Teach Your Children Well

[Walker]

TANSTAAFL

[henry quirk]

TANSTAAFL

Nope.

[Age]

is indoctrination ok as long as 'you' approve of it?

Depends on the indoctrination.

How about mine...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, so: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

And, 'i', "henry quirk", have 'the right', which 'i' gave "myself", to take 'your life', 'your liberty', and/or 'your property' if 'i' so see fit. For example, if you just touch my toothpick, then 'i' gave "myself" 'the right' to take 'your life' by 'shooting you dead', understood?

And, 'i' also have 'the right' to live on property that was stolen from others, and to also 'shoot you dead' if you so put a foot on what 'i' claim is 'my property', and understood?

..is this mind controlly too?

Well if you are 'telling' another that you will 'shoot them dead' if they just 'touch your, believed, 'property', then if someone told you this exact same thing, then would you consider them wanting to or having 'control over you', too?

[Age]

Or is indoctrination ok as long as 'you' approve of it?

- All children are indoctrinated. Their little heads are empty and must be filled with the proper things.

- The proper things are not how to be a little terrorist. That usually gets indoctrinated, out.

- Later, the child comes of age and questions everything, including the content of the indoctrination, whatever that indoctrination may have been.

From what I have noticed and observed is that it is the child who does the 'more questioning' than it is 'the adult'. It is just that those younger children who do the questioning and/or challenging of teacher/indoctrinator get ridiculed and humiliated, punished, deceived or fooled, or just threatend into submission where they 'learn' not to ever question nor challenge 'their superiors' ever again.

Also, there are those past child's age, like "immuel can" who have never ever once even considered questioning their own indoctrinated beliefs.

There is a whole mixture here. Some people question just about every thing, then there are others that question just about nothing at all. And, all these mix of human beings are of varying different ages as well.

- For example, the new adult inquires, “Self, must I always say please and thank you? If I always say please and thank you to everyone as I was taught, and if I call a thug a gentleman as a result of that, does not my indoctrination make me a fool?”

What 'you' may well of done at 'your coming-of-age' "walker" is certainly not necessarily what others did, nor even what another one did.

- And then the youth begins to philosophize … as a result of self-questioning.

- I know you know all this … but knowing may as well not exist if not applied.
- The application in this case?

- Teach the little rascals right, then they can question that teaching that was done through indoctrination, on their own later, since they’re going to question everything they know and were taught anyway, and hopefully not run off a cliff as a result.

From what I have noticed and observed, at churches for examples, it is the younger ones who will question claims like; God created everything, by almost instantly wondering and asking, 'So, who created God?' for example. Whereas, I have never noticed nor observed an adult human being in church ever thinking and asking something like 'this'.

- Such questioning, and answers, will come naturally and be much less complicated without life-altering, elective cosmetic surgery to gum up the works.

- At some point children develop the capacity to question themselves, for themselves, no matter the content of the indoctrination, although I hear those of younger generations are now taking their parents along on job interviews.

[henry quirk]

This...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, so: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

...ain't got nuthin' in common with your fever dream translation.

[Harbal]

This...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property,

That would be great if only it guaranteed your never being robbed or shot in the head.

[Harbal]

And, 'i', "henry quirk", have 'the right', which 'i' gave "myself", to take 'your life', 'your liberty', and/or 'your property' if 'i' so see fit. For example, if you just touch my toothpick, then 'i' gave "myself" 'the right' to take 'your life' by 'shooting you dead', understood?

So it isn't just a groundless rumour that henry has a record of stealing toothpicks?

I knew there was something not right about the guy.

[henry quirk]

This...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property,

That would be great if only it guaranteed your never being robbed or shot in the head.

Does the law -- the various legal codes, the police, the courts -- guarantee you'll never be robbed or shot in the head?

No?

Then what good is it?

[Harbal]

This...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property,

That would be great if only it guaranteed your never being robbed or shot in the head.

Does the law -- the various legal codes, the police, the courts -- guarantee you'll never be robbed or shot in the head?

No?

Then what good is it?

Well I suppose it's a little bit more of a deterrent than your natural rights are. Breaking the law does at least carry the possibility of negative consequences.

[henry quirk]

Breaking the law does at least carry the possibility of negative consequences.

Yes...just like natural rights (which comes before, and is the basis, for those legal codes).

Without natural rights (the intuiting and recognition of them) there would be no legal codes, no civilization, there'd be nuthin' at all.

[Harbal]

Breaking the law does at least carry the possibility of negative consequences.

Yes...just like natural rights (which comes before, and is the basis, for those legal codes).

Without natural rights (the intuiting and recognition of them) there would be no legal codes, no civilization, there'd be nuthin' at all.

So natural rights are only any good when we devise legal codes to enforce them?

[henry quirk]

Breaking the law does at least carry the possibility of negative consequences.

Yes...just like natural rights (which comes before, and is the basis, for those legal codes).

