"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

Since "henry quirk" will not Correct what it claims are incorrect in my claims, will not inform me of where and what the 'original' discussion and thread is, nor will it provide the actual words, which would once and for all inform the readers here if "henry quirk" actually did say and write what I am claiming "henry quirk" said and wrote I asked/challenged "henry quirk" to have another conversation/discussion here about the same issue. "henry quirk" agreed to.

'The issue' here being that "henry quirk" claims;

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

Which is all well and good with me, also. So, no issue here at all.

What I take 'issue' with is "Henry quirk" then saying and demanding;

So: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

Which, to me anyway, absolutely and totally contradicts the first part.

If 'you', individually or every one, has a an absolute moral claim, a natural right to their own life, liberty, and property, then 'what right' does "henry quirk" have to tell absolutely any one what to do, and, who or what, exactly, gave "henry quirk" 'that right' other than obviously "its" own 'self'?

Do you agree to let 'us' look at and discuss this first "henry quirk", before 'we' move on to whether you claim that you have 'a right' to 'shoot people dead' for touching what you claim is 'your property' and 'your toothpick' or not?

[accelafine]

You won't get an answer because it was just a meaningless word salad in the first place. He's been saying the same thing over and over for years. It doesn't mean anything.

[Flannel Jesus]

Which, to me anyway, absolutely and totally contradicts the first part.

Hilarious that people would say one part contradicts another part, back in the days when this was written.

[henry quirk]

'The issue' here being that "henry quirk" claims;

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

Which is all well and good with me, also. So, no issue here at all.

What I take 'issue' with is "Henry quirk" then saying and demanding;

So: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

Which, to me anyway, absolutely and totally contradicts the first part.

If 'you', individually or every one, has a an absolute moral claim, a natural right to their own life, liberty, and property, then 'what right' does "henry quirk" have to tell absolutely any one what to do, and, who or what, exactly, gave "henry quirk" 'that right' other than obviously "its" own 'self'?

it seems perfectly sensible to me...

Your life, liberty, and property are yours alone, so: I ought to mind my own business and keep my hands to myself, and vice versa.

[henry quirk]

But there are no 'free men', nor 'free women', nor 'free children' in 'that country'.

Would you please elaborate?

Absolutely all of 'you' are slaves. And, even you more so "henry quirk", although this is obviously contrary to what you believe, absolutely, is true.

Would you please elaborate?

[Age]

'The issue' here being that "henry quirk" claims;

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

Which is all well and good with me, also. So, no issue here at all.

What I take 'issue' with is "Henry quirk" then saying and demanding;

So: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

Which, to me anyway, absolutely and totally contradicts the first part.

If 'you', individually or every one, has a an absolute moral claim, a natural right to their own life, liberty, and property, then 'what right' does "henry quirk" have to tell absolutely any one what to do, and, who or what, exactly, gave "henry quirk" 'that right' other than obviously "its" own 'self'?

it seems perfectly sensible to me...

Your life, liberty, and property are yours alone, so: I ought to mind my own business and keep my hands to myself, and vice versa.

It is great to see you fix this part up, very sadly though you have still attempted to 'sneak' in the part where 'you' want to TELL 'others' what to do.

If you stop trying to 'tell' others what to do, then this is not contradictory.

And, if you did, what you call, 'minded your own business', and kept what you ought to do to you alone, and kept those hands on that body to that body alone, then this would be great. And, would not be contradictory nor hypocritical at all.

Now, is there any thing you would like to respond to and/or say here?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then can 'we' move onto discussing things about what 'you' would and can do when another does not do what 'you' want 'them' to do.

[Age]

But there are no 'free men', nor 'free women', nor 'free children' in 'that country'.

Would you please elaborate?

Yes, all the peoples, in the days when this is being written, are 'under the rules' of 'the rules', which were written by, and enforced by, human beings.

There is no human being who is 'actually free', or who is 'Truly free'.

