"age" verses "quirk"

[henry quirk]

Age,

Over in the 10k Philosophy challenge thread you responded, and responded, and responded, and responded to me and my humble lil posts. I'm afraid I just don't have the will to wade thru it all. I'm consoled, in my weakness, that most if not all of what you posted there is simple iterations of what you post here (toothpicks & moldly bread, over and over). I concede, though, the possibility that amongst all that eyewash there might be sumthin' new. If so, please, transfer it to this thread and I'll do my very best to address it.

Your Pal, Henry

[Age]

So, when you shoot other human beings

I never said one way or another if I had shot someone. It's not the kind of thing one admits to in a public forum

Why not?

Some.are 'very proud' of their gun and weaponry ownership, and just cas proud' when they use them and shoot humans.

Why would you not, supposedly, admit to doing such thing, in a public forum?

(and that was not a veiled admission).

Are you absolutely sure?

If I shoot someone it's becuz I'm self or other defending.

So, again, why would you, supposedly, not admit to this, in a public forum?

And, when you say and use the word 'property' you also include 'toothpicks' and even 'moldy pieces of bread right'?

Yes. Think you got me, but you didn't, as you'll see (or not).

What are you even on about here?

And, what do you even mean by, 'Think you 'got' me'?

I never ever thought any such thing.

And, I do not even know what it is even in relation to, exactly, that you are imagining here about 'I got you'.

you will not recognize and will disrespect another's absolute claim, their natural right, to their own property, liberty, and even to their own life, correct?

Oh, I always recognize the personhood and natural rights of others. I also recognize if my personhood or natural rights are in jeopardy I can defend them.

I am not sure how you could be recognizing and respecting another's own life, nor property, when you are shooting at them.

But, then again some of the other things that you 'justify' here, but to 'you' only, seem to be Truly understandable also.

Why would you call and label an actual 'human being' as an "aggressor" for just walking away with a toothpick or a moldy piece of bread?

Probably not. It's a toothpick. It's a moldy bread. They're mine, yes, but I value both very little.

But, LOL hat you would shoot human beings over both of those things is not even in dispute here. you have already admitted that you would shoot human beings id they just 'took off' with just those things alson. Which also obviously implies that you value the life of human beings less than those two things.

Which would be and is absolutely contradictory to some of the other things that you try to say and claim here.

But, you know a lot of this is context-driven.

Is there any thing here that is not 'context-driven'?

If that toothpick is the only thing on hand to press the little button inside the door knob of the door keeping me from gettin' to my kid who is dying, and you walk away with it, I'll definitely shoot you to get it back.

LOL So, only 'now' you are 'back tracking', and 'trying to change' what you have actually said, and even clarified.

Also, let 'us' not forget that you said and claimed that you would shoot human beings for 'taking off' 'with your stuff', and you have claimed those two things are 'yours'. Which was all :context-driven'.

And if that moldy bread, properly processed, is the only cure for what's killin' my kid, and you walk away with it, I'll definitely shoot you to get it back.

LOL "henry quirk".

So, 'now' some one can, actually, just take, or steal, these and other things from "henry quirk" and it would not even shoot you to so-call 'protect its property'.

It's good to, now, know how much of a coward you really are. Human beings can, actually, just take what you claim is 'your stuff', from you.

if you just looked at and saw 'the other' as a 'human being', just like 'you' are, instead of and looking at, seeing 'them', and label that 'human being' as "an aggressor", then you would be far less likely to shoot that 'human being', andt would be far more likely to actually recognize and respect their, obviously, absolute claim and natural right to their own life?

And if the guy who tries to steal my life, liberty, or property just looked at and saw me as a person just like he is, instead of seeing me as commodity, then he would be far less likely to get shot.

LOL So, if one was to just take a 'toothpick', from you, are you 'now', again, saying and claiming that there is, actually, a likelihood that that one will get shot?

Also, do you realise that after you shoot another, over a toothpick, then someone will see 'you' as an"aggressor" and/or as a "monster/danger to society“, with no respect for other human beings, and so will shoot you, 'dead' maybe?

Have you really forgotten all of them?

Yeah, my memory is sketchy....help a brother out...tell me: what have I stolen?