Without natural rights (the intuiting and recognition of them) there would be no legal codes, no civilization, there'd be nuthin' at all.

So natural rights are only any good when we devise legal codes to enforce them?

Not at all. The law -- the legal codes, the police, the courts -- offer an avenue for those who cannot assert and defend themselves. Those who can assert and defend themselves, do. And they assert and defend themselves (life, liberty, property) becuz they recognize they are their own and it's wrong they be treated otherwise.

Those who cannot assert and defend themselves, the easy marks, the prey, have this same understanding about themselves: they belong to themselves and it's wrong they be treated otherwise.

The law, as I say, gives them an avenue for redress.

[Harbal]

Yes...just like natural rights (which comes before, and is the basis, for those legal codes).

Without natural rights (the intuiting and recognition of them) there would be no legal codes, no civilization, there'd be nuthin' at all.

So natural rights are only any good when we devise legal codes to enforce them?

Not at all. The law -- the legal codes, the police, the courts -- offer an avenue for those who cannot assert and defend themselves. Those who can assert and defend themselves, do. And they assert and defend themselves (life, liberty, property) becuz they recognize they are their own and it's wrong they be treated otherwise.

Those who cannot assert and defend themselves, the easy marks, the prey, have this same understanding about themselves: they belong to themselves and it's wrong they be treated otherwise.

The law, as I say, gives them an avenue for redress.

Yes, henry, you have a point.

[Age]

This...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, so: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

...ain't got nuthin' in common with your fever dream translation.

LOL my so-called 'fever dream translation' comes 'directly' from the 'very words', themselves, under the name and label "henry quirk".

See, in "henry quirks" own 'little world' and 'dream state',

'Everyone has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to theirs, and no one else's, life liberty, and property'. However, these 'moral claims' and natural rights' can instantaneous and absolutely be removed if any one of you, human beings, just 'touches' "henry quirk's" life, liberty, and property, and if any of you do, then "henry quirk" has given "itself" a 'self-given right' to take away, completely, your, previous, 'absolute moral claim and natural right to your life, liberty, and/or property'.

So, what this means is that "henry quirk" believes, absolutely, that 'its own claims and rights' override absolutely every other human beings.

What "henry quirk" is displaying here are the symptoms of Truly greedy, selfish, and tyrannical human beings.

Imagine if "henry quirk" had managed to obtain power and control over a state, or a country, the people under its rule and law would 'have to' 'behave', exactly, how "henry quirk" wanted all of 'you' to, including how 'you' 'behaved' on "Henry quirk's" land and property, of which it could just decide to 'claim' that it is all "henry quirk's" now, and that if absolutely any of 'you' did not 'mind your own business and keep your hand to yourselves', in whatever way "henry quirk" has decided, then because "henry quirk' has already given "itself" 'a right', it could whenever it chooses take your life, your liberty', and/or your property in any way it sees.

The hypocrisy and absolute 'inconsistent contradictions' here from 'you', "henry quirk", are overwhelmingly blatantly obvious. Well to some of 'us' anyway.

you are really going to have to going away, do some adjusting, and then come back when you have 'looked over' and 'changed' your obviously absolute Faulty and tyrannical 'self made-up law' here "henry quirk".

you have absolutely no 'moral claims' nor absolutely any 'natural right', at all, in Life, to own weapons that you can use when you want to shoot human beings 'dead' just because they just stand on what is, actually, 'stolen property' nor just because they 'touch' what you, laughingly, claim is 'your toothpick', for example.

[Age]

And, 'i', "henry quirk", have 'the right', which 'i' gave "myself", to take 'your life', 'your liberty', and/or 'your property' if 'i' so see fit. For example, if you just touch my toothpick, then 'i' gave "myself" 'the right' to take 'your life' by 'shooting you dead', understood?

So it isn't just a groundless rumour that henry has a record of stealing toothpicks?

I do not know absolutely any thing about any of this.

However I know "henry quirk" talked about how it could or would 'shoot dead' human beings if they 'touched' "henry quirk's" toothpick.

If I recall correctly, "henry quirk" claimed that it could and/or would 'shoot dead' anyone if they just 'touched' "henry quirk's" toothpick', and after requesting further clarification, "henry quirk" clarified that it could or would even 'shoot dead' "its" wife and son if they also 'touched' what was not 'their property' and 'touched' what "henry quirk" believed was 'its property', 'a toothpick' was the example being used there.

'We' also discussed about if "henry quirk" found another human being inside what "henry quirk" claims is "its house", and how "henry quirk" could or would "shoot them dead", as well.

Now, if you recall any thing differently here "henry quirk", then please by all means 'correct' this as you see fit. I stand corrected. And, hopefully I will be corrected here.

Hopefully, "henry quirk", nor any other human being, would think that it had 'a right' to shoot another human being dead just because the other human being just stood on what is Wrongly and Falsely called 'one's own property' and/or just because another 'touched' what is called 'one's own toothpick'.

I knew there was something not right about the guy.

Okay.