Absolutely all of 'you' are slaves. And, even you more so "henry quirk", although this is obviously contrary to what you believe, absolutely, is true.

Would you please elaborate?

If you believe that you are free, then you are more of a "slave" in the sense that you have not yet recognized and noticed just how much you are 'under' rules, and 'under' the enforcing of those rules, and laws. Therefore, you are more of "a slave" as you are not just 'under' the others who have 'control' over 'you', but 'you' are also "a slave" 'under' "your" own 'self' as 'you', "yourself", have not yet recognized just how much of "a slave" 'you' really are.

See, once one recognizes and notices just how much 'control' 'others' actually have 'over' them, then they can and do, in a way, 'set "themselves" 'more free'.

[henry quirk]

you have still attempted to 'sneak' in the part where 'you' want to TELL 'others' what to do.

I disagree. I think mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself is the commonsensical follow up to you have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. But it's mebbe an unnecessary follow up as it goes without saying.

Anyway, yes, let's...

...move onto discussing things about what (I) would and can do when another does not do what (I) want 'them' to do.

That depends on what it is I want them to do.

Please, give me some example situations.

[henry quirk]

Yes, all the peoples, in the days when this is being written, are 'under the rules' of 'the rules', which were written by, and enforced by, human beings.

Are the people who break these rules free?

If you believe that you are free, then you are more of a "slave" in the sense that you have not yet recognized and noticed just how much you are 'under' rules, and 'under' the enforcing of those rules, and laws.

If I break these laws and rules: am I free?

[Age]

you have still attempted to 'sneak' in the part where 'you' want to TELL 'others' what to do.

I disagree. I think mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself is the commonsensical follow up to you have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. But it's mebbe an unnecessary follow up as it goes without saying.

So, to you, 'it', supposedly, 'goes without saying', that 'you' or 'another' has 'some sort of right' to TELL others what to do.

Once again, 'we' back to 'you' being absolutely hypocritical, and to absolutely contradicting your own claims here.

And, if you, still, cannot yet see 'this', then just let 'us' know'.

I will trying something else, for you.

Anyway, yes, let's...

...move onto discussing things about what (I) would and can do when another does not do what (I) want 'them' to do.

I do not want to move on here until either:

you prove how if every one has a 'moral claim' and a 'natural right' to their own life, you have somehow gained 'some right' to TELL another or others what they can, or cannot do, or what 'they' should/ought, or should/ought not, do, without contradicting "yourself".

Or,

you agree upon and accept that TELLING others, for example, what to do, when they have a 'natural right' to their own life is being hypocritical and/or contradictory.

That depends on what it is I want them to do.

Please, give me some example situations.

I will when the above is cleared and settled.

[Age]

Yes, all the peoples, in the days when this is being written, are 'under the rules' of 'the rules', which were written by, and enforced by, human beings.

Are the people who break these rules free?

What a nonsensical question to ask, in light of what I just said and wrote here.

Are you not yet aware what the word 'all' means or refers to, exactly?

All people, in the days when this is being written, are 'under' 'the rules' that have been written down, for them/you, means ALL of you, people.

If you believe that you are free, then you are more of a "slave" in the sense that you have not yet recognized and noticed just how much you are 'under' rules, and 'under' the enforcing of those rules, and laws.

If I break these laws and rules: am I free?

No.

As 'you' are, still, 'under' 'rules'.

'you' are also 'now' 'under' 'the consequences' of 'breaking those laws and rules', obviously if it is 'known' that 'you' have 'broken them'.

Just so I am more, or absolutely, clear here;

you are 'under rules' no matter if you break one, any, or all of 'the rules'.

[henry quirk]

if you, still, cannot yet see 'this', then just let 'us' know'.

I don't see it.

[henry quirk]

So: if there were no rules: a man would be free?

[Peter Kropotkin]

You won't get an answer because it was just a meaningless word salad in the first place. He's been saying the same thing over and over for years. It doesn't mean anything.

K: word salad?... age or quirk? I can't tell them apart....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

[