Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:53 pm Well, that's my cue to exit the buildin'.
Not by my reckoning, Henry. I'm happy to have you around. I'm just saying we need to get our feet fully underneath us on this question of how a person comes to have rights. I'm not trying to make your life difficult; I'm just pointing to the next step.
Yeah, I've done *that, more than once, across multiple threads. And rights, you can keep 'em (and I've already explained why).

I love ya, guy, but I'm not playin' your steppin' stone...go lecture to them and leave me out of it.

Now, I'm done here, in this thread.




*God is the source (we disagree on the particulars of Him but not on Him).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:25 pm Now, I'm done here, in this thread.
Sorry, Henry. I did not mean to crowd you out.
*God is the source (we disagree on the particulars of Him but not on Him).
I know that, Henry. No problem.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:46 pm
But maybe that's only because people don't think through what "human rights" entail. Certainly those who are plumping for "health care" as a human right don't know what they're saying, since no such thing can be guaranteed at all. The same should be said for everybody who thinks a "living wage" is a "right" or any other such privilege.

When one says X is my "right," one has to be able to say WHY it is a "right" -- what justification and authority stands behind that particular "rights" claim. And too many of the "rights" folks have not yet grasped that. They pull out the word "right" whenever they feel something they want is at stake, and expect that to carry the day.

But I think the claim "I own myself" is susceptible to this very weakness. Why do we "own ourselves"? somebody might ask, "from where comes the authority, the means and the accountability for such a 'right'?"
So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.

By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.

Rights are not guaranteed. Human behavior reveals this. Wars demonstrate this. George Floyd had the right to breathe, but it was denied in a deadly arrest.

Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.

Either there are no rights...
If rights can only be guaranteed rights based on authority, means and accountability, then your position throughout this thread makes perfect sense to me.

...or there are rights that are not guaranteed.

If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have, then you would be able to subscribe to everything I’ve posted in this thread.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:09 am Considering that EVERY person is a 'law-abiding person' sometimes, (as well as obviously being law-breaking persons, sometimes,) and that ALL persons are the cause of ALL of the world's, so called, "problems", then it is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'you', law-abiding people, are the cause of all of the "world's problems".
So do you cause problems too or are you somehow exempt from the above?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:43 pm So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.

By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.
Basic health care is a blessing. But it cannot be a "right," because it totally depends on the ability of the government to deliver it. If that government lacks the means, it can't be held accountable for not having provided it: you can't give what you don't have. And if it has no authority to make its will happen, then the alleged "right" is no more powerful than the government that delivers it.

"Guaranteed" is a tricky word. Does it mean "guaranteed to be given?" Then there are no rights. Or does it mean, "guaranteed that even if it's not given, that's a violation of your rights?" And I think it's in the latter sense that people really want to use the word: they want to say, "if you don't give me freedom, you have done something intrinsically evil to me, something contrary to the actual nature of what I am." That's how they want it to play. Otherwise, "rights" talk gives no grounds for calling any government "a violator of rights," since "rights" extend no farther than the government's whims.
George Floyd had the right to breathe,
He shouldn't have taken so my fentanyl, then. He would probably still be breathing, like all the other people in his car.

Apparently, his suffocation was drug induced; he was saying "I can't breathe" long before the cops wrestled with him, and his coroner says he didn't have the normal signs of suffocation, such as a crushed hyoid bone or retinal petechiae. So it looks like he signed off on his own life.

But in that reference you're talking about one of the real human rights...the right to life. And yes, everybody has that. However, nobody could stop George Floyd from choosing a life of crime and drug abuse; another fundamental right gave him that ability. He had a right to choose; he had freedom.
Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.
You are correct in the above. We are agreeing. But then, they are not a human construct.
If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have,

Well, "wishful thoughts" have no power, no justification, and no authority behind them. They're only wishes.

