"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

you said and claimed...

Is there anything else to discuss here?

Yes. What exactly did I say and claim? Your interpretations of what I said and claimed don't count.

What you, exactly, said and claimed is:

I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Does this 'count'?

[Age]

Oh, I thought it was blatantly obvious why taking another's life, liberty, or property contradicted also claiming that another had a 'miral claim' and 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, or property.

Yes, I thought so. Which is why I wrote...

It may seem obvious to you

I think it's obvious that it is not obvious to henry quirk that this is the case. So, explaining why might be helpful for him to see this, it also gives and argument for him to respond to. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think this can advance the dialogue and actually make it very clear to both parties - where they disagree in specifics not just on the whole point, where they might agree in part and where to move forward - for example what needs to be justified or explained in the next steps.

As I have already explained many times already.

If you explained why before, then you did what I suggested already. In other words if you justified why those were contradictory, instead of merely pointing out/asserting, then you already did what I suggested.

This gives the other person, here henry quirk, more to work with in his response. It makes your assertion clear from the get go. He doesn't have to ask.

I have already informed "henry quirk, numerous times, why it is being contradictory here. Why do you presume I had not?

Could you link me to that post and will you link me to it in your response to me next?

Yes, in the first post of this thread being one of many.

If he has already given his reasons for his position, he may well give the same reasons for his position. But if he sees your objection, he can then react more specifically to that.

But, "Henry quirk" does not want to 'see' 'the reasons' for my position/the Truth here. And, this is just because adult human beings do not like to be seen as "hypocrites", nor being 'contradictory' in their views and claims

But you did it anyway, given what you wrote above, earlier in the thread, despite this.

This is not just about speed but also clarity. It minimizes repetition.

But, 'the repetition' you posters here do, while trying to deflect away from the irrefutable Truths I like to point out and show here, is what I want others to 'see' and 'observe' you adult human beings did, back in the Colden days' when this was being written.

OK, well, if your goal is produce repetition, then I'd agree that this approach is more likely to be effective.

Are you aware that if you miss things, then this, in and of itself, does not mean that they did not already happen, and occur?

I have many times mentioned my fallibility.

Okay, but I was never querying your fallibility.

I was querying what I did which is something different.

Have you not noticed when I have done this?

No

[henry quirk]

What you, exactly, said and claimed is:I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Five years. It took you five years to finally pony up and you still can't get it right.

Here, this is how it's done...

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Five minutes it took me to find the thread and *all the relevant posts.




*you and me, we're gonna go thru all of 'em

[Age]

What you, exactly, said and claimed is:I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Five years. It took you five years to finally pony up and you still can't get it right.

Here, this is how it's done...

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Five minutes it took me to find the thread and *all the relevant posts.




*you and me, we're gonna go thru all of 'em

I do not know what you are going on about here now. But, that you are still trying to deflect from how absolutely hypocritical and a contradiction this is, is not going unnoticed here.

look "henry quirk" you come here 'righteous' as though you follow the 'moral claims' that every human being has a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property, and to noone else's life, liberty, and property, but then also, very contradictory, say and claim that you will shoot other human beings, thus taking away their life, liberty, and/or property.

If you, still, cannot see or will not admit just how hypocritical and contradictory this really is, then so be it. But, all of these attempts by you to deflect are not helping you at all here.

[henry quirk]

Here they are, the relevant posts...

The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

the American Revolution?

The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

this one's easy: in defense of self or another

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

Many would say that preventing harm to another may be a justified use of force. Yet I doubt there’s been a war to prevent a person from murdering another person. War is not merely a specific case of violence, it’s a special, and perhaps unique, case of violence.

But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?

This is a dissertation. I am a consequentialist, which makes ethics both relevant and challenging.

I think a situation of personal defense is clear. Someone stealing my TV? Probably not. However, stealing a TV is different from "terrorism" (i.e. looters are as much terrorists as thieves).

Of course, as violence goes exponential it gets more difficult to understand consequences. Hence, situations of a "just war" would be very rare.

Someone stealing my TV? Probably not.

the hell you say!

I value my tv more than I value the thief's life (and, apparently, so does the thief)

the victor decides what is just

-Imp

So true.

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

I also asked about your wife as well, would you shoot her if you caught her stealing your tv, or your toothpick?

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property. But to you that is NO concern at all, correct? Because to you 'that wife' and 'that child' are YOUR property, and you can do whatever you like with YOUR property, correct?

Also, along with your type of thinking comes the BELIEF that NO can tell you what you can do with YOUR property NOR deprive you of YOUR property also, am I right?

