"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

I've posted the beginning of my demonstration -- the scenario with Marie & Joe -- three times now. I am doing it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that 'your contradiction' here does not exist.

In fact, the longer you do not demonstrate what you want to here, then the more evidence you are providing that you actually can not.

Look, I have already demonstrated 'your contradiction' here.

So, it is all up to you now.

[Flannel Jesus]

Mostly cuz I'm an idiot, I guess. I have this dumb idea that age can understand there's no contradiction between having a natural right to one's life, liberty, and property and defending one's life, liberty, and property. But, mebbe, I'm giving him too much credit.

I haven't seen age show the slightest sign of a capacity for a real conservation. The dude thinks quoting people and saying that what they said is "humorous" is how to communicate agreement. He's out of his mind

Well 'we' all now know 'your views' of 'me' "flannel jesus".

Not just mine. I've also spoken to the people of the future.

Donald Trump wins the presidency. He dies while in office, but not before establishing the most powerful dynasty the world has ever seen. His son takes over after his death, and becomes the world's first Philosopher King - not only of America, but of the whole global empire, which spans North America, most of South America (Brazil retains independence), all of Europe (minus Russia, which now also owns Ukraine), almost all of Africa, and parts of East Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia.

As a philosopher king, he enforces the values of reading the older archived forum posts on PhilosohpyNow.org, and everyone thinks you're an idiot.

[Age]

He's out of his mind

I know...*shrug*...like I said: I'm an idiot.

Here is another example of how these people, back when this was being written, actually believed that they had their own minds.

[henry quirk]

you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that 'your contradiction' here does not exist.

Three times I've made the attempt using a means suited to you. You won't let me get out of the gate.

I have no clue how to proceed. So, I'll let you call the shots, age. It's your thread. You direct it.

[henry quirk]

Look, I have already demonstrated 'your contradiction' here.

No, you haven't.

Here's an idea...

Actually demonstrate it. Show everyone the contradiction between having a natural right to one's life, liberty, and property and defending one's life, liberty, and property.

Ask me your clarifying questions. Prove me wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

He's out of his mind

I know...*shrug*...like I said: I'm an idiot.

Here is another example of how these people, back when this was being written, actually believed that they had their own minds.

Where are these beliefs that these people have?

[Iwannaplato]

So, we have a 'mexican standoff'
Two parties, neither of which will move until the other does something they are, so far, unwilling to do.

I'm quite willing to demonstrate there's no contradiction. Age, unfortunately, will have none of it.

Yes, you would like him to demonstrate via the situation where someone wants to rape someone else.
He wants you do disprove what he sees as the obvious contradiction in your assertions about rights.

I think it's good that you've brought the focus back to the demonstration that his conclusion about your assertions are contradictory.
Not that I think this will get things anywhere interesting, but who knows?

[Age]

you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that 'your contradiction' here does not exist.

Three times I've made the attempt using a means suited to you.

When I use 'that means' it does not work. So, this means that 'that means' is not that successful, right?

You won't let me get out of the gate.

But, you have already stated and claimed that you 'posted the beginning of your demonstration'. Which would mean that you have already 'got out of the gate', as some might say, right!

I have no clue how to proceed.

Just ask anyone else.

How much simpler and easier could this get?

Do 'I' have to do everything for 'you' here?

If you 'believe' that you can demonstrate that you are being contradictory here, trough a series of questions, then ask them to anyone here.

This way 'we' can see if you can demonstrate that you are not contradicting "your" own 'self' here.

So, I'll let you call the shots, age. It's your thread. You direct it.

Well, I have already demonstrated what I set out to do. That is you are being very hypocritical and contradictory here.

And, that you do not know how to demonstrate otherwise might reveal far, far more than you were hoping for here.

Also, and let 'us' not forget as well that you did actually say and claim 'that' what I was saying and claiming you did say and claim, but which you have continually denied you said and claimed. Which was how this thread came about.

[Age]

Look, I have already demonstrated 'your contradiction' here.

No, you haven't.

Do you mean to you, to anyone, or to everyone, here?

Here's an idea...

Actually demonstrate it. Show everyone the contradiction between having a natural right to one's life, liberty, and property and defending one's life, liberty, and property.

I already have. But, not every one, necessarily, 'sees' things at the same time, nor equally.

For example, just look at how look long it took some to 'see' that, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, compared to others.

And, as I have been continually pointing out, showing, and demonstrating here, with the help of you posters here, while one is 'believing' some thing is true, the the longer it can take for them to 'see' what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Ask me your clarifying questions. Prove me wrong.

When you shoot someone are you taking either or all of their own life, liberty, or property, from them?

[Age]

I know...*shrug*...like I said: I'm an idiot.

Here is another example of how these people, back when this was being written, actually believed that they had their own minds.

Where are these beliefs that these people have?

Literally, within 'them', "themselves", or stored and retained as 'thought', itself.

[Iwannaplato]

Here is another example of how these people, back when this was being written, actually believed that they had their own minds.

Where are these beliefs that these people have?

Literally, within 'them', "themselves", or stored and retained as 'thought', itself.

But these 'thoughts' are not in individual minds. Is that correct?
So, these 'thoughts' are not in their minds. Is that correct?
Are the thoughts in their bodies?

[henry quirk]

When you shoot someone are you taking either or all of their own life, liberty, or property, from them?

If I shoot someone it most surely is with the intent to kill them, to take their life. If I shoot someone then they'll die (shotguns are devastating and I'm a good shot with mine).

The question is: was it murder (an unjust killing) or self-/other-/property-defense (a just killing).

I don't imagine you're interested in the difference between a just killing and an unjust killing.

Anyway: please, as you will, continue.

[henry quirk]

Since age won't answer the question, I will.

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

It's morally permissible for Marie to use whatever force she has at her disposal to defend herself against Joe. This defense might very well end up with Joe in a morgue.

[henry quirk]

Sumthin' I've posted before, in another thread...seems like an appropriate time to post it again...

The Philosophy of Liberty
by Ken Schoolland

This philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you have. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others.

You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents. Property is that part of nature which you turn to valuable use. Property is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. The initiation of force or fraud to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats.

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. And you may ask others to help defend you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.

You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.

Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical.

Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to STOP asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving the free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act — especially when it is easier to do nothing.

[Age]

Where are these beliefs that these people have?

Literally, within 'them', "themselves", or stored and retained as 'thought', itself.

But these 'thoughts' are not in individual minds. Is that correct?
So, these 'thoughts' are not in their minds. Is that correct?

Well considering the irrefutable Fact that there are no minds, (with an 's'), then yes that is correct.

Are the thoughts in their bodies?

In 'who's' bodies?

you 'people' do not have bodies.

you, 'people', are the result of the past experiences of human bodies.

And, 'thoughts', themselves, are invisible to human eyes, so where thoughts are, exactly, is open for discussion, and discovery.