Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:27 pm If the IUD fits...

More from your experience?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:27 pm If the IUD fits...

More from your experience?

As a lesbian: I have no need for such things.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:35 pm

citation: let's have it

WHY is 'this' the ONLY 'thing' you CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION me OVER, and ABOUT?

WHY do you NOT QUESTION NOR CHALLENGE me OVER my CLAIM that animals, like chickens, ACTUALLY DO HAVE 'feelings'?

Or, QUESTION or CHALLENGE me OVER how you ACTUALLY DO anthropomorphize and personalize 'things' "yourself" like, LAUGHABLY, God, Itself?

So, no citation, Smeagol?

Of course not.

There ain't nuthin' to cite.

You. Are. Dismissed.

LOL I AM NOT GOING BACK THROUGH ALL OF YOUR POSTS TO LOOK FOR 'it'.

Now if you want to CLAIM that you did NOT SAY what I SAID and CLAIMED you did, then by ALL MEANS feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to PROVIDE the citation of what you ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE.

Or, ARE you OF COURSE, ALSO, going to provide NO citation?

We shall have to WAIT, to SEE.

Now, OF COURSE, there IS SOME 'thing' to cite. We shall just HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE if you DO, or NOT.

And, by the way, WILL you BE DISMISSED if you do NOT cite? Or, is 'it' DIFFERENT, THEN?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:45 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 3:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 1:49 pm A full set of what? And for what purpose would this set be needed or wanted to "have"?

Of sheer lunatics. What kinda question is that Gary?

I was just trying to find out if he thinks war is "glorious" also. Can't trust everyone on the Internet.

Me? Lord no. War may be inevitable, but it's only gorious.
see what I did there?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:45 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 3:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 1:49 pm A full set of what? And for what purpose would this set be needed or wanted to "have"?

Of sheer lunatics. What kinda question is that Gary?

I was just trying to find out if he thinks war is "glorious" also. Can't trust everyone on the Internet.

ANY time ANY one gets SHOT DEAD, which "henry quirk" BELIEVES they SHOULD BE, like, for example, when absolutely ANY one just 'touches' ANY one of "henry quirk's" toothpicks, "henry quirk" thinks 'this' would be GLORIOUS. So, OF COURSE, "henry quirk" thinks WARRING and KILLING IS GLORIOUS, ALSO.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:51 pmLOL I AM NOT GOING BACK THROUGH ALL OF YOUR POSTS TO LOOK FOR 'it'.

Cuz it ain't there.

Now if you want to CLAIM that you did NOT SAY what I SAID and CLAIMED you did, then by ALL MEANS feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to PROVIDE the citation of what you ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE.

Er, it's innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent, Smeagol. Burden of proof is on you.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:45 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 3:39 pm
Of sheer lunatics. What kinda question is that Gary?

I was just trying to find out if he thinks war is "glorious" also. Can't trust everyone on the Internet.

ANY time ANY one gets SHOT DEAD, which "henry quirk" BELIEVES they SHOULD BE, like, for example, when absolutely ANY one just 'touches' ANY one of "henry quirk's" toothpicks, "henry quirk" thinks 'this' would be GLORIOUS. So, OF COURSE, "henry quirk" thinks WARRING and KILLING IS GLORIOUS, ALSO.

citation?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:51 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:45 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 3:39 pm
Of sheer lunatics. What kinda question is that Gary?

I was just trying to find out if he thinks war is "glorious" also. Can't trust everyone on the Internet.

Me? Lord no. War may be inevitable, but it's only gorious.
see what I did there?

So, KILLING human beings DEAD just because they walk into a building, which you LAUGHABLY call 'yours', OR SHOOTING DEAD A human being who just 'touches' A so-called 'your toothpick' is PERFECTLY FINE and REASONABLE, to you, but although 'wars', to you which ARE ALSO, LAUGHABLY, 'inevitable', you do NOT see wars as being GLORIOUS, WHY IS 'this' "henry quirk"?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:51 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:45 pm

I was just trying to find out if he thinks war is "glorious" also. Can't trust everyone on the Internet.

Me? Lord no. War may be inevitable, but it's only gorious.
see what I did there?

So, KILLING human beings DEAD just because they walk into a building, which you LAUGHABLY call 'yours', OR SHOOTING DEAD A human being who just 'touches' A so-called 'your toothpick' is PERFECTLY FINE and REASONABLE, to you, but although 'wars', to you which ARE ALSO, LAUGHABLY, 'inevitable', you do NOT see wars as being GLORIOUS, WHY IS 'this' "henry quirk"?

citation?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:51 pmLOL I AM NOT GOING BACK THROUGH ALL OF YOUR POSTS TO LOOK FOR 'it'.

Cuz it ain't there.

Okay, if 'this' is what you SAY and BELIEVE, then 'this' MUST BE ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Accurate, correct "henry quirk"?

AND, if 'this' is NOT 'there', then WHAT IS 'there'?

What DID you SAY, instead?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:55 pm

Now if you want to CLAIM that you did NOT SAY what I SAID and CLAIMED you did, then by ALL MEANS feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to PROVIDE the citation of what you ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE.

Er, it's innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent, Smeagol. Burden of proof is on you.

AND, you WILL BE PROVED GUILTY, WHEN one goes BACK OVER ALL of YOUR posts and FINDS 'it'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 5:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:51 pm

Me? Lord no. War may be inevitable, but it's only gorious.
see what I did there?

So, KILLING human beings DEAD just because they walk into a building, which you LAUGHABLY call 'yours', OR SHOOTING DEAD A human being who just 'touches' A so-called 'your toothpick' is PERFECTLY FINE and REASONABLE, to you, but although 'wars', to you which ARE ALSO, LAUGHABLY, 'inevitable', you do NOT see wars as being GLORIOUS, WHY IS 'this' "henry quirk"?

citation?

AGAIN, the ONLY 'thing' you INTERACT WITH me ON is when I bring 'this' UP, ON PURPOSE by the way.

WHY, for example, do you NOT EXPLAIN to the readers here WHY you do NOT find war GLORIOUS?

WILL you BE DISMISSED if you do NOT cite?

I will not.

Please, Mighty Crom on your lonely mountain, make it so Smeagol swims deep in the fires of Mordor. Free me from its vile, eye-bleedin', attentions.

Let it dismiss me, Crom.

But Age, you're not supposed to break into people's houses and steal their toothpicks. Civilized nations have established this most basic law, the right to private property, and everyone generally agrees that it's a good law.

Furthermore, along with that law, in some cases, the right to defend one's property with dead lee force is also appropriate and legal.

Do u agree, therefore, that Henry's thesis that the shooting of the toothpick burglar was reasonable and justified, is right?

AND, you WILL BE PROVED GUILTY, WHEN one goes BACK OVER ALL of YOUR posts and FINDS 'it'.

Do it, Smeagol: shit or get offa the pot.

And the reason why the dead lee force law is so good is that prosecutors can't play the 'if necessary' card in the statute; use of dead lee force if necessary, etc.

They can't be like well the burglar didn't have a weapon and didn't assault the resident yada yada.

Nah man... we don't split hairs here. A muhfucka comes in the house for whatever reason the fool gets blasted. I'm not tryna make coffee and interview him to determine the proper course of action such that both parties benefit as much as possible from the outcome. He could be naked, in a wheel chair and getting a cheese burger from the frig and imma still smoke em.

The resident has the absolute right to use dead lee force if only becuz trying purposely not to kill and only wound is a risk that the resident is not obligated to take. Intruder could still be armed even if i shoot em in the leg etc.