"age" verses "quirk"

[Flannel Jesus]

To engage with 'age' is to invite insanity into your life. Do so at your own peril. If you value your mental health you will avoid this particular bot at all costs. 'He' is the most dangerous 'person' I have encountered on the internet, anywhere. Take heed. You have been warned.

To engage with age brings insanity to the page. If you have a life, I recommend you avoid that strife. Don't talk to him, don't say one word. It's dangerous business talking to that bird.

Talk to age and you'll get bitten, in the days when this was written.

[Atla]

What I take 'issue' with is

By 'I', doesn't Age mean the universal superduper eternal omnipresent ne plus ultra mega one and only true One Mind? So why did such a thing (back when this was written) take issue with some silly little human? Insecurity maybe?

[accelafine]

I think it's an early AI bot (joined 2018). It managed to give Gary a complete nervous breakdown and didn't bat a 'botlid'. Just kept doing the same thing. Someone should tell the military. It's a lethal weapon.

[Age]

What does the word 'hypocrite' mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

Saying one thing and doing another.

What does the word 'contradict' mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

Being inconsistent or contrary.

They will suffice for here, now.

[Age]

Are you aware that you have presented 'us' with a statement or claim, but just have added a question mark to the end of it?

I'll rephrase...

Would a man be free if there were no rules?

Maybe not so. As there is an 'instinctual knowing' of what is Right and Wrong, in Life, within, like for example the 'moral claims' and 'natural rights' that you speak of, which in a way could restrict being 'free'. But, every one is also 'free' to choose to do absolutely any thing they want to. So, the answer to your question will depend on how you are defining the 'free' word here, exact, and what that word is on relation to, exactly.

[henry quirk]

Would a man be free if there were no rules?

the answer to your question will depend on how you are defining the 'free' word here, exact, and what that word is on relation to, exactly.

Please, tell me...

How do you define free?

[accelafine]

Save yourself Henry!

[Age]

To engage with 'age' is to invite insanity into your life.

Well then here is a suggestion, 'Then just do not engage with 'me', "accelafine". In other words do not make any comment nor remake about the words under the name and label 'Age', the 'you' will not be inviting, nor 'asking' for, engagement from 'me'.

What people also find extremely annoying is when people make claims about 'things' and about 'others' but never clarify what 'those things' even are, nor who 'that other' even is.

There is not one reader here, besides you of course, who 'knows' who nor what you were referring to, and you will not even clarify for anyone here, for some inexplicable reason.

Do so at your own peril. If you value your mental health you will avoid this particular bot at all costs.

Yet, it was you who came here, and still is, inviting and 'asking' for engagement with "age". So, what 'we' have here is another "hypocrite". And, who contradicts.

'He' is the most dangerous 'person' I have encountered on the internet, anywhere.

So, to 'this one' in one sentence "age" is a 'bot' and in the very next sentence "age" is a 'person', and a 'male' one at that. Are you able to speak and write without being so contradictory here "accelafine"?

Also, what am 'I', supposedly' the 'most dangerous one's in regards to 'what', exactly?

The 'mental health' of you human beings? Or, something else?

Take heed. You have been warned.

This one made some claims here in response to a post I made, which only alluded and which was not specific at all. So, I just sought out some clarification only from that one. And, 'this' is what I 'now' get accused of.

I, Honestly, cannot see any issue at all in just asking some clarifying questions to an obviously extremely very allusive response and claims.

[Age]

To engage with 'age' is to invite insanity into your life. Do so at your own peril. If you value your mental health you will avoid this particular bot at all costs. 'He' is the most dangerous 'person' I have encountered on the internet, anywhere. Take heed. You have been warned.

To engage with age brings insanity to the page. If you have a life, I recommend you avoid that strife. Don't talk to him, don't say one word. It's dangerous business talking to that bird.

Talk to age and you'll get bitten, in the days when this was written.

So, here 'we' have another one who thinks that it is perfectly fine, and even 'normal', to continually 'talk about' another, but to 'not engage with' them. Which was a relatively common habit among the adult population of the human species, when this was being written.

[Age]

What I take 'issue' with is

By 'I', doesn't Age mean the universal superduper eternal omnipresent ne plus ultra mega one and only true One Mind? So why did such a thing (back when this was written) take issue with some silly little human? Insecurity maybe?

That 'you' adult human beings would and do contradict "yourselves", and be 'hypocrites' in regards to, which then led to the abuse of others, and especially to children, is what 'I' certainly do take 'issue' with. And, especially when you adult human beings are contradicting the very 'natural rights' that were 'given to you', like "henry quirk" is doing here.

The abuse of children is NOT some 'silly little issue', at all. Even though you may think so "atla".

What I really do not care one iota about, at all, is the actual very tiny, insignificant and extremely little 'issues' that a lot of you adult human beings, like 'you' "atla", continually go on with and about.

