"age" verses "quirk"

[henry quirk]

Are we having a conversation?

[henry quirk]

Are we having a conversation?

Only if you respond to the questions I ask you, to what I challenge you on, to where I have pointed out your Wrong and/ False claims, and/to what I say and write here.

Well, let's look at your terms.

We'll have a conversation only if...

I respond to your questions. I always do. You just don't like my answers.

I respond to your challenges. I always do. You just don't like my responses.

I respond or accept to where you've pointed out I'm wrong or have made a false claim. You never have accurately pointed out where I'm wrong or have made false claims. You assert constantly, rarely offer evidence (and when you do, the evidence never proves what you think it does). If you actually did prove me wrong, I'd admit you had.

I answer or respond to what you say and write here (here being where? In this thread or other threads. I tell you plainly, I'll only converse with you here, in this thread).

So: are we having a conversation?

[Age]

Are we having a conversation?

Only if you respond to the questions I ask you, to what I challenge you on, to where I have pointed out your Wrong and/ False claims, and/to what I say and write here.

Well, let's look at your terms.

We'll have a conversation only if...

I respond to your questions. I always do. You just don't like my answers.

Do you, really, believe this?

I respond to your challenges. I always do. You just don't like my responses.

I respond or accept to where you've pointed out I'm wrong or have made a false claim. You never have accurately pointed out where I'm wrong or have made false claims. You assert constantly, rarely offer evidence (and when you do, the evidence never proves what you think it does). If you actually did prove me wrong, I'd admit you had.

I answer or respond to what you say and write here (here being where? In this thread or other threads. I tell you plainly, I'll only converse with you here, in this thread).

So: are we having a conversation?

That obviously depends.

Are you or are you not contradicting your claim that everyone has a natural right to life when you shoot someone 'dead' for just touching what you claim is 'your property'?

And, let us look at your terms.

We'll have a conversation only if...

We converse here, in this thread.

So, why will you only converse with me in this one thread only?

Also, and by the way, you have, once again, made absolutely False claims in this post if yours here.

Also, you saying that you will only converse with me in this thread only allows you to make further False and Wrong claims in other threads, which you not address them there after I point out a d show where you are Falsely and/or Wrongly speaking.

Let us not forget that you are being contradictory, hypocritical, and inconsistent in other threads, of which you also will not address them when I point them out there as well.

[henry quirk]

Are you or are you not contradicting your claim that everyone has a natural right to life when you shoot someone 'dead' for just touching what you claim is 'your property'?

I never said I would shoot someone dead if they just touched my property.

Here it again: the quote, in context...

Here they are, the relevant posts...

The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

the American Revolution?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

this one's easy: in defense of self or another

Many would say that preventing harm to another may be a justified use of force. Yet I doubt there’s been a war to prevent a person from murdering another person. War is not merely a specific case of violence, it’s a special, and perhaps unique, case of violence.

But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?

This is a dissertation. I am a consequentialist, which makes ethics both relevant and challenging.

I think a situation of personal defense is clear. Someone stealing my TV? Probably not. However, stealing a TV is different from "terrorism" (i.e. looters are as much terrorists as thieves).

Of course, as violence goes exponential it gets more difficult to understand consequences. Hence, situations of a "just war" would be very rare.

Someone stealing my TV? Probably not.

the hell you say!

I value my tv more than I value the thief's life (and, apparently, so does the thief)

So true.

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

I also asked about your wife as well, would you shoot her if you caught her stealing your tv, or your toothpick?

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property. But to you that is NO concern at all, correct? Because to you 'that wife' and 'that child' are YOUR property, and you can do whatever you like with YOUR property, correct?

Also, along with your type of thinking comes the BELIEF that NO can tell you what you can do with YOUR property NOR deprive you of YOUR property also, am I right?

If yes, then this would include NO human being is allowed to protect YOUR property from being pissed or from being abused by you. Because you BELIEVE you have the right to YOUR property, true?

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post, if you're willin' to tease 'em out...I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...been there, done that: no fun


By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post,

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

if you're willin' to tease 'em out...

There is NOT a human being that could FIND nor TEASE OUT from your, so called, "answers", nor replies, answers to the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I posed to you about YOUR 'wife'.

This is, of course I am PROVEN otherwise.

You OBVIOUSLY could NOT prove otherwise, so let us SEE if ANY other human being can and will PROVE me WRONG here, okay?

I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...

You would NOT HAVE TO, IF you just answered the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I ask you.

been there, done that: no fun

This is just an attempt at PURE DISTRACTION from the fact that if you did answer my ACTUAL clarifying questions, OPENLY and Honestly, then what would be CLEARLY SEEN is that would be consistently CONTRADICTING what you have previous stated.

