For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No one. They shared it with all other living things.
So, apparently you really, really still cannot yet see that when you 'decide' to 'take' from another, then that personal 'decision' of yours was based upon your very own personal 'subjective decision', which is obviously 'relative' to you, the individual observer, alone, and only.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amCan you, age, really not see that your assertions don't mean spit without some kind of foundation?Can you "henry quirk" really still not yet see that when you decide to 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property for whatever reason you have decided to, even under some sort of claimed 'defense', then this makes all of 'this' relative?
If you ask, from a curiously interested perspective, in order to seek out, gain, and obtain actual clarity, then your request will be granted. Until then, I wait.
Well who, or what, exactly, makes 'decisions' 'for you'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amNo, I don't.But you claim that you can make the, relative or subjective, 'decision' about when and how you can and will 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property.
Well we would hope not. Although you have spoken and written before, which exposed and revealed otherwise.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am If you aren't threatening my life, my liberty, my property, I have nuthin' to defend against and no call to defend myself.
Which, when committed, is committed in and with the very act of being in absolute violation of what you call 'absolute moral rights'. So, to claim that you can, a person, make a personal, thus subjective or relative, decision, which goes against the very harped on about 'absolute moral rights' of a person, or person hood, then, as I have been continually pointing out and showing, if very, very hypocritical, and contradictory, to say the least.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amYes. A very specific response (defense) to a very act (a violation of natural rights).you have, continually, specifically claimed that you can 'defend' yours or another's so-called, absolute moral claim, to your or their life, liberty, or so-called property.
So, either you can, or, you can not, 'in defense'.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amNo, age.So, there are, according to your 'logic' circumstances where you can declare another 'your property', which obviously you can use or direct as you see fit.
But what happens if one 'touches' what you call 'your tooth pick', can you never ever morally nor justly bound them up, for a certain length of time, thus declaring 'them' 'your property', which you have just 'decided' what 'you' will do with 'them'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am I can never morally, justly declare another my property.
But what about in your so-called 'defense' circumstances?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am I can't morally, justly murder them, slave them, rape them, steal from them, or defraud them.
Oh okay. Now we are finally getting somewhere. Previously you had declared that you had the right to kill another human being dead, for just 'touching your tooth pick', as you said.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amNo, age.For example, if someone just goes to touch your claimed toothpick, and to so-call 'defend' this so-called 'property of yours' you can declare that one under arrest, and as such you can use or direct them to remain still even to the point of you being able to tie them up, right?
But, if you were, then can you tie human beings up and thus treat 'them' as 'yours', in some particular way or another?
Okay. Completely off-topic, but attempts and deflection and detraction were common here, back in these 'olden days'.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am I don't have voluntary dealings with police officers. I'm not an agent of the State or courts. I don't have voluntary dealings with such agents.
Why only 'life'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amYou mean life, yes?But you can 'take' the so-called property, liberty, and life of another when you are so-called 'defending' life, liberty, or so-called property right?
you have also said and written that you would 'shoot dead', take the lives', others, for other reasons as well.
The real lesson here is although "Henry quirk" claims that your life is your own, and absolutely no one else's, "henry quirk" still makes 'the decision' of whether you will live, or, whether, and when, you will die. So, be very, very careful around the one known here as "henry quirk".henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am The lesson: if one wants to preserve his life, don't trade it off by trying to violate the life, liberty, and property of another.
When you said and wrote, something like, you would kill someone for just touching your tooth pick. And, when I questioned and challenged you further you said and wrote that you would even kill your and/or your partner if they did and you had not given them permission to.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 amQuestions: when did toothpicks become your fetish?But if "dubious" or another touched your toothpick, for example, you can then beat them up, or take their liberty, and/or their life, correct?
What we can see here is another example of when one knows, but not necessarily consciously, that they are beginning to Truly fail and falter.
Well, according to you, 'your tooth pick, or tooth picks' were more important than even your called son and/or wife.
Well it has been you saying and claiming that you can 'shoot others dead' defending what you consider and call 'your property'. So, obviously, you have placed more value on what you Falsely and Wrong call 'your property' on the life of other human beings.
Why do you continue to live in 'a world' where some women get attacked and raped?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am Can a woman, as she's attacked by a rapist defend herself?
When you stop using words Falsely and/or Wrongly, like you are here, then you will be much informed of how to understand, my answers, fully. Until then you will continue to keep misinterpreting and/or misunderstanding the actual questions that I am posing, and asking you here to clarify "henry quirk".henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am If the rapist isn't dissuaded by the woman fighting back, is she, in your view, permitted to kill the attacker to stop him?
