compatibilism

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I'm a real stinker.

-----

"henry quirk" would SHOOT and KILL you human beings DEAD, even if you were only just attempting to use, or take off, with "henry quirk's" toothpicks or moldy pieces of breads.

Yes, I will defend my property.

Remember, no matter what it is that "henry quirk" believes is "his" 'henry quirk" will KILL 'you' over 'it'.

Yes, please, remember: I will defend my property.

Obviously, 'your life', and 'your natural right to your own life', has absolutely no significance, at all, to "henry quirk" nor over what "henry quirk" claims is "his stuff".

Can't see why I ought to value the other guy's life more than he does. Comes down to this: if [insert name] values his life he won't risk it thru stealing, or murder, or rape, or, slavery, or fraud. FAFO.

Again, to just make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR "henry quirk" will SHOOT 'you' DEAD over just a toothpick and/or just a moldy piece of bread, only.

Yes, I will defend my property.

"henry quirk" actually believes that it has some or of (God-given) 'right' to do so.

Yes, I believe every person has the right to defend what's his or hers.

-----

why in three out of the four boxes the shape, or look, of the faces/heads are different from the other one, and/or why in those three boxes it is shaded, or darkened, while the other one is whitened?

There are two characters depicted: a NPC type and a non-NPC type. They're having a conversation. They differ visually to make them distinct from one another.

-----

he posits a God

Yeah, I'm a deist. Funny how other folks bring that up a lot more than I do.

As long as you and your ilk get to decide what these complex human interactions mean, good and bad themselves are no less subjective prejudices on your and their part.

This is an odd assessment.

This...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

...is plain, direct, and really not subject to interpretation. I could be wrong, though. Mebbe someone can suggest an interpretation that stays true to the meaning while empowering one to infringe on another.

everyone of these folks will be claiming much the same thing about their own One True Path.

Can't see the similarity between natural rights and those various traditions. Almost all of them demand a giving over or a submission while natural rights only sez a person has all the say-so over his own life, liberty, and property, and has no say-so over the other guy's life, liberty, and property. There really isn't any way to interpret or recast natural rights into a justification to murder, slave, rape, rob, or defraud. But, again, I might be wrong. I invite suggestions on how natural rights can be subverted into a means of tyranny or abuse while, at the same time, retaining its meaning.

Of course that changes everything.

Another odd assessment. Quoting Lewis is simply a literary support for okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

In context: even if there are no natural rights, I will still live as though there are; Even if a person has no moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, I will still live as though he does.

[iambiguous]

Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!

wink
What would be the need?

I'm sorry but there are always going to be those who refuse to believe that Strawson's or your own understanding of compatibilism is the gold standard. Unless, of course, you are actually able to demonstrate that this is in fact the case.

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

Collapsing or celebrating what? Cioran was basically a philosopher dealing with what he was able to accumulate regarding meaning and morality. The trials and the tribulations, the exigencies, the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty".

Whereas Sagan focused almost entirely on the universe as a scientist. Cioran was never far remnoved from reminding us of the "trouble woth being born", "on the heights of despair" given a "short history of decay" and the "tempation to exist".

So, did either one of them point us in the optimal direction with regard to compatibilism? Links please.

I do understand your position: you're not responsible for reacting to decades of the same kind of criticism from a wide range of people with a wide range of philosophical positions as if it was a conspiracy, because determinism compels you to believe it is.

Click.

You do not understand my position. On the other hand, unlike any number of FFOs here, I don't argue that unless someone does understand my position, they must be wrong.

Please know: I don't consider you a responsible person. Neither in the moral sense nor in the sense of being able to respond.

All I can do here is to remind others once again of my very own assessment of how other posters react to me:

"1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented."

All of it eventually culminating in oblivion. So, sure, of course the objectivists are going to come after me. After all, I went after the moral nihilists myself once. It's just really, really depressing to think what I do about the "human condition". And that's before we get to all of the horror stories in the news of late.

Cue World War III, anyone?

[iambiguous]

I'll try one more time...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Try what one more time? Why is it in blue and large letters? I wasn't talking about specific interactions, wasn't talking about conflicts, wasn't talking about value judgments, wasn't talking about specific behaviours.

