Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:31 pm
•I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher.

A ballsy claim if ever there was one.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 7:48 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:31 pm
•I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher.

A ballsy claim if ever there was one.

Consider the source.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:20 am

That you 'legitimately' OWN that tiny little parcel of 'the earth', itself, which you call and claim is 'yours'.

Now that it has been ascertained that 'you' do claim that that tiny parcel of 'the earth' is yours "atla" we can proceed in waiting to see if you justify and prove this claim of yours here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

Now, and by the way, when you said and wrote 'that' where you meaning, and claiming, that you were the 'legitimate owner' of said 'little plot', or were you meaning, and claiming, to be NOT the 'legitimate owner' of said 'plot'?

Morally and legally: I own my little plot of land.

What one BELIEVES is true is not always necessarily actually True at all.

What we have here is just another case of where one is 'possessing' some 'thing', which was, very sadly, actually stolen from "others", and then just sold onto said claimant, through the exchange of what is called 'money'. Said claimant 'now' BELIEVES that 'it', laughingly, 'legitimately', and more laughingly, 'morally' owns a part of 'the earth' itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

Maybe so, for 'now'.

Oh, I think I'll long-haul it with you.

Let us see just how long you will haul your claim here for

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

Done so by your own inability to show how you, supposedly, 'own' a part of 'the earth' itself.

Nope. I can tell you exactly why it is I am the morally rightful owner of my plot (and all my other stuff), and I will after you give me sumthin' more substantial than...

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:01 pmTo PROVE, irrefutably, that NO 'thing' can 'legitimately', that is; JUSTIFY, 'owning' earth, nor parts of earth, is to show and present the actual Fact that there is not ONE human being who has been able to JUSTIFY the claim that 'one, or more, of them' ACTUALLY 'owns' said land.

But my case is ALREADY resting on the Fact that NOT YET a human being has been able to show, justify, NOR prove how they could ACTUALLY 'own' a piece of earth, itself, which they also CLAIM Is legitimately AND morally 'theirs', and theirs ALONE.

AGAIN, 'we' AWAIT for PROOF and JUSTIFICATION.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

One can NOT also make claim to actually 'owning' any parts of the earth through any form of 'agreement' FROM "another" human being.

Not exactly true, no. To transact (legally, and -- more importantly -- morally) requires agreement.

LOL 'you' ARE, ONCE AGAIN, MISSING THE POINT here "henry quirk".

'you' have YET to JUSTIFY and PROVE that one could, or how one could, ACTUALLY 'own' some 'thing', like parts of 'the earth', itself. Until you do 'this', then thinking or BELIEVING that 'you' are transacting 'legally' and/or more importantly 'morally' is just a VERY False BELIEF to be having and holding.

See, as I POINTED OUT earlier what 'you' BELIEVE 'you' have transacted, legally and morally, with "another" human being was ONLY 'in possession' by "another" human being AFTER said land was STOLEN FROM "others".

What 'you' appear to FAIL TO SEE here "henry quirk" is that;

It's like when a nimrod steals a car: he possesses it but the legit owner remains the legit owner.

With 'you' being the said "nimrod" here in the land example "henry quirk"

See, what is really happening is that you ACTUALLY lack ANY REAL, legitimate and legal, possession or ownership of said land, you also lack the means to enforce possession or ownership. 'you' just WISH 'you' did "henry quirk".

What we have here is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER human being who has been TRICKED and FOOLED into BELIEVING that 'it' owns 'parts of the earth', and 'it' was DECEIVED on the PRETENCE that if you hand over and give a Truly GREEDY and SELFISH human being run 'institution' money, then you will, legitimately, 'own' said land.

The 'land' that you now, laughingly, BELIEVE is 'yours' was, OBVIOUSLY, once STOLEN FROM "another". And, 'you', "henry quirk", here have even hinted to HOW 'land' was ACTUALLY STOLEN, FROM "others" when 'you' explained to "advocate" how 'it' could get back what 'it' BELIEVES is truly 'theirs.

'you' explained, fairly well actually, HOW what was ACTUALLY NOT someones, GET what that one ACTUALLY BELIEVED was theirs.

'you' explain below exactly HOW 'ruling governing institutions or bodies' STOLE, 'the lands', literally, FROM 'under the feet' of "others", as some might say. AND THEN 'sell of' said 'land' onto unsuspecting "others", such as "yourself" on the PRETENCE that said 'parcels of land' will 'now' 'be yours'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm So: how do we go about gettin' you what's yours?

Empire building, that's how.

First we conquer a region, then a nation, then other nations; then we secure global control; next comes exploiting all resources, planetary then system wide; then other star systems: in a million years, give or take 100 thousand, you'll be well on your way to being Universal Monarch. After that: it's a cake walk. I'm assuming some kind of FTL travel in this. Without it, your ascension will be delayed. I'm also assuming some kind of life extension: you may end up looking considerably different by the time you take the Throne.

So: when do we start?

'you', adult human beings, really WERE such a Truly EASY and SIMPLE 'thing' to FOOL, and TRICK.

Although young human beings are the MOST intelligent ones on that little planet called earth 'you', older human beings, are MOST susceptible to DECEPTION, and to being DECEIVED. As "henry quirk" is SHOWING and PROVING to be a PRIME living example of here. "henry quirk" STILL ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the land/s that 'it' was born onto, and CREATED by, "henry quirk" itself could actually OWN, and thus have CONTROL OVER.