Does this so-called 'father' own this child?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am If a father comes from work to find his six year old daughter being raped, is his permitted, in your view, to intervene and stop the attack?
Obviously, to you, Yes that person can 'take' the life of another human being, even though you, very contradictory, state that 'that one's' life is their own.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am Is he permitted to kill the rapist to stop the attack?
So, I asked you, first:
Very, very good clarifying question.phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:05 amDoes that make a difference?
Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?
And this another attempt of yours at deflection is not working.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 amOh, you were makin' a serious point.
The actual question asked to you here "henry quirk" was, and still is:
Which has absolutely nothing really to do with this discussion and especially with this question posed, and asked to you.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 am As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation,
Okay.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 am I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot.
That is because we are now waiting for you to provide 'us' with what you claim is a 'legitimate claim'.
'Traded it', laughingly, 'fairly' from who, and for what, exactly?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 am So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.
I do not just wish, I am actually doing it.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 am or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.
Are you not yet aware "vegetariantaxidermy" that you human beings, previously, never actually 'claimed' any part of earth as 'theirs', and just lived life, with earth instead?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:29 amAccording to your profile description you come from Ukraine. Are you a Goth or a Hun? Or perhaps a Greek, who stole it from 'some people' and then the Romans stole it from the Greeks and then the Slavs came along and took possession of it and then something called the 'Kieven Rus' whatever that is, and then the Mongols then the Crimean Khanate then a bunch of others, then the Ottomans, then blah de blah blah.................
Thank you. Some things are just so blatantly plainly obvious, it was not expected that posters in a philosophy forum would need to be informed of nor have to be explained this.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 amAboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:16 amOh, you were makin' a serious point.
Okay...
I didn't steal any land. As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot. To date: no one has stepped up with a claim. So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.
Do you wish to challenge my ownership, or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.
And, you know this how, exactly?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.
1. Who were, supposedly, not 'nomadic', exactly?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am Most of them were nomadic, sitting on a piece of land so long as it met their needs, then, when it ran out of what they wanted, moving on to another place, sometimes at the expense of displacing other tribes, and sometimes just occupying land that was open to them.
Yet they lived in a far more advanced, or civilized, way, than these people did, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am The whole of North America was open, in that sense. What need had they of deeds, titles and land contracts? Where would such even have been recognized? They had few permanent settlements, no central governments, and their technology was so primitive that they didn't have the wheel.
Wow this is an extremely hilarious claim, especially considering 'the group' that 'this one' thinks or believes that it belongs to, and the very things that they have done to displace others, by squatting on lands and forcing and killing of other human beings.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am Why would they have land titles?
So there's no sense in talking as if the land was "theirs," and somebody came and stole it from them. They sustained any "claim" they had to it only by squatting and force;
Here is another example of how these people, back then, in those very olden days, Truly believed that they were more civilized and more advanced than the ones that actually lived in peace and harmony with earth, and with others.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am and they were eventually forced out by a civilization more advanced than their own,
An 'established concept' never ever means nor makes the 'concept', itself, good, Right, nor even remotely true.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am one in which land ownership was an established concept.
And, you, supposedly, know this how, exactly?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am It's sad that they got such a bad end of the stick; but they weren't hesitant, themselves, about taking land from other tribes when they found it advantageous to do so.
And, the whole claim that 'they' were 'taking lands', from others, is absolute nonsense as well.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am So the whole critique that you "owe your land back to the Indians" is nonsense.
But there is no 'moral' claim to 'land/earth', itself.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 amIn the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 amAboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.
When did 'I' ever say, 'you are a thief', "henry quirk"?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 am I'm told, age, I'm a thief becuz my plot was, at some point, stolen (no doubt multiple times) from others.
And, you can believe this till the day you so-call 'die' "henry quirk". But it will never actually help you.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 am I contend I am not a thief and my plot was traded for fairly.
Okay.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 am And, as I say, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate *challenge to my ownership of my plot.
To date: you have shown your complete inability to even just recognize any thing, other than, of course, what you 'currently' believe is absolutely true, right, and correct.
What 'the take' is from 'this' here is; "henry quirk" has made 'a claim' on a parcel of earth, which if absolutely anyone treads, and "henry quirk" so relatively chooses to, you will be shot dead. Even though it was previously claimed by said 'killer/murder', 'you, previously, had an absolute moral claim to your, as it was, 'yours alone'.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 am The onus is on age (and phyllo, if he's in on this mess).
