Philosophy Now Forum

...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm I believe if another is threatening my life, liberty, and property I have the right to defend my life, liberty, and property. And that defense includes the possibility of deadly force.

More generally: a person has an absolute moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. If one person (call him Joe) violates the life, liberty, and property of another (thru murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud [and let's call him Stan]). Stsn has the right to defend his life, liberty, and property. Depending on how insistent Joe is, that defense might very well include Stan shooting Joe.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Okay then,...

(and just to get an understanding of how far your, again, "reasonable" sense of justice extends outward into the greater world in general)

...let's say that Joe has indeed violated Stan's life, liberty, and property (thru either murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud, or whatever).

And just to be clear, let's say Joe murdered Stan for no reason other than personal pleasure, because Joe is a bonafide serial killer.

In which case, how would you feel about Joe's numerous friends who, even though they are fully aware of what Joe is (a serial murderer), and that Stan was simply one of Joe's many random victims, they nevertheless are attempting to make Joe the Chief of Police in Stan's city?

So that there is no misunderstanding, this is not about Joe, no, this is a question about how you feel about the moral status of Joe's friends who, for whatever reason, have turned a blind eye to what Joe is and what he did to Stan and others?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:44 pmthis is a question about how you feel about the moral status of Joe's friends who, for whatever reason, have turned a blind eye to what Joe is and what he did to Stan and others?

Did Trump murder someone? Please, share the details.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:12 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:44 pmthis is a question about how you feel about the moral status of Joe's friends who, for whatever reason, have turned a blind eye to what Joe is and what he did to Stan and others?

Did Trump murder someone? Please, share the details.

Who said anything about Trump?

I just wanted to know how you felt about the moral status of the friends of the hypothetical serial killer Joe? Again, the friends who turn a blind eye to Joe's nefarious activities because they want to make Joe the Chief of Police in the very same city that Joe murdered Stan.

Do you find it difficult to give an honest opinion about the moral status of Joe's friends in this simple little hypothetical scenario?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:37 pmWho said anything about Trump?

You, over and over, in several places in-forum. Your distaste for RED MAN DEFIANT is well documented. And, this isn't the first time you've tried to trip me up. But, okay, you wanna play, we'll play.

I just wanted to know how you felt about the moral status of the friends of the hypothetical serial killer Joe? Again, the friends who turn a blind eye to Joe's nefarious activities because they want to make Joe the Chief of Police in the very same city that Joe murdered Stan.

You say these friends of Joe know he's a serial killer. To me that means they've witnessed him doin' it. If these people saw Joe murdering folks and did nuthin' during or after, they're accomplices. And further, if they wanna elevate Joe to a powerful station, they're monsters (probably garden-variety politicians).

Do you find it difficult to give an honest opinion about the moral status of Joe's friends in this simple little hypothetical scenario?

Not at all. I believe however you aren't being honest in all this, so I proceed with caution.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:54 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:37 pmWho said anything about Trump?

You, over and over, in several places in-forum. Your distaste for RED MAN DEFIANT is well documented. And, this isn't the first time you've tried to trip me up.

You're right, henry, clearly, my little ruse didn't fool your keen ability to smell a rat hidin' in the bushes.

However, how is it possible for me to "trip you up" simply by creating a hypothetical scenario that draws from your own list...

"...murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud..."

...of personal violations that you yourself proclaim are all worthy of a violator being shot (killed) over by the one being violated?

And just in case you didn't notice, 3 of those 5 violations on your list are what "Orange Man" has been legally (as in by the rules of our shared society) convicted of.

However, with that being said, after reading your next reply, I understand where you're coming from...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:54 pm But, okay, you wanna play, we'll play.

seeds wrote:I just wanted to know how you felt about the moral status of the friends of the hypothetical serial killer Joe? Again, the friends who turn a blind eye to Joe's nefarious activities because they want to make Joe the Chief of Police in the very same city that Joe murdered Stan.

You say these friends of Joe know he's a serial killer. To me that means they've witnessed him doin' it. If these people saw Joe murdering folks and did nuthin' during or after, they're accomplices. And further, if they wanna elevate Joe to a powerful station, they're monsters (probably garden-variety politicians).

I see it now, your stance is that because you haven't personally witnessed, with your very own eyes, "Orange Man" committing serial rape, serial theft, and serial fraud, then, even though others have testified under oath that he has done those things,...

(or more importantly, because he hasn't done any of those things to you personally)

...then you'll just go by your own gut instincts about the man and will help him to ascend to one of the highest and most powerful offices in the world.

Got it!

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:37 pmDo you find it difficult to give an honest opinion about the moral status of Joe's friends in this simple little hypothetical scenario?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:54 pm Not at all. I believe however you aren't being honest in all this.

Oh, so "honesty" is important to you?

Well, in the immortal words of John McEnroe to a hapless lines' person...

"...You cannot be serious!!!..."

