Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 1:34 am

There is no contradiction.

Will you allow me to demonstrate this

Please do.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:01 am or is your mind closed?

I do not have 'a mind'. And, it is an impossibility for you human beings to have 'a mind' as well.

But, anyway, please demonstrate how in 'your view' you can take another's life, liberty, or property is not in contradiction of 'your view' that everyone has an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to their own, and to noone else's, life, liberty, nor property.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:25 amPlease do.

Thank you.

Please, read this...

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

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

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

Having read the above, please, answer this...

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

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:25 amPlease do.

Thank you.

Please, read this...

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

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

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

Having read the above, please, answer this...

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

Obviously, you keep trying to deflect here because you cannot refute my claim that you are contradicting "your" own 'self' and that you will have to, here

you asked/demanded I so-call 'pony up' what I was saying and claiming about what you said and claimed and how it was hypocritical, which I did do, but when I did that you still want to attempt to deflect and deceive here.

'your solution' of shooting human beings to 'try to' 'enforce' one's own 'natural right' besides being beyond the absurd and the ridiculous is, obviously, just plain old contradictory and hypocritical.

It's 'versus' little man. Google is your friend.

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.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:41 am 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 have, already, shown how, where, when, and why "henry quirk" has been and still is contradicting "its" 'self', here.

Which was just what I intended to do, here.

"henry quirk" challenged me to 'pony up' what I said and claimed it said and claimed, and I have already done this. So, there is nothing more for me to do here.

If, however, "henry quirk" wants to go off on some other tangent, then I will let it be so.

But, if "henry quirk" wants to believe that it is not contradicting "itself" here, and believes that it can show how it is not, then I just wait.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:41 am 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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:30 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:41 am 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.

Why are you even bothering to try with age for this long?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:30 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:41 am 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.

If you are, supposedly, quite willing to demonstrate there is no contradiction, then why do you not just do it?

I have, already, shown there is a contradiction. So, why have you not yet shown that there is, supposedly, no contradiction?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:49 amWhy are you even bothering to try with age for this long?

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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:05 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:49 amWhy are you even bothering to try with age for this long?

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

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:05 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:49 amWhy are you even bothering to try with age for this long?

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.

LOL This one actually 'believes', absolutely, that by taking one's life, liberty , or property does not contradict that that same one had a natural right to life, liberty, and property.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:07 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:05 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:49 amWhy are you even bothering to try with age for this long?

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".

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:04 am

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

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:07 am He's out of his mind

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