Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

[budwad]

OP lives in a subjective reality. Things are what his mind says they are irrespective of an objective reality where facts are true without interpretation or observation.

[aurelieus]

So, in case you hadn't figured it out Stable Genius....no one wants to play your game of "Look at my verbal diarrhea." So how about you accept that and go find a sandbox to annoy kids in?

What, and depart from all the miserably hateful, ignorant bigotry, anal legalo-degenerates continually have in store!? You clearly possess a great legal mind perfectly acquainted with intestinal disorder. I am certain you are very proudly a horrid flippant dunce.

OP lives in a subjective reality. Things are what his mind says they are irrespective of an objective reality where facts are true without interpretation or observation.

What my person may or may not be is indifferent. With your perfect grasp of what is real you might quit ad hominem fallacy and write rational refutation of the OP.

Captain, you do not seem to understand. The laws of physics are consistent throughout the Galaxy. Where physical laws do not exist, nor can reality exist. When physical laws change, so must the thought process to accept or reject them as reality.

On this forum laws of the physis are not under consideration; the concern here is with the jurisprudential decisional and legislative ilk of ''law'', hence, you do not understand!

[budwad]

What my person may or may not be is indifferent. With your perfect grasp of what is real you might quit ad hominem fallacy and write rational refutation of the OP.

It's a waste of time.

[aurelieus]

It's a waste of time.

The very foundations of the law you pretend to practice is being dismantled at the ontological level and, you do not deem it important enough to possibly defend against. I will not stop until a book is published. This is no "game'' playing; all the lawyers will, at the theoretical level, be rendered dead, as per Shakespeare's admonition!

You indeed dwell in fantasy, with your facts and objective realities like 'law' per se, which law is delusion, believed by deluded and destructive non-thinkers, currently living via eating-out the substance of the grassroots, in the name of the absurdity that is deemed to be law...just so many Jehovahs punishing everyone for ignoring your vain injunctions. Your law is simply a devil's purse, which provides dishonorable men with perpetual income, predicated on unintentionally systematically misleading yourselves and the masses, because you are too dense to see that language of law is not, cannot be, determinative of either prosecutorial of magistrative actions...

My writing is simply a means of catharting my absolute disdain/repulsion regarding your ilk, without resorting to arms.

[burnelo]

Eschew obfuscation.

This is for "flyingiron". I would like to ask you a DMV question. Is there any way that I can private message you? Thank you!

[cbg]

OP lives in a subjective reality. Things are what his mind says they are irrespective of an objective reality where facts are true without interpretation or observation.

^^^^Like this too.

[aurelieus]

^^^^Like this too.

Mind; subjective reality; facts; objective reality, all are instances of unicorn, of the King of France, of Santa Klaus, and, simply because there are words appearing to refer to such, undiscerning jurisprudentially-oriented persons unthinkingly permit themselves to believe the world actually contains their minds, their subjective and objective realities ; facts; super delusional!

Jurisprudents are so radically established within the biases of their preconceptions that they are hopelessly lost in illusion, such as ''law'', which putatively determines persons to do or not do conduct. cbg is a typical lying dishonorable dupe.

If you duped dupes do not want critical clear thinking on this site simply stop accosting me.

[cbg]

Run away, aurelieus, and let the grown-ups talk.

[aurelieus]

Run away, aurelieus, and let the grown-ups talk.

I will be seventy five in June and hold two degrees in the liberal arts, 1973 and 2007. It is pitiful that not one of you can do more than argumentum ad hominem and, cannot possibly even begin to do rational critique of the OP, for, you big-shot legal minds are pitifully stuck-on-stupid, as mere parrots of legal absurdity; you are only really so many little children who believe in stuff like Santa Claus! Funny. You jurisprudentially-oriented types are not in the least bit toughminded and, all you can do is childish insult, when you are face to face with viable critique of your weltanschauung.
Step-up and do a rational defeat of the OP and, yes, I am unrealistically hoping for more than is possible here, for, none of you can actually think!
Living the lie that is ''law'', day in and day out, has made you professional dupes/liars. Cowards.
I have overthrown your precious notion ''law'' and, there is not a damn thing any of you are capable of doing about it; if you had a shred of honesty and or sense, you would see that you have suffered defease regarding your central mistaken presupposition, i.e., that language of law is somehow determinative of human acts.

[Mark47n]

I will be seventy five in June and hold two degrees in the liberal arts, 1973 and 2007. It is pitiful that not one of you can do more than argumentum ad hominem and, cannot possibly even begin to do rational critique of the OP, for, you big-shot legal minds are pitifully stuck-on-stupid, as mere parrots of legal absurdity; you are only really so many little children who believe in stuff like Santa Claus! Funny. You jurisprudentially-oriented types are not in the least bit toughminded and, all you can do is childish insult, when you are face to face with viable critique of your weltanschauung.
Step-up and do a rational defeat of the OP and, yes, I am unrealistically hoping for more than is possible here, for, none of you can actually think!
Living the lie that is ''law'', day in and day out, has made you professional dupes/liars. Cowards.

For someone who has two degrees and professes to read a lot you clearly didn't read the terms of service. Most of us are not attorneys.

We have no need to argue with you, it's you who desire to argue with us.

You are a smug and sanctimonious. and clearly bored.