If yes, then this would include NO human being is allowed to protect YOUR property from being pissed or from being abused by you. Because you BELIEVE you have the right to YOUR property, true?

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post, if you're willin' to tease 'em out...I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...been there, done that: no fun


By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post,

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

if you're willin' to tease 'em out...

There is NOT a human being that could FIND nor TEASE OUT from your, so called, "answers", nor replies, answers to the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I posed to you about YOUR 'wife'.

This is, of course I am PROVEN otherwise.

You OBVIOUSLY could NOT prove otherwise, so let us SEE if ANY other human being can and will PROVE me WRONG here, okay?

I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...

You would NOT HAVE TO, IF you just answered the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I ask you.

been there, done that: no fun

This is just an attempt at PURE DISTRACTION from the fact that if you did answer my ACTUAL clarifying questions, OPENLY and Honestly, then what would be CLEARLY SEEN is that would be consistently CONTRADICTING what you have previous stated.

So, to be CLEAR you would have NO hesitation shooting your wife, because she took YOUR television, from 'you', correct?

Your DISMISSIVENESS of answering this actual clarifying question posed to you speaks volumes, and says more about 'you' than you could have imagined.

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...

And, where, and when, 'you' are from, children grow up BELIEVING that depriving "others" of their life, their liberty, and their property can be JUSTIFIED. Just like 'you' do.

See, because of where you came from, you are NOT YET AWARE of your ONE WAY and ONE SIDED view of things here. You have been so badly ABUSED that you actually now, when this is being written, BELIEVE that you have the right to ABUSE "others". As evidenced above in YOUR OWN writings.

the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And 'shoot 'em dead', is your motto, if they try to, correct?

The way you actually speak in this forum is encouraging people to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of "others", just as 'you' do.

But, at the moment, you can NOT see this, as you are too BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

I have been using our past discussions to slowly HIGHLIGHT, SHOW, and REVEAL this fact, which more and more are starting to SEE, and realize.

If the only way you can stop those who kill and destroy things is to kill and destroy things, you've become the same as the invaders

if one, or many, come to kill & destroy, absolutely I have no problem tryin' to to kill them & destroy their stuff first

Yes we KNOW that 'you' have absolutely NO problem at all in killing or trying to to kill "other" human beings.

You have consistently said this and have made this PERFECTLY CLEAR.

What you have YET to make PERFECTLY CLEAR is if you have absolutely NO problem at all at killing 'YOUR' wife for doing the EXACT SAME thing "another" human being would? That is; taking 'YOUR' television, or spatula, for example?

YOUR 'distractions' do NOT work on me.

Is war the only way a government can be overthrown?

of course not: subversion, cultural shift, citizen ennui, can take a nation or gov down as well


I don't see how local thugs who want harm me are better than foreign ones.

obviously

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age

Now here's your task, age...

Make sense of it all.

Use this...

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

...as your handy-dandy Lil Orphan Annie decoder ring.

I have faith in you, age.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, in the first post of this thread being one of many.

The first post in this thread ends with saying that you will get to the issue - the one I suggested you explain your position regarding - later.

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?

[Age]

Here they are, the relevant posts...

The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

the American Revolution?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

this one's easy: in defense of self or another

Many would say that preventing harm to another may be a justified use of force. Yet I doubt there’s been a war to prevent a person from murdering another person. War is not merely a specific case of violence, it’s a special, and perhaps unique, case of violence.

But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?

This is a dissertation. I am a consequentialist, which makes ethics both relevant and challenging.

I think a situation of personal defense is clear. Someone stealing my TV? Probably not. However, stealing a TV is different from "terrorism" (i.e. looters are as much terrorists as thieves).

Of course, as violence goes exponential it gets more difficult to understand consequences. Hence, situations of a "just war" would be very rare.

Someone stealing my TV? Probably not.

the hell you say!

I value my tv more than I value the thief's life (and, apparently, so does the thief)

So true.

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

I also asked about your wife as well, would you shoot her if you caught her stealing your tv, or your toothpick?

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property. But to you that is NO concern at all, correct? Because to you 'that wife' and 'that child' are YOUR property, and you can do whatever you like with YOUR property, correct?

Also, along with your type of thinking comes the BELIEF that NO can tell you what you can do with YOUR property NOR deprive you of YOUR property also, am I right?

If yes, then this would include NO human being is allowed to protect YOUR property from being pissed or from being abused by you. Because you BELIEVE you have the right to YOUR property, true?

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post, if you're willin' to tease 'em out...I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...been there, done that: no fun


By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post,

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

if you're willin' to tease 'em out...