You might be "wishful thinking" you want a Lamborghini. That doesn't mean one appears in your driveway. And it doesn't make Lamborghini ownership a "right."
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:24 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm

Well, mebbe if age weren't operatin' with a deficit we could say he's bein' malicious, but he does have a deficit, so...
What do you say, and claim, is my deficit, and, what is my deficit from or to, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY do so many people here, in this forum, LOOK AT what I, supposedly, do, and discuss 'that', more than they LOOK AT my, actual, words, and discuss 'them'?
You're autistic, and your thinkin' and writing reflects it.
Will you provide any examples?

And, WHEN was the first time you discovered/decided 'I' am "autistic", and HOW, exactly, did you make this discovery/decision, or in other words, WHAT, exactly, led 'you' to this discovery/decision?


Your OPEN and Honest answers will be much appreciated here.

Also, 'you' say that 'I' am "autistic", but what does 'me' being "autistic", supposedly, make 'me' deficient from, or to, exactly?

Again, your OPEN and Honest answer will be much appreciated.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm You endlessly dissect posts making movement in conversation or debate far more difficult than it naturally already is.
Could this be because 'I' ALREADY KNOW what thee ultimate ACTUAL Truth IS, and what thee ultimate ACTUAL outcome is GOING TO BE, and so I just dissecting posts to SHOW future peoples HOW and WHY 'you', peoples, back in the days when this was written, were continually 'sinning', and/or 'missing the mark'? Could I be SHOWING, future to 'you', people how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, and thus have ACTUAL EXAMPLES and PROOF of WHY 'you', human beings, took so long to reach and achieve the desired outcome that 'you' ALL Truly WANT? Or, is this just not a possibility in "your world"?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm You write idiosyncratically with odd caps and punctuation.
For a VERY SPECIFIC REASON. And, IF 'you' had been Truly reading and SEEING and NOTICING what I have been SAYING, then you would ALREADY KNOW WHY I write in such A WAY. But OBVIOUSLY 'you' have NOT been reading AND UNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING and MEANING. Which is quite remarkable REALLY considering how MY MESSAGES are written and explained VERY CLEARLY, for ALL to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:35 pm This is why so many people here, in this forum, LOOK AT what (you), supposedly, do, and discuss 'that', more than they LOOK AT (your), actual, words, and discuss 'them'.
Okay. But is that not the EXACT OPPOSITE of what PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS are meant to be about?

I suggest that if 'you', human beings, Truly want to gain a better understanding of Life, and of each other, then 'you' LOOK AT what 'you', "yourself", individually say ad do, and LOOK AT the words said and written by "others", and NOT LOOK AT what "other" people do. LOOKING AT what "other" people do only leads 'you' astray.

'you' do NOT become a BETTER PERSON by LOOKING AT what "others" do, but rather by LOOKING AT what 'you', "yourself", think, say, and do.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Saying, "I belong to me", is nonsensical and illogical.

How could a 'thing' belong to, or be a property of, 'itself'?

One is either 'itself' or 'it' is not. And, if a 'thing' is not 'itself', then what is 'it'?

And, 'to belong', or 'be the property of', means to be of something else.


A piano (a thing) can't claim itself.

Me and you (persons), can and should.
Sure 'one' person can claim 'itself', but my questioning is asking how can 'one' claim to BELONG to 'itself'?

Either 'one' is 'itself' or 'it' is NOT. And, if 'one' is 'itself', then 'it' does NOT 'belong' to 'itself'. 'it' IS 'its' 'self'. This is because of what the word 'belong' can mean and/or refers to. If the word 'belong' means be the property or member of, then 'one' can NOT be the property or member of 'itself'. 'One' is just 'Its' Self.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm In fact: a person, simply by bein' a person, is his own, even if he doesn't assert or defend or even recognize that ownness (belonging to himself).
WHY are 'you' STUCK on using the male gendered words "he", "himself", "his", et cetera?

'you', "henry quirk", here sound like those in days gone by, for example, in that very past history when "men" wrote the bible with the actual delusion that "men" were more superior than "others", so that used wrong, nonsensical, and illogical terms like "his", "he", and "him" to describe God, Itself.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Sartre said sumthin' about man bein' condemned to be free; I say man naturally, irrevocably, is his own.
Obviously NO human being is owned by ANY thing else. But, EVERY new born human being is just about absolutely useless in protecting, and caring for, "them" 'self'.

