Teach Your Children Well

[henry quirk]

You've been makin' these ugly lil claims about me for quite a while now, age, but you never get around to actually posting the quotes. You accuse, but will not back the accusation.

Why is that?

[Age]

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?

LOL well does the so-called 'absolute moral claim' and 'natural right' guarantee that you will ever be robbed nor shot in the head?

If no, then what good is it?

It appears, well in "henry quirk's" own 'little world' and 'kingdom' anyway, that the only way to 'guarantee' to not being 'robbed' nor to be 'shot in the head' is to add more guns and weapons into 'the society' and to have and own one, or hundreds, to, laughingly, 'protect "your human being self" from those "human beings" who want to 'touch' and 'take stuff' and/or from those with guns and weapons, just like "your very own self".

So, according to "henry quirk's" so-called "logic" here, and to quite a few of "henry quirk's" in 'that state or country' anyway, also believe that constantly 'arming "themselves" with more and more weapons and guns and/or bigger and bigger weapons and guns", to protect "themselves" from "themselves" is the 'right' and 'only logical' way to proceed, in Life.

I wonder how many of these people have ever considered, 'Why is this so-called "logic" in that 'one country' so widely accepted and even followed and wanted in 'that country', but absolutely laughed at and ridiculed, absolutely, in other countries?

Imagine if those adult human beings, back when this was being written, took all of the money that they spend and used on firstly 'making' weapons, and then on 'defending' "themselves" from those same weapons, all done in the claim of; "protecting ourselves, from others", which, essentially, all came down to and equaled we are, "protecting and defending ourselves from our own selves", and that all of the absolute trillions and trillions of dollars spend, (on what is essentially the most 'fruitless exercise' that absolutely any species in the whole of the Universe could conceive of and come up with), and this money was just spent on ' educating "themselves" ' on how to just live more in peace and harmony with one another?

Which, by the way, never needed actually absolutely any money at all, from the very outset. To learn how to live more peacefully and in harmony, all one has to do is just 'look at' and 'listen' to new born human babies. If and when one 'looks' and 'listens' properly, and Correctly, (which again takes absolutely no money at all), then those new born human babies, and even younger children, will teach all of you older ones more about life, and living, how to live life properly and Correctly far, far more than any of you older ones, in the days when this is being written, could ever teach.

But, do not 'listen', to me, because what would 'I' 'know'.

After all making and creating bigger and better weapons, "to protect yourselves, from yourselves", is a much, much smarter and better way to live, life, right?

In fact, you could even write it into your own 'constitutions' of how to live life, properly and correctly, that absolutely all of you human beings, and citizens of earth, have 'a right' to 'own guns and weapons', in order to "protect your selves", full stop.

And, all of you could just go on, 'forever more', never ever 'stopping' and 'considering' what all of these guns, weapons, and even nuclear warheads are actually 'protecting' "your selves" from, exactly?

But, carry on as you have been.

[Age]

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).

LOL
LOL
LOL

'Legal codes' are made up and created so that 'some' can gain and obtain more power, property, and control over more of you.

These 'legal codes' are made up under the pretense of 'moral claims' and/or 'natural rights', just so you easily deceived ones can be and are fooled into 'believing' that 'this' is all be done for 'your own good', and for 'your freedom'.

And, the funniest part when observing all of this 'play out' is that there are actual adult human beings, like "henry qurik", who 'believe', absolutely, that they 'are, actually, free', and are not 'servants, follows, nor worshipers' of 'the state' or 'country'.

"henry quirk" actually believes that 'it is free' and 'not tied to the state at all', right "henry quirk"?

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

It may well be True that without so-called 'natural rights' you human beings would not have an 'inner knowing' to then even start to begin making up laws and rules that some of you 'have to follow and abide by', while others 'make and enforce you to follow and abide those human made up laws and rules'.

And, I have continually informed 'you' "henry quirk" that even though what you say and claim here are 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' are actually and irrefutably 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' to ALL things, your following proviso that 'one' can also 'take way' any of those 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' of another is beyond absolute absurdity, foolishness, and irrationality.

When, and if, you are ever are going to comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact 'we' will have to see.

[Age]

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?

you human beings will never ever be able to devise any 'legal code' that could 'enforce' 'natural rights' nor 'moral claims'. To do so would to instantaneously 'override' or 'remove' the 'natural right' and 'moral claim', themselves.

There are no 'moral laws', in Life. There are only human being made up 'laws', which are usually only created, and enforced, to 'protect' some, over others, and/or to 'help' some, over others, in monetary and property gains.

Human beings made up 'laws' are in contrast and in direct opposition sometimes of 'moral claims' and/or 'natural rights'.

In regards to Life, Itself, there is only One Lore, and no laws.

