The rule of thumb

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am
Age wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:47 pmWho owns the land, which you say "is yours"?
I do. I paid the askin' price: it's mine. You dispute this?
Explain.
Does buying STOLEN 'goods', or STOLEN 'property', mean that that 'property' is NOT stolen?
Who did you get it from, EXACTLY?
From the fellow who owned it.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am
Who did they get it from, EXACTLY?
Hell if I know.
And, who did they get it from, ET cetera?
Ditto.
If you want to claim that the 'land', which you claim is "your property", is NOT stolen, then what made the previously so-called 'transactions', morally, 'right'?
I don't know that the pedigree of the property is on the up & up clear back to the first men who walked it. No doubt, at some point it was swindled away and stolen, etc.
So you AGREE that the 'property', which you say 'is yours' is ACTUALLY STOLEN.

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am Long time back, skepdick (at least I think it was him) asked me the same question. I tell you what I told him: if someone believes they have a better or previous claim on my parcel, they're free to step up and make their claim. They need to prove they have a previous or better claim. Wangin' on a tribal drum and declarin' The Great Spirit sez so an't gonna cut it.
IT does NOT matter.

You have ALREADY AGREED that what you CLAIM is 'yours' is ACTUALLY STOLEN, anyway.

And, according to you, you can be SHOT DEAD if you have STOLEN property.
-----
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am
The basis behind the principle that "bahman" and "Henry quirk" subscribe to here is correct and right, but *the principle they claim to follow here has NEVER worked. As has AlREADY been PROVED TRUE. In Fact **these two do NOT even follow this principle of theirs, themselves. ***This is because they can NOT.
*another unbacked assertion...where's your evidence?
Human history.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am
**another unbacked assertion...where's your evidence?
Both of you TELL "others" what to do and how to behave and how to not behave.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 am
***another unbacked assertion...where's your evidence?
It is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings to own thy self.

By the way, just about EVERY thing I say in this forum is a so-called 'unbacked assertion'. And, I do this for a very specific reason.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by henry quirk »

Does buying STOLEN 'goods', or STOLEN 'property', mean that that 'property' is NOT stolen?
Stolen is stolen. The question is: if Joe buys X, believin' with good reason X is not stolen, is Joe guilty of theft?

I'd say no. He operated in good faith even if the seller did not.
So you AGREE that the 'property', which you say 'is yours' is ACTUALLY STOLEN.
No. I said I don't know that the pedigree of the property is on the up & up clear back to the first men who walked it. No doubt, at some point it was swindled away and stolen, etc., but I have no evidence of any actual theft and none has been offered. I can't agree that it was actually stolen in the past. I simply don't know.
according to you, you can be SHOT DEAD if you have STOLEN property.
No, I never said that. I said a person can defend his property, and that defense can include shooting the thief. That means in the moment of the theft. An example: some years back, my kid's bike was stolen from our carport. If I had caught the thief in the act, I would have been entitled to stop him. If, instead, I came across someone riding his bike a few weeks later, I might stop the person riding it and ask about it, but I can't just take it from them or shoot 'em. For one, that person may have bought the bike in good faith from the thief. For another, the bike may simply be identical to my kid's but not be my kid's.

You see the difference?
Human history.
Narrow that down please.
Both of you TELL "others" what to do and how to behave and how to not behave.
Evidence, please.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings to own thy self.
Why?
I do this for a very specific reason.
What's the reason?
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
Does buying STOLEN 'goods', or STOLEN 'property', mean that that 'property' is NOT stolen?
Stolen is stolen. The question is: if Joe buys X, believin' with good reason X is not stolen, is Joe guilty of theft?
If you KNOW the land you bought WAS STOLEN, which you SAY and CLAIM it IS, then you KNOW it was STOLEN

The question now remains, did you KNOW this before you bought that parcel of land?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm I'd say no. He operated in good faith even if the seller did not.
WHY are you DEFLECTING and talking about hypotheticals or OTHER people?

I have been talking about 'you', "henry quirk".
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
So you AGREE that the 'property', which you say 'is yours' is ACTUALLY STOLEN.
No. I said I don't know that the pedigree of the property is on the up & up clear back to the first men who walked it. No doubt, at some point it was swindled away and stolen, etc., but I have no evidence of any actual theft and none has been offered. I can't agree that it was actually stolen in the past. I simply don't know.
LOL So, you have absolutely NO DOUBT AT ALL that that property was swindled away AND STOLEN but you, somehow, can NOT agree that it was STOLEN. Are you now able to explain this, obvious, CONTADICTION?

If no, then WHY NOT?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
according to you, you can be SHOT DEAD if you have STOLEN property.
No, I never said that. I said a person can defend his property, and that defense can include shooting the thief. That means in the moment of the theft. An example: some years back, my kid's bike was stolen from our carport. If I had caught the thief in the act, I would have been entitled to stop him.
LOL So, you would SHOOT DEAD ANOTHER human being, man, woman, or child, over a 'bike'.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm If, instead, I came across someone riding his bike a few weeks later, I might stop the person riding it and ask about it, but I can't just take it from them or shoot 'em. For one, that person may have bought the bike in good faith from the thief. For another, the bike may simply be identical to my kid's but not be my kid's.
BUT if someone just touches "your" 'kid's' bike, in 'your' carport, you WILL SHOOT them DEAD, no questions asked, correct?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm You see the difference?
I saw and knew it previously.

