will back up and support all of my assertions and claims if needed to be.

Yes. If human beings are not allowed to freely walk around the earth because one person claims that they 'own' 'this part of earth', then you are stealing, what is obviously 'not yours' anyway, from other living things.

So, I should leave my house unlocked and let anyone with a mind to wander in whenever he likes?

you are, once again, absolutely free to do absolutely anything you like and want to do.

I suppose I should let him take whatever he likes as well?

If this is what you now suppose, then so be it.

Once more, what 'we' can clearly see here is, again, more examples of how these adult human beings have lost all curiosity, although still Falsely pretending to have some left, while exposing their True underlying presumptions and beliefs at the same time.

[Dubious]

I have yet to understand what the fucked up parasites in office (there are plenty of those for sure) would have had to gain by forcing a pandemic on the world.

Ask yourself who did well during and after.

Pharmaceutical companies for one thing. But also many others. Whereas I despise most corporations as crooks, it doesn't follow that the ones who profited most were responsible for the outbreak. In short, those who did well doesn't tell you who or what caused it. There are always those who do well in a crisis.

Yours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response. You believe morality is just a social/communal construct. You say morality is just individual or collective opinion. Slavery, or any other atrocity, to you, can only be judged thru the lens of time and place. For you, there is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.

I must be an absolutely horrid person because in a more or less kind of fashion, your right. Does that mean that I'm not shocked by the things that were going on in whatever time and place you care to mention? History provides endless examples that if there were an absolute moral claim as you insist, that claim is absolutely without effect, hardly a consideration in its prescriptions and proscriptions or what morality in all its contexts determines as moral.

It's plain. You see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as an evidence of morality's subjectiveness. I see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as the violations of individuals' absolute moral claims to their lives, liberties, and properties.

Mostly classified as immoral, murder, rape, and theft are the least condoned, being inherently inimical to the order of most advanced societies. Without question, slavery, by comparison, has always been of great economic value. Any study on the history of economics cannot avoid the subject of slavery in having subsisted so long and still active in various ways without naming it as such.

Did I misjudge you? I was certain you were an atheist, a materialist, a determinist. Those categories are almost always part & parcel to the moral subjectivism you espouse.

...certainly not a determinist! Why is it that theists, even deists, so often insist that a non-belief in god (for very good reason) makes a person bad, somehow defunct in righteousness and good will, a moral cripple? I never could figure out such a perverse, illogical attitude! Personally, I believe that the morality of a person who strives to do good, who filters his impulses based on conscience, is superior to one who must be told by scriptural mandate how one must behave or in how good and evil is to be judged.

The same goes for being a materialist, since the underpinnings of our collective spiritual experiences begin in the material. Where do you think they derive from? For me, the process by which the advancement happens amounts to a reification of a far greater mystery which nature itself is responsible for. God conceptions are its most common derivative among an abundance of experiences which don't require any god to initialize a sense of the sacred.

Are we only physical?

As mentioned, whatever we are or become begins in the physical.

But: natural rights (the absolute moral claim a person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property) is/are immutable.

Whether it is or not in principle, its immutability has been consistently and successfully challenged throughout the ages. Morality, in practice, has been as much subject to expediency as any of its definitions of right and wrong.

Man, any man, every man, anywhere or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property.
Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.

Nicely put! An ideal, or its understanding, can be fixed forever in its purity which is more of a philosophic prototype than any practiced in just about all societies that never considered themselves immoral by enslaving others. I don't recall any civilization in which hierarchies were absent.

What you describe seems to be more of an instinct that one's existence in its separation from all others belongs wholly to itself which has never been acceptable to a collective and its decision-making apparatus; at best it allows a sense of freedom in self-ownership but only within defined limits which each society based on time and place decides for itself.

What you've provided is a theme the variations of which may end up very different from each other, especially the one which started the sequence, each variation inflecting the prior one. I think of it as typecasting a supposed immutability into a different version of itself which escapes the center of self by merging into the circumference of a collective.

The upshot is you may in principle claim an inviolable intrinsic right to self ownership, etc., but in practice it never materialized in any period from ancient to modern...except to say that in recent times, primarily in the West, the circumference has once again, gradually shifted a little closer to its center from previous times.

It becomes questionable if that trend doesn't reverse itself, especially with a dictator loving Donald Trump managing a second term. It doesn't bode well for the country, its people or the planet having a President who admires the Putin and Kim Jong Un types while disparaging people like John McCain as losers! All the rights which accrue to them invariably get subtracted from those they rule. Except for the most extreme cases, many seem to have no objection to such an outcome.

History is the greatest crime story ever told proclaiming its moral defects from the first moment that history was written not least in its sacred texts, the bible itself being an outstanding example when god decides on a Chosen People as if it had no part in the unchosen ones! Such a scenario doesn't even amount to a gross perversion of morality; it amounts to farce. For a human to adequately justify such a god requires more brains than god itself actually possessed.

[Age]

When a parent states and/or claims, 'This is my child I can do what I want to them'.

This is an example of someone prepping to violate his child's natural rights. Parents parent, not own children.

Yet it was you, "henry quirk", who has talked about 'your' son.

So, when you say or write, 'my son' then what does the word 'my' mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

Or, when you vote for another, who can then so-called and so claimed 'rightfully' treat you as they choose.

Elected folks offer themselves as proxies, not masters.

Those 'chosen ones' make up the very laws, rules, and punishments, which you then 'have to' follow and abide by. That is; if you do not want to receive punishment, ridicule, and/or humiliation.

Which is, exactly, what you have been doing here "henry quirk".

That so many take on the latter role is one of the reasons many voters are disillusioned by politics.

yet you still follow and do what you so-called "master" or 'elected folk' tells and/or orders you to do.

Obviously, you "henry quirk" only do some of the things that you do because others have, 'rightfully, dictated what you can and/or cannot do.

Age, I'm one of the biggest scofflaws you'll never meet. I break laws all the time.

If this is what you 'perceive', then so be it.

However, I was, obviously, not referring to what you do not follow and abide by, but what you do follow and abide by, which is being enforced on you by what others have dictated you to do, or not to do.

A great example of when the 'your life is yours except when ..', is in the very contradictory, 'your life is yours, except for when i, "henry quirk", decided I will defend my, absolutely moral claim, to my toothpick, over your, anyone else's, supposed, absolute moral claim, to their life'.

Already responded to all this just up-thread.

Yes you did. However, you responded in regards to only a 'used toothpick', which obviously detracts somewhat from what you have previously talked about and which I was responding to and talking about above here.

But, I have already responded to all of that response of yours up thread also.