[Age]

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, how do they ' assert and defend themselves" ', without breaking the 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' of others, "themselves", "henry quirk"?

Will you show and/or explain how 'this' can be done, exactly?

If yes, then great.

But, if no, then why not?

And they assert and defend themselves (life, liberty, property) becuz they recognize they are their own and it's wrong they be treated otherwise.

But, it is not wrong when you or others break the life, liberty, and property 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' of others, when you lot are asserting and defending "yourselves", right?

you could not speak and write with more hypocrisy here "henry quirk".

you are being an absolute "hypocrite" here "henry quirk".

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.

your wording and implying that 'you' are of 'those' who can assert and defend "yourselves", against another group of 'those' who cannot assert and defend "themselves" is a sure signal that 'you', "henry quirk", are really of 'those' who are of the absolute and afraid group, and who through the pretending and lying try your hardest to come across as not of the scared and afraid group.

LOL your, 'of those who can assert and defend "themselves" group' are also of 'with guns and weapons group'. Thus, of 'the group'who is scared and afraid, the most'.

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

As it is 'the law', which 'you', "henry quirk", and other of 'your ilk' and 'group' run to first when you are 'in trouble', 'need help', and 'are scared'.

As you will eventually, if you stay around long enough this time, prove True, for me here in this forum.

you could not get more hypocritical here "henry quirk". Again, as you, through your own words "yourselves", will prove True and Right here.

[Age]

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.

Yes, just like every other poster here has 'a point', some times.

Now, if 'that point' is actually sound, valid, logical, and/or rational, or not, is 'another point'.

If you would like to 'point out' 'the point' that you see "henry quirk" has here, then 'we' can have a 'look at', and 'discuss it', fully or partly. That is; if any one would like and care to, of course.

[Age]

You've been makin' these ugly lil claims about me for quite a while now, age, but you never get around to actually posting the quotes. You accuse, but will not back the accusation.

Well, as I said, if you think or believe that my accusations are Wrong or Incorrect in absolutely any way at all, then Correct them. How hard is this to do, for you?

Why is that?

1. Because I 'know' that they exist here, somewhere, but I do not know where to begin to go 'looking for' them. Again, if you believe that absolutely any thing I claim and accuse you of here is Incorrect, then just Correct it. Surely would, by now, know how to do this, right?

2. Do you ever recall having a conversation about 'toothpicks' and 'human beings' standing in a building, which you called 'your house' and how you would 'shoot human beings dead', then feel free to direct me, and others, to where this conversation took place. After all it is you who is trying to claim that 'those words' were not said and used in 'that conversation', right? So, you could get around to posting the actual quotes, "yourself". That is; if you Truly believe that 'those words' or 'quotes' were not said and used. Also, and obviously, I have not recalled those words and quotes verbatim. But, you also have not Corrected the words I have said here at all either. So, why is this?

3. Do you recall having a conversation about 'toothpicks', 'human beings standing in a house at 3am', and 'you shooting people dead'?

If no, then so be it. There is nothing I can do about this?

But, if yes, then do you recall where it was, or in what thread or board group that it was in?

For surely, if you, really, wanted to 'defend' "yourself" against my accusations and claims here, then someone of 'your caliber' who can 'assert and defend' "yourself" surely would have begun to do so, by 'now'.

Also, I do not find 'my claims' here 'about you' 'little' at all. After all 'these claims' absolutely oppose 'your claim' that 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' actually exist.

And, if you do not want to even try to find the 'actual quotes', to prove that you did not say and write what I am accusing you of, then 'we' could begin the same or similar conversation over again. And, then 'we' can 'see' what actually 'pans out', correct? Would you like to do this, instead?

If no, then why not?

Are you scared of some thing, or is something else going on for you here?

[henry quirk]

I don't have to prove my innocence, you have to prove my guilt.

The burden is on you.

Seems to me you have two options...

Pony up the evidence...

...or...

...stop accusing me.

If you won't do either: I'll have a talk with Rick about it.

I'm tired of it and will see an end of it, one way or another.

[Age]

I don't have to prove my innocence, you have to prove my guilt.

1. you are absolutely and irrefutably Right. you do not have to prove your innocence. And, for those who cannot, they can think that this irrefutable Truth works in very well, for them.

2. I also do not 'have to' prove 'your guilt'. To me, 'your actual guilt' is shown and proved throughout 'that post' and other posts here, in this forum.

3. I do not 'have to ' prove 'your guilt', just like all of those who accuse me of things in this forum also do not 'have to' prove 'my guilt'. Absolutely any one can say and accuse absolutely any one of absolutely any thing here, and absolutely no one 'has to' prove 'the accusation/s at all.

The burden is on you.