Right, right. This thread is in the metaphysics forum. So, only when we pin down ontologically and/or teleologically what determinism and autonomy and compatibilism actually mean -- philosophically, technically, analytically -- are we even permitted as serious philosophers to take those theoretical assessments down to Earth?

Fine, go in that direction. My own direction however always revolves around taking these didactic assessments down out of the conceptual clouds and noting how "for all practical purposes" that are applicable to their own lives.

It escapes me in particular what value judgments have to do with my objection to compatibilism. What purpose does it serve to bring in the big topic of values, when it has so little relevance here?

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

It's like you don't know how to pay attention to what others are saying.

In other words, if I were paying close attention to the things you assert here I would, of course, be agreeing with you.

[Atla]

Right, right. This thread is in the metaphysics forum. So, only when we pin down ontologically and/or teleologically what determinism and autonomy and compatibilism actually mean -- philosophically, technically, analytically -- are we even permitted as serious philosophers to take those theoretical assessments down to Earth?

Fine, go in that direction. My own direction however always revolves around taking these didactic assessments down out of the conceptual clouds and noting how "for all practical purposes" that are applicable to their own lives.

What bullshit. What I wrote wasn't up in the conceptual clouds, it was conceptual but pretty down to Earth. Can't you think in concepts at all?

I'm not "going in that direction", it's what we do on philosophy forums.

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

That's why you should have read my comments. Which autonomy? In the philosophical free will sense or in the psychological/legal/everyday free will sense?

In other words, if I were paying close attention to the things you assert here I would, of course, be agreeing with you.

No ffs

[Age]

Yeah, I'm a real stinker.

If this is what 'you' believe and/or say so, then okay.

"henry quirk" would SHOOT and KILL you human beings DEAD, even if you were only just attempting to use, or take off, with "henry quirk's" toothpicks or moldy pieces of breads.

Yes, I will defend my property.

So, absolutely every one of human beings 'watch out', because the one known as "henry quirk" here WILL shoot you DEAD if it believes that you are even just attempting to take what it calls "its property".

Also, do not forget that after it had KILLED you then it is absolutely impossible for you to inform it, nor anyone else, of what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Remember, no matter what it is that "henry quirk" believes is "his" 'henry quirk" will KILL 'you' over 'it'.

Yes, please, remember: I will defend my property.

Obviously, you will have to be extra careful with 'this one' considering how ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY DELUDED it is.

"henry quirk" actually believes that it is 'justifiable' for it to KILL other human beings DEAD over just shards of timber and stale flakes of wheat.

And, it BELIEVES that all it has to do to 'justify' the KILLING of an actual human being is just say and claim that those splinters of wood and old pieces of baked dough were "his", only.

Now, obviously it is people who are completely and utterly delusional who are the most dangerous in societies, and thus 'the ones' who are best most kept an observation on and watched over. And, the best way to do this is just watch, and observe, 'the words' that it picks and chooses to use. Which, thank God for forums like this 'these ones', and what they are actually thinking and believed can be very clearly observed, and looked over.

Obviously, 'your life', and 'your natural right to your own life', has absolutely no significance, at all, to "henry quirk" nor over what "henry quirk" claims is "his stuff".

Can't see why I ought to value the other guy's life more than he does.

And, this completely DELUSIONAL thinking and believing is the very reason WHY 'the ones' like 'this one' are best kept 'an Eye' on, always.

'This one' is so DANGEROUS it, actually, BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY that it can tell, ABSOLUTELY, what others 'value', and when and if 'another' 'values' "its life" or not, and just how much or how little 'the other' 'values' "their life". Which is, OBVIOUSLY, a very, very DANGEROUS person to allow out in a society.

See, even when one like 'this one' is 'trying' so hard to convince and deceive 'you' that 'you' have an 'absolute claim' and a 'natural right' to "your own life", all someone like "henry quirk" has to do is just think or believe that 'you' have 'chosen' to 'not value' "your life", which then 'allows' those like "henry quirk" to 'chose' when to END "your life" COMPLETELY.

"henry quirk" may well have, already, completely and utterly fooled and deceived "itself" to be able to 'justify' the OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY 'unjustifiable', but what needs to be Truly watched out for and kept 'an Eye' on is that it does not fool and deceive any others, in the way that it has been, obviously, completely fooled and deceived.

There are stories about evil and how the "devil" can and does deceive those of 'weak will' or 'weak of rational thinking', and about God, and good, and what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, for very, very good reasons.