And, absolutely EVERY human being, NATURALLY, 'free'. That is; until human beings 'try to' CONTROL "others".
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:45 pm Me and you (persons), can and should.
But here's the problem, Henry. Human beings are merely temporal. We come into the world without the cosmos asking our permission, and (usually) go out of it without our own say so. What would tell us that a mere accident of the indifferent cosmos had a thing called "rights?" From where would they come, and how would we guarantee they are required?

So I get RC's skepticism. It makes sense, from his suppositions. If the world is as he sees it -- merely a product of time plus chance -- then I can't see any justification for rights either. We're just animals, then; and what gives any animal a "right" to live? They may want to, they may try to, but it's a losing battle for sure. And does the indifferent cosmos promise us any sort of special dignity or deserving? It seems awfully hard to see how.
Just SEE how each one of 'you' defines the word 'rights', then WHY 'you' are NOT coming to agreement becomes KNOWN.

I have ALREADY asked the question, What does the word 'rights' mean, to 'you', ANY one. I am still waiting for CLARIFICATION.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:01 pm This is why the question of rights has to be associated with the question of authority, as well. Even the "civil rights" we get are no stronger and last no longer than the government that provides them. But "human rights," (meaning rights that persist in all places and times, regardless of the government or other people) those surely can't come without some higher authority "endowing" mankind with them, just as the Declaration says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That's why I say that it all hinges on the question of God. Without God, any "human rights" claims are simply baseless. There's no authorization or authority behind them. If mankind was not "created," then logically, neither was he "endowed by [his] Creator" with any such things.
How could humankind not be "created"?

Is there ANY one who thinks or would say that human beings were not created?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:20 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:21 pm
What occurs naturally, does not necessarily need enforcing.
RIghts are not natural
Besides the FACT that there is NOT a single 'thing', in the WHOLE Universe, that is 'not natural', what do you mean here by, "Rights are not natural"?

Will you elaborate on YOUR CLAIM here?

Also, do you agree that new born children have a right to not be abused?

If yes, then is this 'right', just a natural occurrence, or, does this right only exist because some human being made it up?

Now, if to you this right only exists because some prior human being made it up, and you agree to this right, then WHY do you agree with it?

Is it because you inherently KNOW that 'it' is the 'right thing' to do, or, just because you would get ridiculed and/or punished if you went against this 'right'?

Or, do you NOT agree that new born children have a right to not be abused, and so the rest was just moot anyway?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:09 pm 172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.
And the reason for this is ...?
Because there are no natural rights, and rights need to be fought for.
Sounds like a VERY WEAK EXCUSE for allowing and permitting 172 children to die from dirty water every ten seconds.

Are you here really 'trying to' suggest that the only 'right' children have to accessing clean enough water, so that they do not needlessly die, is if one of 'you', adult human beings, makes and/or writes that 'right' up, which 'you' then have to, supposedly, "fight for"?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:53 pm Well, that's my cue to exit the buildin'.
Not by my reckoning, Henry. I'm happy to have you around. I'm just saying we need to get our feet fully underneath us on this question of how a person comes to have rights. I'm not trying to make your life difficult; I'm just pointing to the next step.
I suggest first defining what the word 'rights' means or refers to, exactly?

And then, if we have agreement and acceptance, then we can move forward to learning and understanding how a person comes to have those 'things', which have been agreed with and accepted as being 'rights', or not.

Obviously, there is absolutely NO use saying, "We need to get our feet fully underneath us on this question of how a person comes to have rights", if some people BELIEVE that there are NO 'rights' from the outset, correct?