Rationality here for one.

[henry quirk]

Why would you not, supposedly, admit to doing such thing, in a public forum?

Think on it.

Are you absolutely sure?

Yes.

So, again, why would you, supposedly, not admit to this, in a public forum?

Ever heard of shoot, shovel, shut up?

I never ever thought any such thing.

No, course not...

I am not sure how you could be recognizing and respecting another's own life, nor property, when you are shooting at them.

Oh, it's easy (I imagine, so I'm told, etc.)

you would shoot human beings over both of those things is not even in dispute here.

Context, age, context.

Look here...

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.)

...this is the original post that triggered you five years ago.

Context, babee.

Is there any thing here that is not 'context-driven'?

Doesn't seem likely.

LOL "henry quirk".

Yes, I bring joy to the damaged, laughter to the diminished, happiness to the hobbled.

I am a literal Crom-send.

Human beings can, actually, just take what you claim is 'your stuff', from you.

Well, they can try.

So, if one was to just take a 'toothpick', from you, are you 'now', again, saying and claiming that there is, actually, a likelihood that that one will get shot?

Given the proper context: you can bet your sweet ass on it.

do you realise that after you shoot another, over a toothpick, then someone will see 'you' as an"aggressor" and/or as a "monster/danger to society“, with no respect for other human beings, and so will shoot you, 'dead' maybe?

Bud, I could be a friggin' angel, beloved & admired, and still get off'd. Livin' is risky, no matter what you do or who you are.

Rationality here for one.

I don't remember stealin' rationality. Did I rob a Quick & Sleezy? Mug a philosopher? Tell me -- with as much drama as you can muster -- of my daring exploits as Quirk, The Man Who Steals Reason

[Age]

Why would you not, supposedly, admit to doing such thing, in a public forum?

Think on it.

Are you absolutely sure?

Yes.

So, again, why would you, supposedly, not admit to this, in a public forum?

Ever heard of shoot, shovel, shut up?

No.

And, if I had, then i am not sure how this would relate here.

I never ever thought any such thing.

No, course not...

I am not sure how you could be recognizing and respecting another's own life, nor property, when you are shooting at them.

Oh, it's easy (I imagine, so I'm told, etc.)

For who, (and by who)?

you would shoot human beings over both of those things is not even in dispute here.

Context, age, context.

Look here...

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.)

...this is the original post that triggered you five years ago.

No it is not.

Why did you even begin to presume and believe such a False thing as this?

Also noted, and thank you for clarifying, that you would, actually, shoot a human being over just even just 'trying to' 'make off' with things of just about absolutely no value like a toothpick or a mouldy piece of bread, which you perceive and believe are so-called 'yours', in no other context than you have provided here.

Context, babee.

Is there any thing here that is not 'context-driven'?

Doesn't seem likely.

Which would make one wonder more why you said.and wrote what you have here.

LOL "henry quirk".

Yes, I bring joy to the damaged, laughter to the diminished, happiness to the hobbled.

I am a literal Crom-send.

Human beings can, actually, just take what you claim is 'your stuff', from you.

Well, they can try.

So, if one was to just take a 'toothpick', from you, are you 'now', again, saying and claiming that there is, actually, a likelihood that that one will get shot?

Given the proper context: you can bet your sweet ass on it.

And, the so-called 'proper context' is in relation to 'what', exactly?

do you realise that after you shoot another, over a toothpick, then someone will see 'you' as an"aggressor" and/or as a "monster/danger to society“, with no respect for other human beings, and so will shoot you, 'dead' maybe?

Bud, I could be a friggin' angel, beloved & admired, and still get off'd.

LOL Once again, this one is trying to deflect and to deceive here.

I wrote and talked about after you have shot a human being, obviously.

Livin' is risky, no matter what you do or who you are.

LOL But, if you had just actually recognized and respected another human beings natural right to their own life, and not shot at them, then you would not 'now' have others wanting to shoot you as they are protecting society from "aggressors" and "monsters', like you,

Rationality here for one.

I don't remember stealin' rationality. Did I rob a Quick & Sleezy? Mug a philosopher? Tell me -- with as much drama as you can muster -- of my daring exploits as Quirk, The Man Who Steals Reason

But, what about all of the other things that you have stolen, and are trying to pretend that you have not?