According to Wikipedia:

During and after his term as President of the United States, Donald Trump made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. The Washington Post's fact-checkers documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidential term, an average of about 21 per day.

Good grief, how in the world could being honest have any meaning to you if you support such a pathological liar?

Yeah, yeah, I know, despite what others have said, you yourself have never directly witnessed him lying or being dishonest to you personally, therefore, you are not a monster for wanting to elevate a serial rapist, thief, fraudster, and pathological liar to a powerful station.

(And just for the record, I don't support any American politicians whatsoever, for they're all just a bunch of sleepwalking idiots who are blindly leading us, and the rest of the world, to a state of destruction and doom.)
_______

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:00 amWhy do you believe, absolutely, that you can take another's own life, when at the same time you, supposedly, also believe that 'that one' has an 'absolute claim' and thus a 'natural right' for you not to take 'their own life'?

I believe if another is threatening my life, liberty, and property I have the right to defend my life, liberty, and property. And that defense includes the possibility of deadly force.

I, obviously, did not ask you, 'What do you believe ...?'

I, already, know what you believe.

I, obviously, asked you, 'Why do you believe ... [what you do believe here]?

I await your answer, and clarity, still.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm More generally: a person has an absolute moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. If one person (call him Joe) violates the life, liberty, and property of another (thru murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud [and let's call him Stan]). Stsn has the right to defend his life, liberty, and property. Depending on how insistent Joe is, that defense might very well include Stan shooting Joe.

you do not have to keep on re-repeating the exact same thing over and over again.

What you believe is absolutely true is already known.

What I would like to show and reveal is how you come to, or why you ended up, with two absolutely contradictory beliefs, and how and when you can 'choose' to make one belief override the other belief, of yours.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm

How can you believe two completely opposing things, at, supposedly, the exact same time?

Recognizing and respecting Joe's natural right to his own life, liberty, and property is not in conflict with Stan defending his own life, liberty, and property.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is, another, prime example of when one is believing some thing that is absolutely absurd, ridiculous, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, contradictory, and hypocritical, to others.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm Simply: if Joe hadn't chosen to steal or defraud or rape or enslave or murder then Stan wouldn't have call to self-defend.

Again, I, already, know what you are trying to claim is good and right, in Life.

And again, I do not care what you believe is true, or right, in Life. I am far more interested in what is irrefutable, not what just one or some of you human beings have learned to believe is true or have learned to try to justify.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm

And, how are you able to 'choose', and then put one belief over the other one, exactly?

There's no choosing cuz there's no conflict.

So, to you, obviously, if any one even just attempts to so-call 'make off' with what you call and class as 'your toothpick' or 'your moldy piece of bread', then there is absolutely 'no conflict' at all in shooting that 'human being', and to what is called 'death', because 'your greed, selfishness, and belief' that 'those things' are 'your', and 'yours' alone, which absolutely overrides the 'absolute claim' and 'natural right' that a 'human being' has over 'their own life'.

So, thank you for answering and clarifying that 'the conflict' disappears completely and absolutely, well for you anyway, when 'you choose' to put what 'you believe' is 'yours' over 'the life' of 'human beings', "themselves".

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm Stan has no say over Joe's life, liberty, and property and Joe has no say over Stan's life, liberty, and property. If Joe chooses to ignore Stan's natural right to his own life, liberty, and property and tries to take what's Stan's, Stan has the right to self-defend.

So, if "joe" decides to do and/or take what may well be necessary for its or for its family or for another/s survival and life, to "henry quirk" anyway, "stan" has been 'given', and thus 'received', some previously 'owned' 'right' to kill "joe" DEAD.

This might make some wonder, where and when this 'new, unobtained, right' comes from, exactly, as well as how and when one gets to 'choose' 'which right' to follow and abide by, exactly?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:41 pm

What is the, exact, process that you use to allow 'one of your beliefs' to absolutely override 'another one of your beliefs', exactly?

Just answered that.

LOL you just said that there was, suddenly, 'no conflict', at all.

you never answered nor explained any process, let alone any, exact, process, at all.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 2:24 am

3 of those 5 violations on your list are what "Orange Man" has been legally (as in by the rules of our shared society) convicted of.

If I were a proponent of The State and its agents, you'd have a point. I'm not, so you don't. The State and its agents are as trustworthy and honest as you, which is to say: not at all.

I see it now, your stance is that because you haven't personally witnessed, with your very own eyes, "Orange Man" committing serial rape, serial theft, and serial fraud, then...you'll just go by your own gut instincts about the man and will help him to ascend to one of the highest and most powerful offices in the world.

Yes.

even though others have testified under oath that he has done those things

People (some, not all) lie. They lie to profit, to redirect blame, to cause injury, and sometime they lie for no reason at all.

You, by way of this little game of yours, lied, proving the point. If you'll lie to get lil old me, what kind of whoppers would you tell, or accept, to get RED MAN DEFIANT?

I don't support any American politicians whatsoever, for they're all just a bunch of sleepwalking idiots who are blindly leading us, and the rest of the world, to a state of destruction and doom.

