"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

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).

So, you shoot with intent to take another's life, and it does not matter for whatever reason, you are 'taking' 'the life' of one who you, also, claim had a natural right to 'that life', which you also, had claimed was 'their life, and 'theirs' alone.

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

But, this does not matter one iota.

you have been trying to claim that every person has a moral claim, a natural right, to their life, liberty, and property, and to noone else's life, liberty, and property. But, here you having just 'taken' another's life', as well as 'their liberty and property', as well. Which is, obviously, extremely contradictory.

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

I have been talking about and pointing out how you have been hypocritical and contradicting "your" own 'self' here.

But, if you would like to 'try to' claim that you killing a human being, with intent, over a toothpick, or even a mouldy piece of bread, is a so-called 'justified killing', then please keep going here. I am sure some would love to see it.

Anyway: please, as you will, continue.

But, once again, I have already demonstrated here what I wanted to do.

It is up to you now for 'us' to 'see' if you can demonstrate the opposite and what you say and claim is true, right, and correct here.

[Age]

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.

And, according to 'your logic' it is morally permissible for you to shoot "marie" DEAD if she just tries to take your, claimed, property, like toothpicks and/or pieces of mouldy bread.

Which, once again, completely and utterly contradicts your other claim that everyone has a 'natural right' to their own life, but to absolutely noone else's life.

[Iwannaplato]

In 'who's' bodies?

Could you explain what 'who's' means and will you in the next post to responding to this one? Who's usually is a contraction for 'who is', so I am not sure what you're asking. If you are asking something like or exactly 'whose' bodies......

Well, from an earlier post of yours....

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

Your refer to 'these people' who 'believed that they had their own minds'. You do answer this below, but for the sake of clarity, those people's bodies, for example.

you 'people' do not have bodies.

ok, but we are made up of, in part, bodies

Once again, as 'you' have been 'informed', already, 'you', 'human beings', are made up of a visible human body, AND, invisible thoughts and emotions.

So, these beliefs, are they part of the invisible thoughts?

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

OK

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

Are all thoughts part of One Mind?

[henry quirk]

And I was right: you're not interested in the difference between a just killing and an unjust killing.

Very disappointing.

[Age]

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.

It is also an appropriate time point out that you, "henry quirk" completely contradict this as well.

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.

This is just more detraction.

[henry quirk]

As I say: very disappointing.

[Age]

In 'who's' bodies?

Could you explain what 'who's' means and will you in the next post to responding to this one?

I meant 'whose'. My apologies for writing incorrectly again.

Who's usually is a contraction for 'who is', so I am not sure what you're asking. If you are asking something like or exactly 'whose' bodies......

Well, from an earlier post of yours....

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

Your refer to 'these people' who 'believed that they had their own minds'. You do answer this below, but for the sake of clarity, those people's bodies, for example.

you 'people' do not have bodies.

ok, but we are made up of, in part, bodies

This would all depend on what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly. 'you', 'people', are not made up of, in part, bodies. 'you', 'human beings', however, are made up of, in part, bodies.

Once again, as 'you' have been 'informed', already, 'you', 'human beings', are made up of a visible human body, AND, invisible thoughts and emotions.

So, whose bodies?

So, these beliefs, are they part of the invisible thoughts?

Yes.

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

OK

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

Are all thoughts part of One Mind?

That would all depend on what you mean by, 'One Mind'.

[Age]

And I was right: you're not interested in the difference between a just killing and an unjust killing.

Very disappointing.

LOL This coming from the one that believes, absolutely, that shooting dead "marie", because "she" was suspected of trying to take "henry quirk's" toothpick is a, laughable, so-called 'justifiable killing'.

But, again, this is all just more attempts to deflect and detract here from the contradiction "henry quirk" has expressed here.

[henry quirk]

So, what's the next item on your list, age?

[henry quirk]

I find it far more worrisome that there are people like you "henry quirk"(.)

I know.

[Age]

So, what's the next item on your list, age?

Regarding you, nothing for now.

you are proving my claim here more and more true all the time, all by "yourself".

[Iwannaplato]

This would all depend on what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly. 'you', 'people', are not made up of, in part, bodies. 'you', 'human beings', however, are made up of, in part, bodies.

So, 'people' and 'human beings' refer to two different 'things'. What is the difference between these two terms and what they each refer to?

Once again, as 'you' have been 'informed', already, 'you', 'human beings', are made up of a visible human body, AND, invisible thoughts and emotions.

So, whose bodies?

The 'human beings' who post here.

So, these beliefs, are they part of the invisible thoughts?

Yes.

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

OK

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

Are all thoughts part of One Mind?

That would all depend on what you mean by, 'One Mind'.

What do you mean by 'One Mind'?

[Flannel Jesus]

In some posts of his he talks like he's the Guru of Clarity, and yet, more than anybody else on this forum, you can't even trust that basic words retain their basic meaning with him.

I mean we're on a philosophy forum, so it's natural that word meanings get questioned relatively frequently, but even so, to have any kind of useful conversation, we have to have a common ground on SOME words. Not with age though.

[Age]

This would all depend on what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly. 'you', 'people', are not made up of, in part, bodies. 'you', 'human beings', however, are made up of, in part, bodies.

So, 'people' and 'human beings' refer to two different 'things'. What is the difference between these two terms and what they each refer to?

The words 'human beings' refers to the visible body and the invisible thoughts and emotions within. The word 'human' referring to the visible body part, and, the word 'being' referring to the invisible thinking/emotion part. And, the words 'person' and 'people' refer to the invisible 'being/s' within visible human 'body's'.

Once again, as 'you' have been 'informed', already, 'you', 'human beings', are made up of a visible human body, AND, invisible thoughts and emotions.

So, whose bodies?

The 'human beings' who post here.

But, human beings do not 'have' bodies. Human beings are bodies, (and other things).

So, these beliefs, are they part of the invisible thoughts?

Yes.

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

OK

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

Are all thoughts part of One Mind?

That would all depend on what you mean by, 'One Mind'.

What do you mean by 'One Mind'?

So, once more, one says and writes a question, or a statement, with specific words, which they do not want to elaborate on nor clarify, and instead want me to clarify.

Once again, what I mean by the words, that you others use could be very, very different, and even opposing. So, for me to be able to answer 'your questions', which are posed and asked to me for clarification, properly and Correctly would entail 'you' informing 'me' what 'you' meant, by and with the words thay you chose, and used.

Let 'us' not forget that it was 'you' who asked 'me' the question here

[Age]

In some posts of his he talks like he's the Guru of Clarity, and yet, more than anybody else on this forum, you can't even trust that basic words retain their basic meaning with him.

LOL

It is you people here, in the days when this being written, who cannot even decide, agree upon, and accept what words like, people, human beings, souls, God, love, mind, consciousness, space, time, to name but only just a few, only, could 'even mean', let alone any of you having a so-called 'basic meaning' of those words.

As any discussion with any of you proves True.

And, not that you will ever answer and clarify, but what are you even basing the 'basic' word here on, exactly?

I mean we're on a philosophy forum, so it's natural that word meanings get questioned relatively frequently, but even so, to have any kind of useful conversation, we have to have a common ground on SOME words. Not with age though.

LOL It is 'the words' that 'you', human beings, here do not have a 'common ground' on that I highlight more here.

For example, let 'us' 'see' what 'common ground' you posters here have for the words;

God
Person
Soul
Spirit
Love
Mind
Consciousness
you
I
Time
Space

And, since you started this here "flannel jesus" would you like to begin, now?

If no, then why not?