So, to be CLEAR you would have NO hesitation shooting your wife, because she took YOUR television, from 'you', correct?

Your DISMISSIVENESS of answering this actual clarifying question posed to you speaks volumes, and says more about 'you' than you could have imagined.

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...

And, where, and when, 'you' are from, children grow up BELIEVING that depriving "others" of their life, their liberty, and their property can be JUSTIFIED. Just like 'you' do.

See, because of where you came from, you are NOT YET AWARE of your ONE WAY and ONE SIDED view of things here. You have been so badly ABUSED that you actually now, when this is being written, BELIEVE that you have the right to ABUSE "others". As evidenced above in YOUR OWN writings.

the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

And 'shoot 'em dead', is your motto, if they try to, correct?

The way you actually speak in this forum is encouraging people to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of "others", just as 'you' do.

But, at the moment, you can NOT see this, as you are too BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

I have been using our past discussions to slowly HIGHLIGHT, SHOW, and REVEAL this fact, which more and more are starting to SEE, and realize.

If the only way you can stop those who kill and destroy things is to kill and destroy things, you've become the same as the invaders

if one, or many, come to kill & destroy, absolutely I have no problem tryin' to to kill them & destroy their stuff first

Yes we KNOW that 'you' have absolutely NO problem at all in killing or trying to to kill "other" human beings.

You have consistently said this and have made this PERFECTLY CLEAR.

What you have YET to make PERFECTLY CLEAR is if you have absolutely NO problem at all at killing 'YOUR' wife for doing the EXACT SAME thing "another" human being would? That is; taking 'YOUR' television, or spatula, for example?

YOUR 'distractions' do NOT work on me.

Is war the only way a government can be overthrown?

of course not: subversion, cultural shift, citizen ennui, can take a nation or gov down as well


I don't see how local thugs who want harm me are better than foreign ones.

obviously

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age

Now here's your task, age...

Make sense of it all.

Use this...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

...as your handy-dandy Lil Orphan Annie decoder ring.

I have faith in you, age.

So, why will you only converse with me in this one thread only?

Frankly I think you're a plague on the forum. I'll keep our conversation here so as to avoid polluting the forum as a whole with your peculiarities.

Also, and by the way, you have, once again, made absolutely False claims in this post if yours here.

State them.

which you not address them

I'll address any claim you wanna make here, and only here.

Let us not forget that you are being contradictory, hypocritical, and inconsistent in other threads, of which you also will not address them when I point them out there as well.

Bring your claims and citations here and I'll address them.

[Age]

Are you or are you not contradicting your claim that everyone has a natural right to life when you shoot someone 'dead' for just touching what you claim is 'your property'?

I never said I would shoot someone dead if they just touched my property.

So, you have said that you would shoot human beings, if they try to touch 'your, so-called, property', but 'now' claim that you did not say that you would shoot them 'dead'. Which is perfectly fine.

However, that you could tell if they would 'die', or not, when you 'shoot them', just because they were going to touch your toothpick or mouldy bread for example, you have no actual idea of.

[Age]

Use this...

You have an absolute moral claim, a natural right, to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

...as your handy-dandy Lil Orphan Annie decoder ring.

I have faith in you, age.

Yes, it is exactly you saying this, and that you would then say that you would also take the life, liberty, and property of another, is the very reason why I say and claim you are being contradictory and hypocritical "henry quirk".

And, that absolutely everyone else here can clearly see that you are proves my claim.

That you would want to try to act ignorant is not helping you at all here.

So, why will you only converse with me in this one thread only?

Frankly I think you're a plague on the forum. I'll keep our conversation here so as to avoid polluting the forum as a whole with your peculiarities.

But, you do not pollute this forum with your peculiarities, about you believing that you take the lives, liberties, and properties of others, with your weapons, correct?

Also, and by the way, you have, once again, made absolutely False claims in this post if yours here.

State them.

If you asked me to, then I would have already.

But, you telling me to will not work.

Remember, 'I' am not your slave here "henry quirk".

which you not address them

I'll address any claim you wanna make here, and only here.

So, what happens is dependent upon 'your terms', right?

Does this make you feel more powerful or more superior?

Let us not forget that you are being contradictory, hypocritical, and inconsistent in other threads, of which you also will not address them when I point them out there as well.

Bring your claims and citations here and I'll address them.

This is a new way to try to deflect.

Why do you not make your claims here?

What about if you want to claim absolutely any thing is true, then, if bring it/them to this thread, then I will address it/them. Do you want it to be this way?

[henry quirk]

So, what, exactly, is "age", to you "henry quirk"?