There is, obviously, NO "next step" here to someone who BELIEVES there are NO 'rights' at all.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:27 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:09 am Considering that EVERY person is a 'law-abiding person' sometimes, (as well as obviously being law-breaking persons, sometimes,) and that ALL persons are the cause of ALL of the world's, so called, "problems", then it is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'you', law-abiding people, are the cause of all of the "world's problems".
So do you cause problems too or are you somehow exempt from the above?
OF COURSE i cause 'problems' as well. Why would you even think otherwise?

Also, and furthermore, what a 'problem' ACTUALLY IS, to 'me', might be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, to 'you', correct?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

Age wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:27 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:09 am Considering that EVERY person is a 'law-abiding person' sometimes, (as well as obviously being law-breaking persons, sometimes,) and that ALL persons are the cause of ALL of the world's, so called, "problems", then it is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'you', law-abiding people, are the cause of all of the "world's problems".
So do you cause problems too or are you somehow exempt from the above?
OF COURSE i cause 'problems' as well. Why would you even think otherwise?

Also, and furthermore, what a 'problem' ACTUALLY IS, to 'me', might be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, to 'you', correct?
Probably correct. It could also be the case that others are not causing the problems you assume we are.

So what should we do about the problems we are causing? I know I try to obey laws and be kind when I meet others in person (though online seems to be a different matter). What do you do to try to mitigate the problems you are causing?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:43 pm So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.

By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.
Basic health care is a blessing. But it cannot be a "right," because it totally depends on the ability of the government to deliver it.
Do 'you', human beings, KNOW WHY 'you' continually drift off and LOOK AT 'things' from a monetary and/or political perspective instead of just staying focused on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. For example, if one is walking down the street and sees "another" fall over, then that former one can just provide 'basic healthcare'. NO 'government' is needed to deliver 'basic healthcare' here. Therefore, 'basic healthcare' here was NOT, and thus is NOT, totally dependent upon the government to deliver the 'basic healthcare'.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am If that government lacks the means, it can't be held accountable for not having provided it: you can't give what you don't have. And if it has no authority to make its will happen, then the alleged "right" is no more powerful than the government that delivers it.

"Guaranteed" is a tricky word. Does it mean "guaranteed to be given?" Then there are no rights. Or does it mean, "guaranteed that even if it's not given, that's a violation of your rights?" And I think it's in the latter sense that people really want to use the word: they want to say, "if you don't give me freedom, you have done something intrinsically evil to me, something contrary to the actual nature of what I am." That's how they want it to play. Otherwise, "rights" talk gives no grounds for calling any government "a violator of rights," since "rights" extend no farther than the government's whims.
George Floyd had the right to breathe,
He shouldn't have taken so my fentanyl, then. He would probably still be breathing, like all the other people in his car.
That is one way to LOOK AT 'this'.

Another way to LOOK AT 'this' is; if "george floyd" never took his first breath, after he squirmed his way out of the birth canal, then he would not have grown up, would not have taken drugs as well, and then he would not have put "himself" under the knee of "another".

So, if "george floyd" should not have taken so many fentanyl, then he also should not have grown up, and thus he should not have taken his first breath either. That way he would have NOT been in the position he, allegedly, put "himself" in, correct?

Have you ever stopped, to consider WHY "george floyd" was "taking so many fentanyl" in the first place?

Or, have you just concluded that it is all "george floyd's" FAULT why he is NOT breathing anymore?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am Apparently, his suffocation was drug induced; he was saying "I can't breathe" long before the cops wrestled with him, and his coroner says he didn't have the normal signs of suffocation, such as a crushed hyoid bone or retinal petechiae.
Is there REALLY a "normal" sign of suffocation?

If yes, then you just made the claim that "george" was claiming that "he could not breathe", and he was, supposedly, doing this, "long before the cops wrestled with him". To 'you', if a human being is saying, "I can't breathe", and they died of suffocation, then would that be a "normal sign" of suffocation?

If yes, then IF "george" died of suffocation because of WHY he was saying, "I can't breathe", then HOW did the coroner arrive at the conclusion that "george" did NOT have the "normal signs of suffocation"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am So it looks like he signed off on his own life.
LOL Even though I KNOW EXACTLY WHY 'you', human beings, ARE the way you ARE, it never ceased to amaze me the way some of 'you', adult human beings, were SO CRUEL to, and SO JUDGMENTAL of, other human beings.