But you do support them. Who makes the laws by which the courts measure criminality? Who appoints judges? Aren't district attorneys elected?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 2:58 am

I, obviously, asked you, 'Why do you believe ... [what you do believe here]?

I answered that.

you do not have to keep on re-repeating the exact same thing over and over again.

You ask the same questions, so: I'm giving the same answers.

It is what it is.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:19 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 2:58 am

I, obviously, asked you, 'Why do you believe ... [what you do believe here]?

I answered that.

Obviously you 'responded' to 'that', with 'some words', and so in 'a sense' 'you answered' that. But, and again, you did 'not answer' the 'actual question' posed, and asked, to you, above here.

Again, if one wants to find and see the actual Truth of things, then they have to begin by speaking and expressing the actual Truth, only, Itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:19 am

you do not have to keep on re-repeating the exact same thing over and over again.

You ask the same questions, so: I'm giving the same answers.

It is what it is.

Once again, deflection and deception is attempted by this one.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:29 am

you did 'not answer' the 'actual question' posed

I did answer the question (just not as you wanted].

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 4:34 ameven where there is absolutely no proof at all for all of these things?

There's quite a bit of evidence (entropy and expansion, for example) for the universe's beginning, far more than there is for it, the universe, being eternal.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 4:34 ameven where there is absolutely no proof at all for all of these things?

There's quite a bit of evidence (entropy and expansion, for example) for the universe's beginning, far more than there is for it, the universe, being eternal.

LOL Proof absolutely always outweighs any evidence at all. For example, there is plenty of 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, but there is no 'proof' that the sun revolves around the earth. So, once again, there is absolutely no proof, at all, for all of those things.

Just saying things like, 'Science tells us the universe had a beginning, and common sense tells us there can be no infinite regress', in absolutely no way at all means that the Universe had a beginning, and thus is not eternal.

Also, 'science', itself, does not speak, nor tell you human beings, any thing at all. 'Science', itself, is some thing that you human beings do, instead.

Now, for absolutely any one who would like to have a 'look at' and 'discuss' how, irrefutably, 'evidence' of 'expansion' is just like 'the evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth is 'not proof' of what actually happens and occurs, then please let 'us' do it. (Obviously this is only for those who are open and want to 'see' what the actual Truth is exactly. As for the others 'we' will let you believe what you want to believe is true.)

Entropy and expansion are, again, just 'assumptions' about what happens and occurs, in relation to the Universe, Itself. And, the reason why so-called 'data' and/or 'evidence' for these things can be clearly explained, just like the 'observing' and 'seeing' of the sun revolving around the earth is not actual Accurate and Correct 'data' nor 'evidence' that the sun does actually revolve around the earth. But, again and obviously, the actual Truth can only be explained to and understood by those who are not holding some pre-existing belief nor presumption.

Look "henry quirk" you can remain holding the presumption that there is quite a bit of evidence that the Universe began till the day that 'you' are no more, but just remember that there were quite a lot of other adult human beings who kept believing that there was, so-called, 'quite a bit of evidence that the sun, and everything else, revolved around the earth, as well.

So, once more for those slow of learning, 'evidence' is not actual 'proof'. See, 'proof' is irrefutable, whereas 'evidence' will always remain refutable.

The difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' is like the difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

Although, and obviously, in some countries some people believe otherwise.

See, until the actual definitions of the words are being used are discussed, agreed upon, and accepted things like, what the actual Truth is exactly, will never come to be known, well by some of 'you' anyway.

Why the so-called 'data' is so-called 'evidence' that the Universe began is solely because of the Wrong or faulty way 'interpretations' are made. Just like the way the 'observation', and thus 'data' and 'evidence', of seeing a sun revolve around the earth was just another faulty and Wrong 'interpretation' of what the actual, irrefutable, Truth is, exactly.

There is no actual 'proof' that the Universe began. But, to some, they have 'interpreted' the 'data', the 'observation', as 'evidence' that the Universe began. And, very unfortunately, for some, they have them decided to believe or presume that the Universe began.

And for any one who is curious as to why the 'interpretation' of the 'data' as being 'evidence' for a beginning, and expanding, Universe is faulty and Wrong, then just ask me, and then I will explain fully.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:29 am

you did 'not answer' the 'actual question' posed

I did answer the question (just not as you wanted].

Providing a response, or what some might call 'an answer', does not mean that the actual question posed, and asked, was answered, and it is absolutely blatantly obvious that you did not answer the 'actual question' posed, and asked to you above here.

And, for absolutely any one who is at all curious as to how and why, exactly, "henry quirk" did not, obviously, answer the 'actual question', then just ask me and I will explain it to you fully.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 2:27 am

Proof absolutely always outweighs any evidence at all.

Yep, there's absolutely no proof, or evidence, the universe is eternal.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 2:32 amyou did not answer the 'actual question' posed, and asked to you above here.

I did answer. Ask me again and I'll answer again.