A nutjob. A crazy person. A loon. And: a plague on the forum.

[henry quirk]

So, you have said that you would shoot human beings, if they try to touch 'your, so-called, property', but 'now' claim that you did not say that you would shoot them 'dead'. Which is perfectly fine.

Again, the quote...

I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Make off with is not the same as touch.

To make off with is to steal.

Also: there's a context, my home (the place where I keep my stuff, where I lay my head down, where I relax).

Hyperbole aside, t he meaning of the quote is clear to anyone who isn't you: if someone breaks into Henry's home, he will defend himself, his family, and their collected properties.

[henry quirk]

But, you do not pollute this forum with your peculiarities, about you believing that you take the lives, liberties, and properties of others, with your weapons, correct?

No, I don't pollute the forum. Mine is only voice in-forum who insists overtly man has a moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, and, that self-defense/defense of the other is permissible when someone tries to violate (thru murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud) that moral claim. You fixate on one means of defense and ignore (or just don't understand) what undergirds that defense.

Remember, 'I' am not your slave here "henry quirk".

And I'm not yours.

So, what happens is dependent upon 'your terms', right?

My only terms is that this conversation happens here, and only here, in this thread.

Your list of terms is far more extensive than mine.

Does this make you feel more powerful or more superior?

Does your list of terms make you feel powerful and superior? Probably not. Me neither.

Why do you not make your claims here?

One: I don't know which claims of mine you want to challenge.

Two: those claims are in the context of conversations I'm having with other folks. I'm certainly not going to replicate every response from every conversation here.

What about if you want to claim absolutely any thing is true, then, if bring it/them to this thread, then I will address it/them. Do you want it to be this way?

Again: those claims are in the context of conversations I'm having with other folks. I'm certainly not going to replicate evety response from every conversation here.

If you object to a claim, you bring it here and I'll address your objection.

[Age]

So, you have said that you would shoot human beings, if they try to touch 'your, so-called, property', but 'now' claim that you did not say that you would shoot them 'dead'. Which is perfectly fine.

Again, the quote...

I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

Make off with is not the same as touch.

you said, 'tries to'.

'Tries to make off with', means that they do not even 'have to' 'touch' 'it'. Once more, you only have to 'assume' that someone is going to 'steal' what you say and believe is 'your property', a toothpick or a mouldy piece of bread for example, for 'you' to "justify" to "yourself" that you 'now' have 'a right' to shoot a human being, 'dead' or not, you do not know, (but if one uses a shotgun, and especially one who also believes that they are a 'good shot', then the intended outcome is more possible).

So, 'tries to' make off with, means that one does not even have to touch any thing. And, the fact that you also admitted that you would shoot someone for just stepping on, 'touching', 'your property' anyway, confirms and reaffirms what I have been saying and claiming here.

To make off with is to steal.

Are you now trying to, laughingly, claim that you would 'wait', before you shoot?

Also: there's a context, my home (the place where I keep my stuff, where I lay my head down, where I relax).

But, I have already gone through 'that context', with you, I explained how those walls and roof is built on 'stolen land' anyway. Which is obviously someone else's 'home'. But, because you are so blind and deaf here, because of your 'current' beliefs and presumptions, you are not able to 'see' and 'hear' this irrefutable Truth, as well.

Hyperbole aside, t he meaning of the quote is clear to anyone who isn't you: if someone breaks into Henry's home, he will defend himself, his family, and their collected properties.

But, what you meant in the quote is plainly obvious.

If you believe shooting a human being, who dies, or not, just because they 'tried to make off with' a toothpick or mouldy piece of bread, is 'you' 'defending' "your" 'self', then you are even more delusional that I had previously recognised and noticed.

And, what happens if someone just 'walks' into 'that home', without 'breaking' into, you will 'try to' defend "yourself" also, right?

Also, what happens if 'your family' 'tries to make off with' 'your property, will you shoot them also?

[Age]

But, you do not pollute this forum with your peculiarities, about you believing that you take the lives, liberties, and properties of others, with your weapons, correct?

No, I don't pollute the forum.

This is hilarious, and another prime example of the usual perception of the adult human being, in the days when this is being written; It is 'the other', and not 'me', whenever it is perceived wrong doing is being done.

Mine is only voice in-forum who insists overtly man has a moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property,

Once again, this one speaks as though and seemingly considers that, "men" are above or apart from "women" and "children".

and, that self-defense/defense of the other is permissible when someone tries to violate (thru murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud) that moral claim.

It is great to see that you are, although ever so slowly, 'trying to' change your views here. It is taking some time, but 'we' might be getting there. But 'we' have to wait to see.