Comes down to this: if [insert name] values his life he won't risk it thru stealing, or murder, or rape, or, slavery, or fraud. FAFO.

'The way' that "henry quirk" is, literally, 'trying to deceive' you readers here, by 'fucking around', then it is going to 'find out' what 'the consequences' are, exactly.

Just for your information "henry quirk" you human beings do not necessarily value less, nor at all, "their life" just because you think or believe they do, just because they 'do some particular things', and, you KILLING 'them' because you BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'they' value "their life" less, or not at all, will never ever 'justify' your ABSOLUTELY Wrong and Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, and IRRATIONAL thinking and believing here.

If you, really, want to 'try to claim' that "your logic" here is logical, then absolutely ANY one could KILL you DEAD, 'right now'.

Just because you may well BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that you are not, 'here, right now', stealing, murdering, slaving, nor committing fraud in absolutely no way at means that you are not.

Again, to just make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR "henry quirk" will SHOOT 'you' DEAD over just a toothpick and/or just a moldy piece of bread, only.

Yes, I will defend my property.

And, these six little words by this very 'little person' here PROVES, ABSOLUTELY, just how much of a danger it, and people like it, REALLY ARE in society.

"henry quirk" actually believes that it has some or of (God-given) 'right' to do so.

Yes, I believe every person has the right to defend what's his or hers.

Further PROOF of just how DELUDED, and DANGEROUS, some adult human beings had ACTUALLY BECOME, back in 'those days' when this was being written.

why in three out of the four boxes the shape, or look, of the faces/heads are different from the other one, and/or why in those three boxes it is shaded, or darkened, while the other one is whitened?

There are two characters depicted: a NPC type and a non-NPC type. They're having a conversation. They differ visually to make them distinct from one another.

So, which one is the 'non player character' and which one is the 'non non player character', exactly?

And, what is a 'non non player character', exactly? Or, when you say and write 'NPC' and 'non-NPC' do you mean something else?

Also, who and/or what, exactly, were the "game master" and/or "the player/s" here playing these 'non player character' and the 'non non player character'?

[iambiguous]

he posits a God

Yeah, I'm a deist. Funny how other folks bring that up a lot more than I do.

Well, I bring it up because -- click -- I believe "here and now" that the existence of God is of fundamental importance when it comes to meaning, morality and metaphysics. After all, didn't He create the universe? Didn't He provide us with free will and a soul driven to embody "the dictates of Reason and Nature"?

Instead, all you do here, in my opinion, is to keep insisting that the way you understand life, liberty and property really, really does reflect the only rational and natural truth there is to ascertain about them.

It's just that down through the centuries and all across the globe, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Divine Creators. Yours is just all that more problematic because there is no Scripture for Deists fall back on. They can pretty much shape and mold this long gone God into any moral narrative and political agenda that suits their own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

As long as you and your ilk get to decide what these complex human interactions mean, good and bad themselves are no less subjective prejudices on your and their part.

This is an odd assessment.

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, what is odd is how these hundreds and hundreds of religious communities have come and gone over the years, yet each and every one of them had, have or will have only their own "my way or the highway" assessment of what life and liberty and property mean.

But, let me guess, only you and your ilk really do understand them.

You should, at least try a little harder to grasp the existential implications of this. Also, that's before we get to all of the secular dogmas.

This...
A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.
...is plain, direct, and really not subject to interpretation. I could be wrong, though. Mebbe someone can suggest an interpretation that stays true to the meaning while empowering one to infringe on another.

We've been over and over this in regard to guns and abortions and other things. You start by insisting that unless others grasp what the Deist God meant by "the dictates of Reason and Nature" here, they are wrong. Just as IC will insist that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal servant you cannot be saved.

...everyone of these folks will be claiming much the same thing about their own One True Path.

Can't see the similarity between natural rights and those various traditions. Almost all of them demand a giving over or a submission while natural rights only sez a person has all the say-so over his own life, liberty, and property, and has no say-so over the other guy's life, liberty, and property.

Come on, henry, you know full well if you were to interact with others from very different communities, over and again most of them would be insisting it is only their own understanding of these things that count. After all, like you they will link the "logic" of their own social, political and econonmic interactions to God.

Just not yours.