[Age]

Would a man be free if there were no rules?

the answer to your question will depend on how you are defining the 'free' word here, exact, and what that word is on relation to, exactly.

Please, tell me...

How do you define free?

So, "henry quirk" asks a clarifying question that is about a human being', and not just 'a man', being 'free'. I then inform "Henry quirk" that 'the answer' to 'its question' is dependent upon "henry quirk's" definition of the 'free' word here, and, what the 'free' word is in relation to, exactly?

Yet, "henry quirk" has managed to misconstrue this, on purpose or not, and then asks 'me' how do 'i' define the 'free' word.

In case you are not yet aware, it is 'you' "henry quirk" who, supposedly, wants 'an answer' to whether you human beings are 'free' or not if there were no rules, either at all, or just in relation to your human being made up rules. NOT 'me'.

Also, this thread was started to find out:

1.If 'you' human beings have 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'?

Once 'we' can work through and solve 'this' fully, then 'we' can move onto 'looking at' and 'discussing' if:

If "henry quirk" claims to you have 'a right' to 'shoot people dead' for touching what "henry quirk" claims is 'its property' and 'its toothpick', or not?

you can keep 'trying to' deflect here, but 'these issues' will always be 'here'.

[Age]

Save yourself Henry!

So, "henry quirk" invited 'me' to start a thread titled "age" verses "quirk", yet "accelafine" is here 'guiding/warning' "henry quirk" to not engage 'with me'.

Look "accelafine" I say and claim that "henry quirk" claims that it could and would 'shoot dead' human beings if they 'touched' 'its stuff'.

"henry quirk" claims that this is not true.

Now, obviously, this 'has to be' looked at and discussed to find out what the actual Truth is here.

Maybe you have some, underlying, reason why you do not want "Henry quirk" to 'engage' in a conversation or discussion, to get the 'the bottom' and the actual Truth here, but since it was "henry quirk" who took up 'the challenge' and said to start a 'new thread', then this is what has occurred. Now if you do not want the actual Truth to 'come-to-light' here, then so be it. But, if "henry quirk" wants to 'converse' here, then why are you suggesting that it does not?

What actual bearing would 'us' two 'conversing' have on 'you', exactly?

[henry quirk]

"henry quirk"...ask(ed) 'me' how do 'i' define the 'free' word.

Yes. How do you define free?

'what right' does "henry quirk" have to tell...any one what to do(?)

I don't have that right.

(Does) "henry quirk" claim (he has) 'a right' to 'shoot people dead' for touching what (he) claims is (he) property' and (his) toothpick'...?

No.

[Atla]

What I take 'issue' with is

By 'I', doesn't Age mean the universal superduper eternal omnipresent ne plus ultra mega one and only true One Mind? So why did such a thing (back when this was written) take issue with some silly little human? Insecurity maybe?

That 'you' adult human beings would and do contradict "yourselves", and be 'hypocrites' in regards to, which then led to the abuse of others, and especially to children, is what 'I' certainly do take 'issue' with. And, especially when you adult human beings are contradicting the very 'natural rights' that were 'given to you', like "henry quirk" is doing here.

The abuse of children is NOT some 'silly little issue', at all. Even though you may think so "atla".

What I really do not care one iota about, at all, is the actual very tiny, insignificant and extremely little 'issues' that a lot of you adult human beings, like 'you' "atla", continually go on with and about.

Can't the superduper 'I' read? Where did atla use the expression 'silly little issue'?

There is allegedly only one 'I', and it's everywhere, so it should be able to do more than just take issue. Do something about henry. Take away henry's freedoms or something.

[Age]

"henry quirk"...ask(ed) 'me' how do 'i' define the 'free' word.

Yes. How do you define free?

Well since you are obviously too afraid, too scared or just too some thing to define your own words in your own questions, and 'you' want 'me' to define how 'you' were using the 'free' word in your own question, then, to me;

What 'you' meaning is, not under any obligation to do nor think absolutely any thing, from absolutely any other thing.

'what right' does "henry quirk" have to tell...any one what to do(?)

I don't have that right.

Great, so will you 'now' refrain from using words, terms, and/or phrases like:

'I ought to mind my own business and keep my hands to myself, and vice versa.'

Trying to 'sneak' in the, 'and vice versa', was only another form of trying to 'deceive', without being detected, that 'you' are TELLING 'others' what to do. But, admitting, which might have been completely unconsciously done by, and not noticed by, "henry quirk", at all. But, this example is a prime example of how 'the devil', itself, works, and 'tries to' play, from within, and 'trying to hide', out of sight.

(Does) "henry quirk" claim (he has) 'a right' to 'shoot people dead' for touching what (he) claims is (he) property' and (his) toothpick'...?

No.

Okay, great. So, if someone walked onto what you call and claim 'your property' and/or 'touches' what you call and claim 'your toothpick', then you will 'mind your own business', and, what you call, 'keep your hands to your self', right?

After all it is 'you' who keeps claiming that, 'They have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to their, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property', correct?