There is NOT a human being that could FIND nor TEASE OUT from your, so called, "answers", nor replies, answers to the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I posed to you about YOUR 'wife'.

This is, of course I am PROVEN otherwise.

You OBVIOUSLY could NOT prove otherwise, so let us SEE if ANY other human being can and will PROVE me WRONG here, okay?

I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...

You would NOT HAVE TO, IF you just answered the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I ask you.

been there, done that: no fun

This is just an attempt at PURE DISTRACTION from the fact that if you did answer my ACTUAL clarifying questions, OPENLY and Honestly, then what would be CLEARLY SEEN is that would be consistently CONTRADICTING what you have previous stated.

So, to be CLEAR you would have NO hesitation shooting your wife, because she took YOUR television, from 'you', correct?

Your DISMISSIVENESS of answering this actual clarifying question posed to you speaks volumes, and says more about 'you' than you could have imagined.

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...

And, where, and when, 'you' are from, children grow up BELIEVING that depriving "others" of their life, their liberty, and their property can be JUSTIFIED. Just like 'you' do.

See, because of where you came from, you are NOT YET AWARE of your ONE WAY and ONE SIDED view of things here. You have been so badly ABUSED that you actually now, when this is being written, BELIEVE that you have the right to ABUSE "others". As evidenced above in YOUR OWN writings.

the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And 'shoot 'em dead', is your motto, if they try to, correct?

The way you actually speak in this forum is encouraging people to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of "others", just as 'you' do.

But, at the moment, you can NOT see this, as you are too BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

I have been using our past discussions to slowly HIGHLIGHT, SHOW, and REVEAL this fact, which more and more are starting to SEE, and realize.

If the only way you can stop those who kill and destroy things is to kill and destroy things, you've become the same as the invaders

if one, or many, come to kill & destroy, absolutely I have no problem tryin' to to kill them & destroy their stuff first

Yes we KNOW that 'you' have absolutely NO problem at all in killing or trying to to kill "other" human beings.

You have consistently said this and have made this PERFECTLY CLEAR.

What you have YET to make PERFECTLY CLEAR is if you have absolutely NO problem at all at killing 'YOUR' wife for doing the EXACT SAME thing "another" human being would? That is; taking 'YOUR' television, or spatula, for example?

YOUR 'distractions' do NOT work on me.

Is war the only way a government can be overthrown?

of course not: subversion, cultural shift, citizen ennui, can take a nation or gov down as well


I don't see how local thugs who want harm me are better than foreign ones.

obviously

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age

Now here's your task, age...

Make sense of it all.

Use this...

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

...as your handy-dandy Lil Orphan Annie decoder ring.

I have faith in you, age.

And, you also 'believe', absolutely, that you have a 'God-given', 'henry quirk-given', or some other thing-given' 'right' to override what you call is a 'natural right'.

Which, if you, still cannot comprehend and understand or just want to completely try to keep ignoring is completely and utterly hypocritical and contradictory.

[Age]

Yes, in the first post of this thread being one of many.

The first post in this thread ends with saying that you will get to the issue - the one I suggested you explain your position regarding - later.

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?

How much more obvious, simpler, easier could this get?

"henry quirk" claims:

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

While also claiming, at the exact same time, that "henry quirk" has some sort or 'right' to override the, claimed, 'natural right' that you have.

"henry quirk" actual believes that it has some sort of 'absolute moral claim, a natural right' to take someone else's life, liberty, or property.

Are you saying, or suggesting, that you cannot see the contradictions and hypocrisy here, as well?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, in the first post of this thread being one of many.

The first post in this thread ends with saying that you will get to the issue - the one I suggested you explain your position regarding - later.

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?

How much more obvious, simpler, easier could this get?

"henry quirk" claims:

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

While also claiming, at the exact same time, that "henry quirk" has some sort or 'right' to override the, claimed, 'natural right' that you have.

"henry quirk" actual believes that it has some sort of 'absolute moral claim, a natural right' to take someone else's life, liberty, or property.

Are you saying, or suggesting, that you cannot see the contradictions and hypocrisy here, as well?

I was suggesting exactly what I suggested. Here you took a step in the direction of my suggestion.

[Age]

The first post in this thread ends with saying that you will get to the issue - the one I suggested you explain your position regarding - later.

How much more obvious, simpler, easier could this get?

"henry quirk" claims:

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

While also claiming, at the exact same time, that "henry quirk" has some sort or 'right' to override the, claimed, 'natural right' that you have.

"henry quirk" actual believes that it has some sort of 'absolute moral claim, a natural right' to take someone else's life, liberty, or property.