There really isn't any way to interpret or recast natural rights into a justification to murder, slave, rape, rob, or defraud.

Right, let's run this by the sociopaths. Only, with you, you can't confront them with Judgement Day. You can't even assure them that if they do follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and become Deists that there will be any rewards at all after you die.

Instead, you just keep on assuring us that "somehow" you "just know" deep down in your own Intrinsic Self what you do about Deism. And that need be as far as it goes in reard to life, liberty and property.

I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

Of course that changes everything. Now all we need is a Magical Wardrobe.

Another odd assessment. Quoting Lewis is simply a literary support for okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Okay, let's run Deism by those here who worship and adore The Chronicles of Narnia. Again, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

[Belinda]

he posits a God

Yeah, I'm a deist. Funny how other folks bring that up a lot more than I do.

Well, I bring it up because -- click -- I believe "here and now" that the existence of God is of fundamental importance when it comes to meaning, morality and metaphysics. After all, didn't He create the universe? Didn't He provide us with free will and a soul driven to embody "the dictates of Reason and Nature"?

Instead, all you do here, in my opinion, is to keep insisting that the way you understand life, liberty and property really, really does reflect the only rational and natural truth there is to ascertain about them.

It's just that down through the centuries and all across the globe, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Divine Creators. Yours is just all that more problematic because there is no Scripture for Deists fall back on. They can pretty much shape and mold this long gone God into any moral narrative and political agenda that suits their own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

As long as you and your ilk get to decide what these complex human interactions mean, good and bad themselves are no less subjective prejudices on your and their part.

This is an odd assessment.

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, what is odd is how these hundreds and hundreds of religious communities have come and gone over the years, yet each and every one of them had, have or will have only their own "my way or the highway" assessment of what life and liberty and property mean.

But, let me guess, only you and your ilk really do understand them.

You should, at least try a little harder to grasp the existential implications of this. Also, that's before we get to all of the secular dogmas.

This...
A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.
...is plain, direct, and really not subject to interpretation. I could be wrong, though. Mebbe someone can suggest an interpretation that stays true to the meaning while empowering one to infringe on another.

We've been over and over this in regard to guns and abortions and other things. You start by insisting that unless others grasp what the Deist God meant by "the dictates of Reason and Nature" here, they are wrong. Just as IC will insist that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal servant you cannot be saved.

...everyone of these folks will be claiming much the same thing about their own One True Path.

Can't see the similarity between natural rights and those various traditions. Almost all of them demand a giving over or a submission while natural rights only sez a person has all the say-so over his own life, liberty, and property, and has no say-so over the other guy's life, liberty, and property.

Come on, henry, you know full well if you were to interact with others from very different communities, over and again most of them would be insisting it is only their own understanding of these things that count. After all, like you they will link the "logic" of their own social, political and econonmic interactions to God.

Just not yours.

There really isn't any way to interpret or recast natural rights into a justification to murder, slave, rape, rob, or defraud.

Right, let's run this by the sociopaths. Only, with you, you can't confront them with Judgement Day. You can't even assure them that if they do follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and become Deists that there will be any rewards at all after you die.

Instead, you just keep on assuring us that "somehow" you "just know" deep down in your own Intrinsic Self what you do about Deism. And that need be as far as it goes in reard to life, liberty and property.

I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

Of course that changes everything. Now all we need is a Magical Wardrobe.

Another odd assessment. Quoting Lewis is simply a literary support for okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Okay, let's run Deism by those here who worship and adore The Chronicles of Narnia. Again, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Aslan 's power comes from the culture and society of Narnia, and individual believers in Aslan. Aslan is wise enough to know that not one of his individual subjects can stand alone without the support of others .

[phyllo]

Another odd assessment. Quoting Lewis is simply a literary support for okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

The fiction of property supports and maintains a class structure of haves and haves-not. Property owners gain get a huge benefit from it, non-owners are held back by it.

Any attempts to address the the imbalance and unfairness, are typical through taxation and that gets rejected as theft.

So for example, those with property have access to health care and those without property have acces to less health care or none at all. A universal health care system would require taxing the population and using that money to pay health care providers, hospitals and equipment. The property owners don't want to be taxed to pay for it. And they use the fiction of natural rights to property to justify their position.

Do you see that it's not a simple binary good/bad issue?