For 'you', 'immanuel can", to write such a thing as you have here, especially on a public forum for ALL to SEE, SHOWS just how little respect you have for some "others", and for their lives.

WHY do 'you' think it is that some of the one's who call themselves, "christians", in the days when this was being written, were some of the most CRUELEST people, in that "world"?

But in that reference you're talking about one of the real human rights...the right to life. And yes, everybody has that. However, nobody could stop George Floyd from choosing a life of crime and drug abuse;[/quote]

LOL "Nobody"?

Are you REALLY 'trying to' suggest that NOBODY could have had a different influence on the human being named and labeled "george floyd" here?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am another fundamental right gave him that ability. He had a right to choose; he had freedom.
BUT, NO one has the choice in what environment they are born into, and grow up in as a child also.

Also, 'you', human beings, have FREE WILL, but ONLY in regards to having the ability to choose, BUT, what 'you' have to CHOOSE FROM is limited and determined by previous experiences, and thus is (pre) determined.

EVERY one has 'freedom', but, REALLY, how much 'freedom' do children REALLY HAVE?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.
You are correct in the above. We are agreeing. But then, they are not a human construct.
If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have,

Well, "wishful thoughts" have no power, no justification, and no authority behind them. They're only wishes.

You might be "wishful thinking" you want a Lamborghini. That doesn't mean one appears in your driveway. And it doesn't make Lamborghini ownership a "right."
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am
Age wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:27 pm

So do you cause problems too or are you somehow exempt from the above?
OF COURSE i cause 'problems' as well. Why would you even think otherwise?

Also, and furthermore, what a 'problem' ACTUALLY IS, to 'me', might be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, to 'you', correct?
Probably correct. It could also be the case that others are not causing the problems you assume we are.
But I NOT 'assuming" 'you' are. I KNOW 'you' are.

If it was NOT for the judgments, ridicule, and punishment 'you', adult human beings, put on "others", each other, "yourselves", then the "world" would NOT be in such a mess as it is was, with ALL of those problems, in the days when this was being written.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am So what should we do about the problems we are causing?
I suggest, first:

'Accepting responsibility', that is; being Truly Honest and admitting the problems, which 'you' cause. Then,

'Taking responsibility', that is; doing ALL it takes to changing your ways, for the better.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am I know I try to obey laws and be kind when I meet others in person (though online seems to be a different matter).
'Trying to' is NOT 'doing'.

'Laws' can be made just for the benefit of SOME and NOT for ALL. Obeying laws certainly does NOT necessarily stop the 'problems' and make the "world" a better place

WHY does meeting "others" online, instead of in person, make you NOT 'try to' be kind to those ones?
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:47 am What do you do to try to mitigate the problems you are causing?
Not that much other than learn how to communicate in a way that I can and will be FAR BETTER UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW the solution, and the formula, that can and will lead to a Truly peaceful "world".

But, saying things that seem UNBELIEVABLE to some people, like for example, 'I KNOW what 'it' is, which WILL create a Truly heaven-like existence for EVERY one' usually makes most people NOT want to listen. So, for future peoples' sake, I just continue to learn how to be FULLY HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

By the way, what 'problems' do you think or believe 'I' am causing?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

Sure 'one' person can claim 'itself', but my questioning is asking how can 'one' claim to BELONG to 'itself'?

Already covered that...not goin' down the rabbit hole with you.


WHY are 'you' STUCK on using the male gendered words "he", "himself", "his", et cetera?

Covered it...no rabbit holes today.

-----

And, WHEN was the first time you discovered/decided 'I' am "autistic", and HOW, exactly, did you make this discovery/decision, or in other words, WHAT, exactly, led 'you' to this discovery/decision?

Are you autistic? Do you have Asperger's Syndrome? Are you on the spectrum?

Yes or no.
Post Reply