[henry quirk]

Do not abuse any thing.

Sounds good. Question: what should one person do if someone else abuses, or tries to abuse, them?

[henry quirk]

How are you defining the 'empathy' word here, exactly?

Imagining what it's like to be in the other guy's shoes.

will be rejected, even further, or not accepted at all.

And? So?

trying to persuade

I'm not sellin' anything. At best: I'm half-ass defending a view; at worst: I'm issuin' a warning.

[henry quirk]

For who, (and by who)?

For those who do. By those who do.

No it is not.

Yes it is.

And, the so-called 'proper context' is in relation to 'what', exactly?

There's an example just up-thread.

I wrote and talked about after you have shot a human being, obviously.

And, obviously, I wrote and talked about how it doesn't matter.

But, if you had just actually recognized and respected another human beings natural right to their own life, and not shot at them, then you would not 'now' have others wanting to shoot you as they are protecting society from "aggressors" and "monsters', like you

But, if the thief or rapist or murderer or slaver or con man just actually recognized and respected another human being's natural right to his or her own life, and not tried to rob or rape or murder or slave or defraud, then the thief or rapist or murderer or slaver or con man would not have others wanting to shoot them.

what about all of the other things that you have stolen(?)

Please, name one...

[henry quirk]

yours is the most hypocritical and contradictory one here.

No surprise that you think so.

[Age]

Do not abuse any thing.

Sounds good. Question: what should one person do if someone else abuses, or tries to abuse, them?

Obviously, Do not abuse them.

And, it would depend on who the one is being abused, or is attempted to be abused.

Obviously, if it is a child, do what they can to get away from the one doing the abusing, and then inform an adult that they can trust.

And, if it is an adult, then it obviously would depend on the situation and circumstance, but essentially, again, Do not abuse them, while just teaching them what is Right, in Life, through support and understanding.

Why? What, to you, should one person do if someone else abuses, or tries to abuse, them?

[Age]

How are you defining the 'empathy' word here, exactly?

Imagining what it's like to be in the other guy's shoes.

To me that is not 'empathy' at all.

will be rejected, even further, or not accepted at all.

And? So?

I was just informing you that if you want people to go, 'hmmm, mebbe there's sumthin' to this god business', then it would be beneficial if you stopped referring to and claiming that God is a male gendered person.

See, if you want people to consider some thing/s, then expressing that or those 'thing/s' in ways that are Truly False or impossible is not going to beneficial nor helpful at all.

trying to persuade

I'm not sellin' anything.

But one does not have to be 'selling' some thing to want to 'persuade' another of some thing.

At best: I'm half-ass defending a view;

A view that is obviously absolutely False and impossible.

at worst: I'm issuin' a warning.

And, what would 'that warning' be, exactly?

[Age]

For who, (and by who)?

For those who do.

So, you imagine that there are other human beings, like you, who believe that it is easy to recognize and respect another's life when they, like you, are shooting at human beings, right?

By those who do.

Are you now saying that there were more than one who has told you such a thing?

No it is not.

Yes it is.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it was the original post?

And, how do you know the thoughts I have had, and when I had them?

And, the so-called 'proper context' is in relation to 'what', exactly?

There's an example just up-thread.

So, what 'we' have here is another one who will just not clarify, exactly and clearly.

Which obviously leads some to wonder why?

I wrote and talked about after you have shot a human being, obviously.

And, obviously, I wrote and talked about how it doesn't matter.

But, why does it, supposedly, not matter?

But, if you had just actually recognized and respected another human beings natural right to their own life, and not shot at them, then you would not 'now' have others wanting to shoot you as they are protecting society from "aggressors" and "monsters', like you

But, if the thief or rapist or murderer or slaver or con man just actually recognized and respected another human being's natural right to his or her own life, and not tried to rob or rape or murder or slave or defraud, then the thief or rapist or murderer or slaver or con man would not have others wanting to shoot them.

Which is exactly what I just said and asked you. If an "aggressor" and "monster" such as "yourself" "henry quirk" had just recognized and respected other human beings, and so did not shoot at and/or take another's own life, which they had an absolute claim, and natural right, to, then others would not now be wanting you dead, nor be shooting at you, to save society from 'those' exactly like you.

what about all of the other things that you have stolen(?)