It may well be. But, I 'know', roughly, what you said, and meant, and this is all i 'need' in order to expose you.

Seems to me you have two options...

Pony up the evidence...

...or...

...stop accusing me.

Or, I have the third option, (out of the many, many others one,) which is; keep accusing you til you so-call 'pony up the counter evidence', or challenge you to another 'conversation'. Would you partake in the latter here?

If no, then why not?

Are you really that afraid and scared, or is there something else going on for you here?

Or, maybe someone else here would like to 'help us both here' and instruct and/or guide 'us' to how 'we' can find that actual thread and conversation, so that the actual Truth here could be revealed once, and for all, here.

you would like 'this' right "henry quirk"?

If you won't do either: I'll have a talk with Rick about it.

Please do "henry quirk". The 'one' who, laughingly, claims that it can 'assert and defend' "itself".

I'm tired of it and will see an end of it, one way or another.

Okay. Hopefully so.

Maybe you could as "rick" to guide you to how you, or I, could find that actual post, so that you could 'clear your name' here "henry quirk".

Also, and by the way, anyone only has to ask you, 'How do you propose to 'assert and defend' "yourself" against another who goes against the 'moral claim' and 'natural right' of life, liberty, and property, exactly?

Obviously, your answers will always end up with 'you', going against, and taking away, 'their life, liberty, and/or property'.

And, as you readily admit to, this will be done through your love of your guns and weapons, and through the enjoyment you get of your waving them around' in front of others and when using them when killing animals.

But, by all means 'run away' and 'seek out help' from "rick" those of 'the law', as I said previously, 'people of your ilk' are the first ones to do.

Which, again, is another blatantly obvious hypocrisy, of yours "henry quirk", considering that it is people of 'your ilk', which you also say and claim are in 'the group' of being 'capable of asserting and defending' "yourselves", are the first ones 'to run for help', from others, and especially 'from the law'.

[Walker]

TANSTAAFL

Nope.

Libertarians say Yep.

[Walker]

Age, the way I figure it, this thread is about teaching your children well, not teaching adults not yours well, even if the teaching isn't contracted.

As CSNY note in their song*, teaching adults well requires the dreams of youth. Parents guide those dreams into practicality. This is not true because it's in a song, but it is in a song.

Quirk ain't a yute, you're not his parent, and he didn't pay you to teach him or offer a personal deconstruction, so the side rail doesn't add up.

*… Teach your parents well
Their children's hell will slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's the one you'll know by

[Age]

Age, the way I figure it, this thread is about teaching your children well, not teaching adults not yours well, even if the teaching isn't contracted.

The younger the child the more they already know 'well'. They certainly do not need 'teaching'. What they all need is just being 'listened to', 'heard', recognized, and accepted for who they really are. If this were to happen and occur, then you adults would 'learn well'.

As CSNY note in their song*, teaching adults well requires the dreams of youth. Parents guide those dreams into practicality. This is not true because it's in a song, but it is in a song.

Quirk ain't a yute, you're not his parent, and he didn't pay you to teach him or offer a personal deconstruction, so the side rail doesn't add up.

I suggest not coming into a philosophy forum making claims that cannot be backed up and supported.with actual proof.

"henry quirk" contradicts "itself" continually here. I just make sure that this is clearer for others to see and recognize, as well.

*… Teach your parents well
Their children's hell will slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's the one you'll know by

[Flannel Jesus]

Age, the way I figure it, this thread is about teaching your children well, not teaching adults not yours well, even if the teaching isn't contracted.

The younger the child the more they already know 'well'. They certainly do not need 'teaching'. What they all need is just being 'listened to', 'heard', recognized, and accepted for who they really are. If this were to happen and occur, then you adults would 'learn well'.

Humorous that people would say, back in the days that this was written, that children did not need teaching.

[Age]

Age, the way I figure it, this thread is about teaching your children well, not teaching adults not yours well, even if the teaching isn't contracted.

The younger the child the more they already know 'well'. They certainly do not need 'teaching'. What they all need is just being 'listened to', 'heard', recognized, and accepted for who they really are. If this were to happen and occur, then you adults would 'learn well'.

Humorous that people would say, back in the days that this was written, that children did not need teaching.

Thank you for alerting me to where I wrote Incorrectly here. The word 'they' means and is in reference to 'younger children', and not 'children' "themselves".

The fundamental message here is that if adults just 'listened' to 'younger children', instead of trying to 'teach them', then adults would learn that the younger a child, then the more that that child can, and actually are, teaching far more about life, and living, properly and Correctly, than adults could ever teach anyone.

[Age]

Children also do not need 'discipline'. you adult human beings, however, do need 'self-discipline' to learn how to 'teach' children and "yourselves" what is actually Right, in Life.