Do you see the difference?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
Human history.
Narrow that down please.
In the days when this was being written.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
Both of you TELL "others" what to do and how to behave and how to not behave.
Evidence, please.
Partners and/or kids. Or, at other times in your lives.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
It is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings to own thy self.
Why?
Because when EVERY one of 'you' was born you were reliant upon, and thus NEEDED, SOME one ELSE.

'you' were ALL treated as someone else's. Just like you treat "your kid" as "your" 'kid' and NOT their own. As SEEN and PROVED above.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:58 pm
I do this for a very specific reason.
What's the reason?
First off thank you very much for the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. SHOWS a True sign of INTELLIGENCE.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:59 pmwhich you SAY and CLAIM it IS
nope
LOL
🖕
if someone just touches "your" 'kid's' bike, in 'your' carport, you WILL SHOOT them DEAD, no questions asked, correct?
nope
In the days when this was being written.
meaningless
Partners and/or kids. Or, at other times in your lives.
nope
Because when EVERY one of 'you' was born you were reliant upon, and thus NEEDED, SOME one ELSE.
in context: nonsense
First off thank you very much for the CLARIFYING QUESTION.
which you didn't answer

don't bother: I don't care

-----

thus ends another conversation with autist
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 3:06 pm
Age wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:59 pmwhich you SAY and CLAIM it IS
nope
LOL
🖕
if someone just touches "your" 'kid's' bike, in 'your' carport, you WILL SHOOT them DEAD, no questions asked, correct?
nope
In the days when this was being written.
meaningless
Partners and/or kids. Or, at other times in your lives.
nope
Because when EVERY one of 'you' was born you were reliant upon, and thus NEEDED, SOME one ELSE.
in context: nonsense
First off thank you very much for the CLARIFYING QUESTION.
which you didn't answer

don't bother: I don't care

-----

thus ends another conversation with autist
OBVIOUSLY, you have CHANGED your answers, which is FURTHER POOF of just how often you CONTRADICT your OWN previous CLAIMS. Your own STANCE and CLAIM that; "You have all rights when it comes to you but you have no right to decide about others", is OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTED by the one here known as "henry quirk". As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the discussion above, through which I successfully PROVED True.

ALSO, list the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you now CLAIM I did NOT answer. If you do NOT, then, ONCE AGAIN, this ones INABILITY to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS is SHOWN, as so PROVED True, AS WELL.

Thank you for, ONCE AGAIN, ending our discussion, AFTER I have PROVED your claims False, Wrong, Incorrect, UNWORKABLE, and/or just down right ABSURD.

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

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by henry quirk »

OBVIOUSLY, you have CHANGED your answers
nope
ALSO, list the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you now CLAIM I did NOT answer.
there's just one and you thanked me for askin' it, but you never actually answered it

as I say: don't bother
I have PROVED your claims False, Wrong, Incorrect, UNWORKABLE, and/or just down right ABSURD.
nope
LOL
🖕
"autist"
yep
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 1:19 am
OBVIOUSLY, you have CHANGED your answers
nope
ALSO, list the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you now CLAIM I did NOT answer.
there's just one and you thanked me for askin' it, but you never actually answered it

as I say: don't bother
I have PROVED your claims False, Wrong, Incorrect, UNWORKABLE, and/or just down right ABSURD.
nope
LOL
🖕
"autist"
yep
ONCE AGAIN I have managed to get 'you' to CONTRADICT your OWN previously CLAIMS. So, 'you' have, AGAIN, proved your OWN CLAIMS False, Wrong, or Incorrect, "your" 'self'.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by henry quirk »

ONCE AGAIN I have managed to get 'you' to CONTRADICT your OWN previously CLAIMS. So, 'you' have, AGAIN, proved your OWN CLAIMS False, Wrong, or Incorrect, "your" 'self'.
nope, nope, you wish
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:53 am
ONCE AGAIN I have managed to get 'you' to CONTRADICT your OWN previously CLAIMS. So, 'you' have, AGAIN, proved your OWN CLAIMS False, Wrong, or Incorrect, "your" 'self'.
nope, nope, you wish
Yep, Yep, ALREADY DONE.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:37 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:53 am
ONCE AGAIN I have managed to get 'you' to CONTRADICT your OWN previously CLAIMS. So, 'you' have, AGAIN, proved your OWN CLAIMS False, Wrong, or Incorrect, "your" 'self'.
nope, nope, you wish
Yep, Yep, ALREADY DONE.
in your dreams
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The rule of thumb

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:23 am
Age wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:37 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:53 am

nope, nope, you wish
Yep, Yep, ALREADY DONE.
in your dreams
LOL
Post Reply