This one here IS SO DECEIVED that 'it' REALLY can NOT YET SEE by HOW MUCH.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

And, ONCE AGAIN, you have provided absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support 'your claim' here.

My support is the utter lack of participation by anyone else. No one else is posting. It's just you and me.

LOL so are you now 'trying to' CLAIM that because NO one "else" is participating here, with 'us', then this somehow 'supports' or 'backs up' your CLAIM here?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:58 pm *

Also, maybe the reason why, supposedly, NO one "else" gives a so-called "shit" is because NO one "else" is so ADAMANT that they OWN a part of planet earth, itself.

Mebbe. More likely, though, they see this conversation as the goof-fest it is. Every one likes to go to the freak show but no one wants to be part of it.

WHY do 'you' SEE 'our discussion' as a so-called 'goof-fest' "henry quirk"?

Do 'you' STILL ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you', "henry quirk", OWN a part of 'planet earth', and that if absolutely ANY one just states otherwise, then 'they' are, automatically and instantly, just WRONG?

[quote=LuckyR post_id=671766 time=1696532156 user_id=24359]
[quote=commonsense post_id=671764 time=1696531696 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671100 time=1696167069 user_id=15238]

•I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher.
[/quote]

A ballsy claim if ever there was one. :mrgreen:
[/quote]

Consider the source.
[/quote]

No. Consider the evidence.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:49 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 7:55 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 7:48 pm A ballsy claim if ever there was one.

Consider the source.

No. Consider the evidence.

Show us your evidence please.

"1. I am the legitimate owner of the universe."

This is excellent Stirner posting. Very nice.

"Entitled or unentitled — that does not concern me, if I am only powerful, I am of myself empowered, and need no other empowering and entitling" - Stirner, Max

Propositions 2-10 are fixed ideas and spooks tho.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671803 time=1696577637 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671790 time=1696567759 user_id=15238]
[quote=LuckyR post_id=671766 time=1696532156 user_id=24359]


Consider the source.
[/quote]

No. Consider the evidence.
[/quote]
Show us your evidence please.
[/quote]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

[quote=Age post_id=671484 time=1696368300 user_id=16237]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=671351 time=1696339942 user_id=472]
[quote=Age post_id=671290 time=1696305081 user_id=16237]What does the word 'commie' even mean(?)[/quote]

Free helicopter ride.
[/quote]

Seems, 'PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here', happened even quicker, simpler, and easier than I was even expecting.

But we, obviously, still await to see if absolutely ANY one can show and prove that "henry quirk'" 'legitimately owns' a part of planet earth, and when for how long exactly some proposed 'legitimate ownership' began and lasts for
[/quote]

Everyone has the right to a common share of the accumulated wealth of humanity and the lowest that can mean is a place to be without someone else's permission. Ergo, everyone born legitimately owns part of Earth.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:33 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:49 am No. Consider the evidence.

Show us your evidence please.

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

It's possible that people don't realise you mean to be taken seriously.

It's the same problem that struck Skepdick when he did that thread about pissing off atheists, nobody realised he intended that nonsense to be treated as a real argument.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:11 pm That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

The OP is primarly just a bunch of assertions, as I pointed out. For example, you didn't explain why the universe has an owner. And there are many other bald assertions in there. IOW it's not really an argument.
It is standing, but not on anything. And it's centered on a category error.

But more importantly:

You run into a room with a bunch of people interested in poetry. You are naked, riding on loud, uneven roller skates, with a huge sparkler sticking out of your ass and recite a poem.

The fact that people don't criticize your poem, does not mean it's a good poem. They are, hm, distracted.

Just to be clear: the assumptions in the title of the thread are the sparkler.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:33 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:49 am

No. Consider the evidence.

Show us your evidence please.

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

The OP is a nice proof that the one with the best philosophy is the best philosopher and the legitimate owner of the universe.

Now you must show that yours is the best philosophy.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671822 time=1696595306 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671819 time=1696594309 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671803 time=1696577637 user_id=11800]

Show us your evidence please.
[/quote]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.
[/quote]
It's possible that people don't realise you mean to be taken seriously.

It's the same problem that struck Skepdick when he did that thread about pissing off atheists, nobody realised he intended that nonsense to be treated as a real argument.
[/quote]

I assume anyone evidence based will go after a particular point. Or at least respond with a meh or a shrug.

[quote=commonsense post_id=671846 time=1696605512 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671819 time=1696594309 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671803 time=1696577637 user_id=11800]

Show us your evidence please.
[/quote]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.
[/quote]


The OP is a nice proof that the one with the best philosophy is the best philosopher and the legitimate owner of the universe.

Now you must show that yours is the best philosophy.
[/quote]

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:28 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:11 pm

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

It's possible that people don't realise you mean to be taken seriously.

It's the same problem that struck Skepdick when he did that thread about pissing off atheists, nobody realised he intended that nonsense to be treated as a real argument.

I assume anyone evidence based will go after a particular point. Or at least respond with a meh or a shrug.

Prove that yours is the best philosophy.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:24 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:18 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:11 pm That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

The OP is a nice proof that the one with the best philosophy is the best philosopher and the legitimate owner of the universe.

Now you must show that yours is the best philosophy.

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?

Check for best philosophy anyway you like, but disclose your’s so that it may be checked.