Please, name one...

Why, have you, really, forgotten?

[henry quirk]

Obviously, Do not abuse them.

Is self-defense abuse?

You say if it is a child, do what they can to get away from the one doing the abusing. What if child can't get away? What if the only way the child can stop an abuser is to thrust a sharpened pencil into the abusers eye? Is this abuse?

if it is an adult, then it obviously would depend on the situation and circumstance, but essentially, again, Do not abuse them, while just teaching them what is Right, in Life, through support and understanding.

A woman is attacked by a man lookin' to rape her. What kind of lessons about what's right in life ought she impart to the guy as he's punching her and tearing away her clothes?

Why? What, to you, should one person do if someone else abuses, or tries to abuse, them?

Defend themselves. Escape if possible, but if not possible: defend themselves however they can, to whatever extent they can.

[henry quirk]

To me that is not 'empathy' at all.

What is empathy to you?

But one does not have to be 'selling' some thing to want to 'persuade' another of some thing.

Not lookin' to persuade either.

And, what would 'that warning' be, exactly?

Some folks won't go the abattoir without a fight.

[henry quirk]

So, you imagine that there are other human beings, like you, who believe that it is easy to recognize and respect another's life when they, like you, are shooting at human beings, right?

Yes.

Are you now saying that there were more than one who has told you such a thing?

Yes.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it was the original post?

That was the first of mine to mention toothpicks. You've been houndin' me for five years aboit my willingness to shoot someone over toothpicks. 1 + 1 = 2.

And, how do you know the thoughts I have had, and when I had them?

I only know the verifiable sequence of posts.

So, what 'we' have here is another one who will just not clarify, exactly and clearly.

No. What we have is you bein' unwilling to scroll up.

Which obviously leads some to wonder why?

Yeah, why can't you scroll up?

But, why does it, supposedly, not matter?

Again: life s risky for sinners and saints, both (and for all those in-between).

If an "aggressor" and "monster" such as "yourself" "henry quirk" had just recognized and respected other human beings, and so did not shoot at and/or take another's own life, which they had an absolute claim, and natural right, to, then others would not now be wanting you dead, nor be shooting at you, to save society from 'those' exactly like you.

If the aggressor left me be, then I wouldn't have to defend myself against him.

[/quoteWhy, have you, really, forgotten?
[/quote]

I haven't stolen anything. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

[Age]

Obviously, Do not abuse them.

Is self-defense abuse?

That would all depend, obviously.

It is about context, right?

You say if it is a child, do what they can to get away from the one doing the abusing. What if child can't get away? What if the only way the child can stop an abuser is to thrust a sharpened pencil into the abusers eye? Is this abuse?

Why can the child, supposedly, not get away?

What happens if the child only has a blunted pencil, when as you say and claim only a sharpened pencil is the 'only way' the child could get away?

There are just so many 'ifs'.

Also, if you continue with 'the way' you, obviously, 'look at' and 'see' things, then you will never come to comprehend and understand what I am getting to, and at.

if it is an adult, then it obviously would depend on the situation and circumstance, but essentially, again, Do not abuse them, while just teaching them what is Right, in Life, through support and understanding.

A woman is attacked by a man lookin' to rape her. What kind of lessons about what's right in life ought she impart to the guy as he's punching her and tearing away her clothes?

Why does the "guy" have to be punching and tearing clothes? Someone just has to say, 'No', once, obviously, for it to be 'a rape', or show no interest also.

Why do you appear to continually 'look at' and 'see' 'the world' through 'the perspective' of violence, or 'out to get perspective'.

Why? What, to you, should one person do if someone else abuses, or tries to abuse, them?

Defend themselves.

So, to "henry quirk", all children, old, young, infants, and babies 'should' 'defend themselves', right?

Escape if possible, but if not possible: defend themselves however they can, to whatever extent they can.

Which includes if some one just 'tries to' 'make off' with a toothpick, or with a moldy piece of bread, then they 'should' "defend themselves", and 'their property', and shoot at those other human beings, correct?