Now, is so-called 'self-defence' permissible, by shooting another human being, if the other 'tries to steal a toothpick or mouldy piece of bread for example, or not?

You fixate on one means of defense and ignore (or just don't understand) what undergirds that defense.

This is one very wildly outrageous claim.

you speak, relatively, often about using your weapons on other human beings, so I focus on this.

Remember, 'I' am not your slave here "henry quirk".

And I'm not yours.

I never hinted nor implied you were in anyway whatsoever. you 'telling' me to do things implies, exactly, that 'I' am 'your' slave. Although you obviously could not be more Wrong.

So, what happens is dependent upon 'your terms', right?

My only terms is that this conversation happens here, and only here, in this thread.

Which is another sign of just how Truly weak and scared you really are "henry quirk"

Your list of terms is far more extensive than mine.

But mine are a necessity for a Truly open and honest conversation to take, that is if the actual Truth of things is to come-to-light and/or be resolved.

Does this make you feel more powerful or more superior?

Does your list of terms make you feel powerful and superior? Probably not. Me neither.

Why do you not make your claims here?

One: I don't know which claims of mine you want to challenge.

I am talking about absolutely every claim you make out is true

Also you do not know which claims because they are in the other threads. Which you obviously do not want to talk about. This, why you insist that any 'conversation' happens in this one and only thread, here.

Two: those claims are in the context of conversations I'm having with other folks. I'm certainly not going to replicate every response from every conversation here.

Which 'allows' you to make False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect claims in other threads, without ever having to respond to absolutely any thing i say about them, there.

Considering that this is a 'philosophy forum' making claims, and then not responding to the challenges or questions about your claims', where you say or write them, is showing just how weak and scared a human being you really are.

What about if you want to claim absolutely any thing is true, then, if bring it/them to this thread, then I will address it/them. Do you want it to be this way?

Again: those claims are in the context of conversations I'm having with other folks. I'm certainly not going to replicate evety response from every conversation here.

Why are you trying to deflect and detract here?

I never mentioned absolutely any thing about 'responses'. I talked about the claims that you make as being true, only

If you object to a claim, you bring it here and I'll address your objection.

So, once again, you are too scared and afraid for me to show where, when, what, how, and/or why you are Wrong and/or Incorrect in front of the others that you are disagreeing with.

[henry quirk]

'Tries to make off with', means that they do not even 'have to' 'touch' 'it'.

Or: it can mean he has it in his grubby hands and is tryin' to leave the house.

Once more, you only have to 'assume' that someone is going to 'steal' what you say and believe is 'your property', a toothpick or a mouldy piece of bread for example, for 'you' to "justify" to "yourself" that you 'now' have 'a right' to shoot a human being,

There's no assuming when someone comes into your home without invitation or permission, takes your property without invitation or permission, and then leaves. It's called theft (burglary).

you also admitted that you would shoot someone for just stepping on, 'touching', 'your property'

Nope. Shouid I post the quotes again?

Are you now trying to, laughingly, claim that you would 'wait', before you shoot?

I explained how those walls and roof is built on 'stolen land' anyway. Which is obviously someone else's 'home'.

Please, bring forth the unlucky soul who I am depriving of property, the true owner of my home & land, and he and me will work it out.

what you meant in the quote is plainly obvious

Yes: if someone breaks into Henry's home, he will defend himself, his family, and their collected properties.

you are even more delusional that I had previously recognised and noticed.

And you are exactly as delusional as you've always been.

And, what happens if someone just 'walks' into 'that home', without 'breaking' into, you will 'try to' defend "yourself" also, right?

Being the paranoid type, I keep my doors locked. To enter someone has to knock and be invited in, or they have to break in.

Also, what happens if 'your family' 'tries to make off with' 'your property, will you shoot them also?

Which family? Cousins? Siblings? It makes a difference in my answer.

[henry quirk]

Now, is so-called 'self-defence' permissible, by shooting another human being, if the other 'tries to steal a toothpick or mouldy piece of bread for example, or not?

Ah, you recognized and acknowledged it's theft instead of just a casual, innocent touch. It's wonderful to see that you're, ever so slowly, tryin' to change your views.

This is one very wildly outrageous claim.

It's completely accurate.

you speak, relatively, often about using your weapons on other human beings

How often is that? Once a week? A month? A year?

you 'telling' me to do things implies, exactly, that 'I' am 'your' slave.

Oh, I'm so very, very sorry! Please, forgive me...

mine are a necessity for a Truly open and honest conversation to take, that is if the actual Truth of things is to come-to-light and/or be resolved.

No. Yours are the product of a diseased, neurotic, mind.