[henry quirk]

So, absolutely every one of human beings 'watch out', because the one known as "henry quirk" here WILL shoot you DEAD if it believes that you are even just attempting to take what it calls "its property".

Yes, please, remember: I will defend my property.

Also, do not forget that after it had KILLED you then it is absolutely impossible for you to inform it, nor anyone else, of what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Exactly right. I'm no mind reader. After I've put shot in a person's chest, he won't be able to plead his case. So, to avoid misunderstandings, he should talk to me and ask if he can borrow my property. Mebbe I'll say yes. It's a win-win: he gets to live, mebbe his need is met, and, mebbe, I get to do a good deed.

Obviously, you will have to be extra careful with 'this one' considering how ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY DELUDED it is.

That's actually a wise strategy. Yes, consider me a crazy person. That way no one dies.

"henry quirk" actually believes that it is 'justifiable' for it to KILL other human beings DEAD over just shards of timber and stale flakes of wheat.

Yes, I do actually believe a person has the right to defend his or her property.

And, it BELIEVES that all it has to do to 'justify' the KILLING of an actual human being is just say and claim that those splinters of wood and old pieces of baked dough were "his", only.

The way I figure it: if I fairly transacted for that wood or dough, it's mine.

Now, obviously it is people who are completely and utterly delusional who are the most dangerous in societies, and thus 'the ones' who are best most kept an observation on and watched over. And, the best way to do this is just watch, and observe, 'the words' that it picks and chooses to use. Which, thank God for forums like this 'these ones', and what they are actually thinking and believed can be very clearly observed, and looked over.

Yes, please, for your own sakes, take me as a crazy person and avoid me.

And, this completely DELUSIONAL thinking and believing is the very reason WHY 'the ones' like 'this one' are best kept 'an Eye' on, always.

Yes, be very wary of me.

'

This one' is so DANGEROUS it, actually, BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY that it can tell, ABSOLUTELY, what others 'value', and when and if 'another' 'values' "its life" or not, and just how much or how little 'the other' 'values' "their life". Which is, OBVIOUSLY, a very, very DANGEROUS person to allow out in a society.

I am dangerous, yes. So avoid me. Don't risk your life with a lunatic like me.

See, even when one like 'this one' is 'trying' so hard to convince and deceive 'you' that 'you' have an 'absolute claim' and a 'natural right' to "your own life", all someone like "henry quirk" has to do is just think or believe that 'you' have 'chosen' to 'not value' "your life", which then 'allows' those like "henry quirk" to 'chose' when to END "your life" COMPLETELY.

Every person does have an absolute moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, so no one should risk any of those monkeyin' around with a crazy man with a shotgun.

"henry quirk" may well have, already, completely and utterly fooled and deceived "itself" to be able to 'justify' the OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY 'unjustifiable', but what needs to be Truly watched out for and kept 'an Eye' on is that it does not fool and deceive any others, in the way that it has been, obviously, completely fooled and deceived.

Oh, yes, I'm utterly insane, so: stay well clear.

There are stories about evil and how the "devil" can and does deceive those of 'weak will' or 'weak of rational thinking', and about God, and good, and what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, for very, very good reasons.

Yes, that's right: I'm a low down, dirty, devil-man. Keep away.

The way' that "henry quirk" is, literally, 'trying to deceive' you readers here, by 'fucking around', then it is going to 'find out' what 'the consequences' are, exactly.

Well, I don't wanna deceive anyone. To be clear, in case someone still doesn't get it: I will defend my property.

Just for your information "henry quirk" you human beings do not necessarily value less, nor at all, "their life" just because you think or believe they do, just because they 'do some particular things', and, you KILLING 'them' because you BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'they' value "their life" less, or not at all, will never ever 'justify' your ABSOLUTELY Wrong and Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, and IRRATIONAL thinking and believing here.

Can't agree. If Stan tries to steal my toothpick, obviously, knowing the risk involved, he values my toothpick more than his own life. Guess what: I value my toothpick more than Stan's life too.

If you, really, want to 'try to claim' that "your logic" here is logical, then absolutely ANY one could KILL you DEAD, 'right now'.

If I try to steal: I might get my ass shot to smithereens, yes.

Just because you may well BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that you are not, 'here, right now', stealing, murdering, slaving, nor committing fraud in absolutely no way at means that you are not.