Are you saying, or suggesting, that you cannot see the contradictions and hypocrisy here, as well?

I was suggesting exactly what I suggested. Here you took a step in the direction of my suggestion.

But, once again, I had already taken many steps in this direction. And, also once again, some people can not and thus will not see what is being pointed out to them, and, again, this is mostly because of 'currently' held onto 'beliefs'.

[henry quirk]

contradictory

As I say: I have faith in you, age. You're not a turnip. I believe you can resolve what you see as a contradiction. You just need a lil help.

Consider the following...

You have Marie, a woman with an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You have Joe, a man with an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Joe is trying to rape Marie. He's trying to penetrate Marie without her consent. Marie does not wanna be penetrated by Joe. What, in your view, is Marie permitted to do to stop Joe?

[Age]

contradictory

As I say: I have faith in you, age. You're not a turnip. I believe you can resolve what you see as a contradiction. You just need a lil help.

Consider the following...

You have Marie, a woman with an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You have Joe, a man with an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Joe is trying to rape Marie. He's trying to penetrate Marie without her consent. Marie does not wanna be penetrated by Joe. What, in your view, is Marie permitted to do to stop Joe?

But, this has never been about 'my view'. This has been and still is about 'your view' here "henry quirk". So, what in 'your view' is "marie" permitted to do?

Remember, this is your dilemma, and contradiction, not mine.

Also, let 'us' not forget that if "marie" was just trying to take what you believe is 'your property', like for example, a toothpick or even a mouldy piece of bread, you then 'believe' that you are 'permitted' to 'shoot' "marie", correct?

If yes, then you are also claiming that everyone has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to their, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, however, everyone can take the life, liberty, or property from absolutely everyone else.

If you do not want to admit the dilemma, contraction, and hypocrisy that you alone have created and are creating here, then so be it. But, the rest of 'us' can clearly see it.

And, that you cannot resolve your own made up dilemma here, is blatantly obvious as well.

[henry quirk]

But, this has never been about 'my view'.

No, it's about mine, specifically my contradiction.

Reality is: you don't understand my view...if you did, you'd see there is no contradiction.

I'd like the chance to show you there's no contradiction, but I need your cooperation. If I have it then, please, answer the question below. Note: I've altered the intros of Marie & Joe, and the question, to better suit you. That is: to answer you don't have agree they have natural rights, you only have to suppose they do.

*

You have Marie, a woman. Let's suppose she has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You have Joe, a man. Let's suppose he has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Joe is trying to rape Marie. He's trying to penetrate Marie without her consent. Marie does not wanna be penetrated by Joe.

If you suppose both Marie and Joe have natural rights: what, in your view, is Marie permitted to do to defend herself against Joe?

[Age]

But, this has never been about 'my view'.

No, it's about mine, specifically my contradiction.

Reality is: you don't understand my view...if you did, you'd see there is no contradiction.

I'd like the chance to show you there's no contradiction, but I need your cooperation. If I have it then, please, answer the question below. Note: I've altered the intros of Marie & Joe, and the question, to better suit you. That is: to answer you don't have agree they have natural rights, you only have to suppose they do.

*

You have Marie, a woman. Let's suppose she has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You have Joe, a man. Let's suppose he has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Joe is trying to rape Marie. He's trying to penetrate Marie without her consent. Marie does not wanna be penetrated by Joe.

If you suppose both Marie and Joe have natural rights: what, in your view, is Marie permitted to do to defend herself against Joe?

Once more, you can keep 'trying to' deflect away from the blatantly obvious contradiction in your view', which is; every one has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to their, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. However, in 'your view' every one is also 'permitted' take other people's lives, liberties, and properties.

One day you might 'grow up' and 'mature' and accept the inconsistency and contradiction here, then be able to resolve the inconsistency and contradiction here.

Until then how to voluntary follow what you say and claim is 'an absolute moral claim', without being inconsistent, contradictory, nor hypocritical at all as you keep saying and claiming you and others have a 'right' to be, will remain a complete and utter mystery to you.

How to resolve the dilemma, which you, "your own" 'self', has created, will remain unknowable, to you.

Oh, and by the way, it was and will remain a Truly simple and easy fix, and solution.

But, obviously, one would have to 'see' and admit there is a contradiction and hypocrisy, first.

Until then you will, contradictory, keep 'believing' that shooting others, and taking other's lives, liberties, and/or properties is 'permitted', the 'solution', and the 'resolution', here

[henry quirk]

There is no contradiction.

Will you allow me to demonstrate this or is your mind closed?