*a moral challenge
Thank you.Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:38 am there were hundreds of tribes with their own languages and tribal laws, understanding, lands, farming and hunting grounds
not all were nomadic
to claim all "Indians" did this or lived uniformly is an illustration of ignorance
-Imp
Yes, some of these adult human beings, back then, really were infatuate with guns, weapons, and violence towards each other.promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:11 am Do watch The Killers of Flower Moon if u can. Great fuckin movie. So a big oil reserve is struck on federally protected Osage land so they get all the money, etc. Then the white man moves in and conspires to marry into the Osage families to get rights to the fortune... then sets'ta killin off all the goddamn injuns one by one assassination style. DiCaprio and De Niro are in it.
Talk about be 'deceived' and 'tricked' and 'fooled' into some thing, which was never even been discussed, let alone debated, anyway.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:51 amWell, fair enough...but you can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be. As you say, you can't be made responsible how many people did what to whom on that patch of ground; they may not have done anything bad at all, and even if they did, what's that got to do with you?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:17 amIn the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 amAboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.
This one seems to never tire of judging, nor of being 'condescending' of, others. But, this is just the result of being raised up a so-called "christian", and having being 'deceived' that it was okay and all right for 'us' to 'take' from others, because 'they' were not as civilized and/nor as advanced as 'we' are.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:55 amI wouldn't say so. It's just butting heads over resources, really. The idea of owning a particular patch of dirt, especially one that had no resources they wanted on it, never seems to have occurred to them; nor does the idea that the other tribe "owned" the land on which they were taking over. It seems to have been all about getting for the tribe what the tribe needs right now...and there was no formality for the exchange of territory.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:26 amDoesn't that qualify as having a concept of land ownership?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:47 am
Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership. What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.
Heck, they didn't even have maps. They didn't have surveyors, or geographers, or deeds and titles, or even a sense of how much of the stuff was "out there." They were pretty darn primitive.
But 'they' did not even have the Truly absurd 'concept', 'land that we are presently using', at all.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:55 am How could they claim any particular piece of land when they had no concept of land except what they were presently using?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:08 amTrappers and such often trekked out into the territories and wintered in unclaimed (as far as they knew) areas. They'd build rough shelters -- far more substantial than lean-to's -- where they'd hunker down for winter's worst. No one authorized their use of the land or trees or game. And, across years, these same trappers would habitually use the same hunker-down camps again and again.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:51 amyou can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be.
I'd say these folks had a moral claim to those camps. In the same way all nomadic peoples, as they trudged back and forth over the same areas, year after year, had a claim to those familiar areas.
My point is: even though all these nomads had, to my mind, legit moral claims, none of those claims has diddly to do with someone living and using some part of that land today, even if the land was ultimately stolen from them.
Yes, how much empathy you really have is shining through very brightly here.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:08 am Their beef, or the beef of their ancestors, lies with the original thieves or their ancestors.
So, even if 'an uprising', for example, comes to be and so-called 'steals' 'that plot' back, or again, which you say and claim here 'you own', and then is 'fairly transacted' to another, then this other received 'that plot' legitimately or blamelessly, correct?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:08 am Someone who fairly transacted for a plot today -- even if that plot was stolen from a former moral claimant -- is blameless.
And, as I just pointed out and showed, the new so-called 'owner' did not steal it either.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:08 am As I say: I didn't steal my plot, even if it has been stolen multiple times in the past.
It is because the ones who insist this here would, literally, be going out and doing Wrong and/or bad things if they had not been instructed by God,Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:26 amPharmaceutical companies for one thing. But also many others. Whereas I despise most corporations as crooks, it doesn't follow that the ones who profited most were responsible for the outbreak. In short, those who did well doesn't tell you who or what caused it. There are always those who do well in a crisis.I must be an absolutely horrid person because in a more or less kind of fashion, your right. Does that mean that I'm not shocked by the things that were going on in whatever time and place you care to mention? History provides endless examples that if there were an absolute moral claim as you insist, that claim is absolutely without effect, hardly a consideration in its prescriptions and proscriptions or what morality in all its contexts determines as moral.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmYours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response. You believe morality is just a social/communal construct. You say morality is just individual or collective opinion. Slavery, or any other atrocity, to you, can only be judged thru the lens of time and place. For you, there is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.Mostly classified as immoral, murder, rape, and theft are the least condoned, being inherently inimical to the order of most advanced societies. Without question, slavery, by comparison, has always been of great economic value. Any study on the history of economics cannot avoid the subject of slavery in having subsisted so long and still active in various ways without naming it as such.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmIt's plain. You see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as an evidence of morality's subjectiveness. I see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as the violations of individuals' absolute moral claims to their lives, liberties, and properties....certainly not a determinist! Why is it that theists, even deists, so often insist that a non-belief in god (for very good reason) makes a person bad, somehow defunct in righteousness and good will, a moral cripple? I never could figure out such a perverse, illogical attitude!henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmDid I misjudge you? I was certain you were an atheist, a materialist, a determinist. Those categories are almost always part & parcel to the moral subjectivism you espouse.
Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:26 am Personally, I believe that the morality of a person who strives to do good, who filters his impulses based on conscience, is superior to one who must be told by scriptural mandate how one must behave or in how good and evil is to be judged.
The same goes for being a materialist, since the underpinnings of our collective spiritual experiences begin in the material. Where do you think they derive from? For me, the process by which the advancement happens amounts to a reification of a far greater mystery which nature itself is responsible for. God conceptions are its most common derivative among an abundance of experiences which don't require any god to initialize a sense of the sacred.As mentioned, whatever we are or become begins in the physical.Whether it is or not in principle, its immutability has been consistently and successfully challenged throughout the ages. Morality, in practice, has been as much subject to expediency as any of its definitions of right and wrong.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmBut: natural rights (the absolute moral claim a person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property) is/are immutable.Nicely put! An ideal, or its understanding, can be fixed forever in its purity which is more of a philosophic prototype than any practiced in just about all societies that never considered themselves immoral by enslaving others. I don't recall any civilization in which hierarchies were absent.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmMan, any man, every man, anywhere or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property.
Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.
What you describe seems to be more of an instinct that one's existence in its separation from all others belongs wholly to itself which has never been acceptable to a collective and its decision-making apparatus; at best it allows a sense of freedom in self-ownership but only within defined limits which each society based on time and place decides for itself.
What you've provided is a theme the variations of which may end up very different from each other, especially the one which started the sequence, each variation inflecting the prior one. I think of it as typecasting a supposed immutability into a different version of itself which escapes the center of self by merging into the circumference of a collective.
The upshot is you may in principle claim an inviolable intrinsic right to self ownership, etc., but in practice it never materialized in any period from ancient to modern...except to say that in recent times, primarily in the West, the circumference has once again, gradually shifted a little closer to its center from previous times.
It becomes questionable if that trend doesn't reverse itself, especially with a dictator loving Donald Trump managing a second term. It doesn't bode well for the country, its people or the planet having a President who admires the Putin and Kim Jong Un types while disparaging people like John McCain as losers! All the rights which accrue to them invariably get subtracted from those they rule. Except for the most extreme cases, many seem to have no objection to such an outcome.
History is the greatest crime story ever told proclaiming its moral defects from the first moment that history was written not least in its sacred texts, the bible itself being an outstanding example when god decides on a Chosen People as if it had no part in the unchosen ones! Such a scenario doesn't even amount to a gross perversion of morality; it amounts to farce. For a human to adequately justify such a god requires more brains than god itself actually possessed.
I don't deny that land has been stolen, conquered, traded hands.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:29 amAccording to your profile description you come from Ukraine. Are you a Goth or a Hun? Or perhaps a Greek, who stole it from 'some people' and then the Romans stole it from the Greeks and then the Slavs came along and took possession of it and then something called the 'Kieven Rus' whatever that is, and then the Mongols then the Crimean Khanate then a bunch of others, then the Ottomans, then blah de blah blah.................
So he thinks that the Indians shouldn't get their land back but he also seems to think that the Jews should get all their land in Palestine back. Apparently that's not nonsense.So the whole critique that you "owe your land back to the Indians" is nonsense.
https://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-tells- ... 12100.htmlBenjamin Netanyahu has said he told the US he opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, declaring that Israel must be “capable of saying no to our friends”.
In a televised broadcast on Thursday, the Israeli prime minister said he had rejected Joe Biden’s call for a two-state solution in the region, adding that Tel Aviv must have “security control” on all territory west of the Jordan river.
His remarks appeared to knock back plans to tie Palestinian statehood to a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, which would be brokered by the United States.
Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, told Mr Netanyahu on a visit to Israel last week that the US hoped to see a pathway to an internationally-recognised Palestinian state.
The message was repeated by Jake Sullivan, Mr Biden’s national security adviser, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.
However, in his address, Mr Netanyahu rejected the idea and suggested he would stand up to the US’s plans for the region, despite Washington’s backing for Israel since Hamas’s terror attacks on Oct 7 last year.
“In any future arrangement… Israel needs security control of all territory west of the Jordan,” he said. “This collides with the idea of sovereignty. What can you do?”
He added: “The prime minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends.”