I challenge anyone to bring to this forum evidence of my stealing, murdering, slaving, committing fraud.

And, these six little words by this very 'little person' here PROVES, ABSOLUTELY, just how much of a danger it, and people like it, REALLY ARE in society.

Yes. I'm a nightmare. Everyone should spare themselves grief, and blood loss, and leave me be.

Further PROOF of just how DELUDED, and DANGEROUS, some adult human beings had ACTUALLY BECOME, back in 'those days' when this was being written.

Yes, I'm certifiable. A mad dog with a coach gun. Do. Not. Disturb.

So, which one is the 'non player character' and which one is the 'non non player character', exactly?

Gray box guy is the NPC, white box guy is the non-NPC.

And, what is a 'non non player character', exactly? Or, when you say and write 'NPC' and 'non-NPC' do you mean something else?

The NPC, like those in a video game, is scenery and obstacle. The non-NPC, or PC, as in a video game, is the person navigating the scenery and obstacles.

Also, who and/or what, exactly, were the "game master" and/or "the player/s" here playing these 'non player character' and the 'non non player character'?

I guess that depends on the reader of the 4 panels. Some folks will identify with the gray box guy, some with the white box guy.

[Alexiev]

Yes, please, remember: I will defend my property.

Since you probably consider taxation theft, does that mean you will shoot IRS agents? How about Senators who pass laws allowing tax collection?
Maybe you're the one who tried to shoot Donald Trump, since he ran the IRS when he was President.

Pass the moonshine around, Henry, and we'll take aim at the evil Revenooers!

Kamala! Protect our civil servants! Take Henry's guns away!

[Alexiev]

The Ballad of Henry Quirk

The morning glowed with smiling sun
And Henry Quirk concealed his gun.
His quick draw shoulder holster hid it
The magnum would act as he bid it.

Quirk smile as he walked, secure in his false strength
Too cowardly to trust his fists, he’d go to any length
To protect his property from being falsely taken
This was his principle, one that could not be shaken.

Through a hole in Henry’s pocket, a penny fell to ground
He heard it drop, and quickly looked around.
He saw the penny roll away, and then, to his dismay
A child of six picked it up and began to run away.

“Stop, thief!” Henry loudly shouted
But the lad the order flouted
So Henry drew and fired
And the winsome lad expired.

The boy’s brains were scattered on the ground
And in his fist Henry found
The penny, his own copper disc
At that range, Henry couldn’t miss.

The story’s moral is quite clear:
Be afraid of those who fear
To use proportionate force
Cowardice is their usual course.

[henry quirk]

Well, I bring it up because -- click -- I believe "here and now" that the existence of God is of fundamental importance when it comes to meaning, morality and metaphysics. After all, didn't He create the universe? Didn't He provide us with free will and a soul driven to embody "the dictates of Reason and Nature"?

Even so, my point doesn't require God's backing.

Again: Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

Instead, all you do here, in my opinion, is to keep insisting that the way you understand life, liberty and property really, really does reflect the only rational and natural truth there is to ascertain about them.

Well, yeah, I do really think everyone has a moral claim to his or her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. So, yeah, I am insistent. And, yeah, I really do believe treating people like meat or commodity is wrong. And, yeah, even if natural rights is a fiction and people are really just Solent Green with legs, I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. In fact, it seems to me, the only downside is for folks who really do see people as meat or commodity.

It's just that down through the centuries and all across the globe, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Divine Creators. Yours is just all that more problematic because there is no Scripture for Deists fall back on. They can pretty much shape and mold this long gone God into any moral narrative and political agenda that suits their own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

Even so, my point, the one I don't want lost in somebody else's ax-grindings and rhetoric, doesn't require God's backing.

Again: I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his or her own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences. As I say: the only downside would be for those who insist man is meat.

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, what is odd is how these hundreds and hundreds of religious communities have come and gone over the years, yet each and every one of them had, have or will have only their own "my way or the highway" assessment of what life and liberty and property mean.

Sure. I think it's odd too. I don't see how life or liberty or property can be redefined to justify murder or slavery or theft while preserving the original meanings.

War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. is dystopian. Only folks who win in such a circumstance are the ones runnin' the madhouse. Even so, my point, the one I don't want lost in somebody else's ax-grindings and rhetoric, doesn't require redefining any words. Again: I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his or her own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. As I say: the only downside would be for those who insist man is meat or commodity.

