Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

[aurelieus]

Fascinating story. Do you have a question?

You have been presented with radically original thinking in the form of an ontologically mediated critique of law, cast in the language and theoretical constructs of existential phenomonology. Anyone capable of writing/thinking critically,on the ontological plane, regarding the fundamentally mistaken construct law, does not sit at the feet of and, implore vacuous jurisprudentially-oriented persons via positing interrogative formulations !

Which critique, however, in toto, constitutes the question: "Is extant law theoretically/ontologically intelligible?", and, answers the question in the negative, via reasoned reflection, which reasoning upsets jurisprudentially-oriented persons, intellectually unequipped to follow...

I guess he put you in your place TM.

That said, no matter if TM or anyone else has reflected sufficiently upon this particular mental diarrhea you are still going to have to pay your trash taxes or suffer whatever penalty your county applies to those that don't.

I have directly challenged the county attorney, in writing, to sue me in court, and she has declined. Smart attorneys do not go up against non-attorneys with educational backgrounds which cannot be fully determined, it ruins careers when they lose to a non-attorney...
Upon long reflection, I have decided that I would prefer not to go up against a system mediated by what I consider to be the most deviate,dishonest, dishonorable, and criminal element, i.e., lawyers. I probably would never again see the light of day per being held in contempt of court, by persons who deem law an absolute, and, never even think that law is purely theory; and, as the kind fellow on the other forum who is striving with his home owner's association, agrees, with a ton of money, procedural cogency, and expert witnesses, a successful affirmative defense could be posited against mandatory sanitation fees, in a Courtroom. Hence, you mistakenly place me within a false either/or dilemma and, fail to see the possibility of an alternative, wherein one does not end-up paying a mandatory fee which lacks State Legislative authority, and, deals a profound blow to law is it now proceeds...

I guess he put you in your place TM.

That said, no matter if TM or anyone else has reflected sufficiently upon this particular mental diarrhea you are still going to have to pay your trash taxes or suffer whatever penalty your county applies to those that don't.

You exhibit a lot of class, all of it low.

[Mark47n]

You have been presented with radically original thinking in the form of an ontologically mediated critique of law, cast in the language and theoretical constructs of existential phenomonology. Anyone capable of writing/thinking critically,on the ontological plane, regarding the fundamentally mistaken construct law, does not sit at the feet of and, implore vacuous jurisprudentially-oriented persons via positing interrogative formulations !

Which critique, however, in toto, constitutes the question: "Is extant law theoretically/ontologically intelligible?", and, answers the question in the negative, via reasoned reflection, which reasoning upsets jurisprudentially-oriented persons, intellectually unequipped to follow...

Given that you are quoting those who are long dead there is nothing original in what you are saying. It's well worn territory.

You have an extremely irritating mode of communication that is unnecessarily dense.

[free9man]

You have an extremely irritating mode of communication that is unnecessarily dense.

Methinks he escaped from r/iamverysmart.

[aurelieus]

Given that you are quoting those who are long dead there is nothing original in what you are saying. It's well worn territory.

You have an extremely irritating mode of communication that is unnecessarily dense.

My application of extant constructs, long established within the arena of theory regarding how a human act originates, to the notion of law per se, is radically original. Show me anyone else who has proceeded to critique the notion of law itself. Ad hominem argument against me is senseless; one does not posit theoretical defeat of the notion of law via weak-minded instruments of thought; the density is a function of the reader's lack in intellectual instrumentation; it is all really radically simple. Mere pure assertion posited against my person and my language is fallacious, unfounded, and useless, when, what is requisite is that you posit a reasoned, rational rationale defeasibly positing against the OP, which you cannot, will not, do.
To insist that I be other than I am is vain; writing a theoretically oriented critique of law requires the most toughminded of all possible tools of thought be employed, and, I am absolutely without excuse or justification. The OP is boiled-down to absolute bare-bones, from even much much more extensive and more abstruse language...

Methinks he escaped from r/iamverysmart.

ad hominem flippancy is pure vain joking nonsense...step up and rationally overthrow the OP if at all possible...

[RJR]

There is no obfuscation; merely your particular lack of familiarity with the language and constructs of existential ontology.

"And Richard Cory one calm summer night went home and put a bullet through his head".

[aurelieus]

"And Richard Cory one calm summer night went home and put a bullet through his head".

I sincerely would appreciate it if you would enlighten me concerning what you are signifying via the quotation.
aurelieus

[PayrolGuy]

I sincerely would appreciate it if you would enlighten me concerning what you are signifying via the quotation.
aurelieus

Read the poem.

[aurelieus]

I like the responses the OP received on another forum.

And all of his studies are to fight a county trash collection law.

No way my studies are in response to trash law just recently encountered upon buying property in an unfamiliar jurisdiction. Have been studying Sartre since 1971.
I intend to remain purely on the theoretical plane and, am wiser than to defy inauthoritative authority, in a Court manned by deluded and malignant doctors of jurisprudence. Instance Galileo...

[Taxing Matters]

It is not ''philosophy'' which I am doing here; it is merely study and critique of the central presupposition upon which law is predicated, i.e., that law is presumed determinative of human conduct and/or that persons determine themselves to act, or not, on the basis of law, which Taxing Matters has not yet reflected sufficiently upon to begin to get a handle on said notion, and suffers under what I call jurisprudential illusion, which is polite for jurisprudential delusion.

Whether you recognize it or not, your argument is rooted in a particular philosophical viewpoint. It is certainly not fact, as you yourself indicated by noting it to be a "fresh theory". You may buy into that philosophical view; it may suit your particular world view. But I deal with the practicality of daily living and experience, and in my experience people very much do take the law into account in their actions. They may not like every law they follow, but they do it because they don't want to risk the consequences that may follow for breaking the law. You may think that all law is "barbaric" but humans have found it useful for thousands of years to have some rules for people to follow to keep society orderly.

If your hobby is dabbling in these esoteric philosophy theories, have it. Personally I see little value in such things, but I know some people love delving into them.

[Mark47n]

My application of extant constructs, long established within the arena of theory regarding how a human act originates, to the notion of law per se, is radically original. Show me anyone else who has proceeded to critique the notion of law itself. Ad hominem argument against me is senseless; one does not posit theoretical defeat of the notion of law via weak-minded instruments of thought; the density is a function of the reader's lack in intellectual instrumentation; it is all really radically simple. Mere pure assertion posited against my person and my language is fallacious, unfounded, and useless, when, what is requisite is that you posit a reasoned, rational rationale defeasibly positing against the OP, which you cannot, will not, do.
To insist that I be other than I am is vain; writing a theoretically oriented critique of law requires the most toughminded of all possible tools of thought be employed, and, I am absolutely without excuse or justification. The OP is boiled-down to absolute bare-bones, from even much much more extensive and more abstruse language...

Stating an opinion regarding the mode in which you choose to communicate is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be me saying that your argument isn't valid because you're a great pillock. Is the difference clear enough?

You also tend to refer to yourself in the third person, especially when you invite dispute. I don't know what that's about but it makes me think of either the Borg or Bob Dole, I can't decide which.

Is this how you have conversations? Face to face? Do you use, day to day, this unnecessarily convoluted language? If so, do people's eyes glaze over while you take 20 minutes to express a thought (this would be hyperbole)? For myself, it's not that I don't understand what your saying, it's that the way you choose to say it makes me want to pull your tongue out of your head.

Overall I give you an 'F' in communication skills.