I am talking about absolutely every claim you make out is true

Since all of my posts are assertions of one kind or another -- claims -- you want me to replicate them all here for you.

[Age]

'Tries to make off with', means that they do not even 'have to' 'touch' 'it'.

Or: it can mean he has it in his grubby hands and is tryin' to leave the house.

So, if "he", or "she", is holding what you call 'your toothpick' or 'your mouldy piece of bread', and they are trying to leave, then you can just shoot them, right?

Once more, you only have to 'assume' that someone is going to 'steal' what you say and believe is 'your property', a toothpick or a mouldy piece of bread for example, for 'you' to "justify" to "yourself" that you 'now' have 'a right' to shoot a human being,

There's no assuming when someone comes into your home without invitation or permission, takes your property without invitation or permission, and then leaves. It's called theft (burglary).

So, are you 'now' saying and claiming that you would wait?

Also, why is a human being's life have less significance to you than a toothpick or a mouldy piece of bread? Or, are those things only hold more significance to, you, over a human life when you believe things are 'yours'?

you also admitted that you would shoot someone for just stepping on, 'touching', 'your property'

Nope. Shouid I post the quotes again?

So, are you 'now' saying and claiming that if you awoken, for example, by someone who had already stepped into what you call 'your house', then you would just wait to see what they will do, and only after they have picked some thing up and was then trying to leave, then, and only then, you would shoot them?

Are you now trying to, laughingly, claim that you would 'wait', before you shoot?

What 'we' have here is another example of a typical response from one who knows that if they were Truly open and honest in regards to my questions asked for clarification, then they would contradict "them" 'self' and be hypocritical.

I explained how those walls and roof is built on 'stolen land' anyway. Which is obviously someone else's 'home'.

Please, bring forth the unlucky soul who I am depriving of property, the true owner of my home & land, and he and me will work it out.

Oh, so 'now', as long as the previous owner/s are what you would call 'dead', then you have 'justified', to "yourself" alone, that it is 'now yours', right?

what you meant in the quote is plainly obvious

Yes: if someone breaks into Henry's home, he will defend himself, his family, and their collected properties.

Is this before or after they have touched what you claim is 'your stuff'?

Look "henry quirk" you could go on for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years here trying to defend, rationalize, and/or justify your Wrong thinking and Wrong doing, but you never actually will.

you are even more delusional that I had previously recognised and noticed.

And you are exactly as delusional as you've always been.

Why? What do you think or believe I am delusional about here, exactly?

And, what happens if someone just 'walks' into 'that home', without 'breaking' into, you will 'try to' defend "yourself" also, right?

Being the paranoid type, I keep my doors locked. To enter someone has to knock and be invited in, or they have to break in.

Also, what happens if 'your family' 'tries to make off with' 'your property, will you shoot them also?

Which family? Cousins? Siblings? It makes a difference in my answer.

Any.

Would it matter anyway to someone like you who obviously loves and adores what they call 'their stuff' over the 'natural right to life' that all human beings have?

[Age]

Now, is so-called 'self-defence' permissible, by shooting another human being, if the other 'tries to steal a toothpick or mouldy piece of bread for example, or not?

Ah, you recognized and acknowledged it's theft
instead of just a casual, innocent touch. It's wonderful to see that you're, ever so slowly, tryin' to change your views.

Well this is another Truly weird presumption that you have made here.

Why would you have even begun to presume such a Truly False thing as this here, let alone that you have already concluded and believes that it is True?

This is one very wildly outrageous claim.

It's completely accurate.

If this is what you actually believe is true, then you really do not comprehend and understand what I have been pointing out and saying here.

you speak, relatively, often about using your weapons on other human beings

How often is that? Once a week? A month? A year?

More than once.

To me, expressing the desire to shoot at human beings, with weapons you have obtained, more than once is 'often' enough for me to focus on.

you 'telling' me to do things implies, exactly, that 'I' am 'your' slave.

Oh, I'm so very, very sorry! Please, forgive me...

Obviously you still wish that there were more others under you that you could control and order around.

mine are a necessity for a Truly open and honest conversation to take, that is if the actual Truth of things is to come-to-light and/or be resolved.

No. Yours are the product of a diseased, neurotic, mind.

And here is, exactly, why this one is only 'seeing' what it does here.

I am talking about absolutely every claim you make out is true

Since all of my posts are assertions of one kind or another -- claims -- you want me to replicate them all here for you.

Well you are the very weak and scared one here who does not want to respond to my questions and challenges in other threads, where the ones you are disagreeing with can look at and see, so why do you not make all of your assertions/claims here?

What are you so afraid of here, exactly, "henry quirk"?