But, let me guess, only you and your ilk really do understand them.

Well, I understand the meanings of life and liberty and property. I understand the meanings of recognize and respect. So, yeah, I think I have a decent handle on what it means to say: I believe a person has a natural right to his or her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You should, at least try a little harder to grasp the existential implications of this. Also, that's before we get to all of the secular dogmas.

I think I have a good handle on that as well. Good enough to know it's not possible to recognize and respect another's natural rights while at the same time use natural rights to justify murder, slavery, rape, theft, and fraud.

We've been over and over this in regard to guns and abortions and other things. You start by insisting that unless others grasp what the Deist God meant by "the dictates of Reason and Nature" here, they are wrong. Just as IC will insist that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal servant you cannot be saved.

Yes, I do think clinging to a view of a Creatorless world is dumb. As a believer, what else am I to think? But, unlike adherents of so many other religions (those with coffers to fill and leaders to submit to), mine is silent when it comes to eternal rewards or punishments. As for guns: just property. As for abortion: erring on safety's side (hell if I know when or if a person comes to be in the womb) it's, most of the time, murder.

Come on, henry, you know full well if you were to interact with others from very different communities, over and again most of them would be insisting it is only their own understanding of these things that count. After all, like you they will link the "logic" of their own social, political and econonmic interactions to God.

Just not yours.

Yeah, I get that. Not sure what the point is, though, in pointing it out. Am I obligated in some way to go against these folks? Can't see why.

Right, let's run this by the sociopaths.

Sociopaths are crazy people. Why would I consult with them?

Only, with you, you can't confront them with Judgement Day.

I wouldn't even if there was such a thing. Free will and all that.

You can't even assure them that if they do follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and become Deists that there will be any rewards at all after you die.

No, I can't.

Instead, you just keep on assuring us that "somehow" you "just know" deep down in your own Intrinsic Self what you do about Deism. And that need be as far as it goes in reard to life, liberty and property.

Well, what I actually say is there are evidences that moved me from atheism to deism. These evidences are pretty convincing to me, but not so much to others (as illustrated by responses I've gotten from various members of this forum). So, I kinda leave it all alone. Again, other folks bring up my deism far more than I do these days.

As for life, liberty, and property. I can only say again: even if natural rights are a fiction, even if God is a fiction, even if I'm using idiosyncratic definitions, I cannot see the downside to recognizing and respecting the other guy's right to his own life, liberty, and property. As I say: the only downside is for those who insist man is meat to be used.

Okay, let's run Deism by those here who worship and adore The Chronicles of Narnia. Again, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Not seeing the point of this jibe. I'll address the quote more fully in my response to Belinda.

Let me close by bringing it back to my point (cuz I really don't want it lost in somebody else's dissembling)...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

[henry quirk]

Aslan 's power comes from the culture and society of Narnia

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan is what the second person of the Trinity (God the Son) might have been like had he been incarnated in a magical world of talking animals and living trees. His power, including resurrection, is not cultural or societal.

But, of course, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

Aslan is wise enough to know that not one of his individual subjects can stand alone without the support of others.

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan, as Christ, is that which His allies cannot do without.

But, again, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

As for my use of the quote...

Here it is again, whole...

(Puddleglum, trapped along side his comrades, in a nightmare underworld, stands up to the witch who has attempted to bewitch the group into believing there is no Narnia and no Aslan.)

“One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

So, I used the quote as literary support of...

Okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

Even if there are no natural rights, I will still live as though there are; Even if a person has no moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, I will still live as though he does.

I wasn't defending Lewis, his work, or Christianity.

[henry quirk]

Do you see that it's not a simple binary good/bad issue?

I do. Property, in the legal sense, is complex.

Property, in the moral sense (which is what I'm talkin' about here) really is simple to understand. What a person fairly transacts for or what he creates or raw materials he refines and gives purpose to, are his.

[phyllo]

Do you see that it's not a simple binary good/bad issue?

I do. Property, in the legal sense, is complex.

Property, in the moral sense (which is what I'm talkin' about here) really is simple to understand. What a person fairly transacts for or what he creates or raw materials he refines and gives purpose to, are his.

Well done.

You didn't bother responding to the substance of my post.