Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

[aurelieus]

It makes no difference attorney or not, you all subscribe to the selfsame nonsense regarding law as a rule/force/determinant, which language of law is not and cannot be.

I merely posited my critique of the notion of law here, and, have been insultingly and senselessly attacked absent provision of any reasoned argument against my position; I did not come here to argue, but to seek consensus; you people attack and I defend via further positing and positing my propositions. Reasoned consensus is my objective, and, I have encountered a brick wall of abject ignorance and naught but argumentum ad hominem, exhibited by profoundly viscious and stupid persons; I am sick of it here; stop accosting me and, there will be no further basis for me to respond...

[PayrolGuy]

I am sick of it here; stop accosting me and, there will be no further basis for me to respond...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the say out.

[aurelieus]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the say out.

Super. horrid, nitwit creep, sicko, get bent. Too radically retarded to handle viable honest criticism of your stupidity.

You are so completely ignorantly mean that you cannot stop the senseless abuse...best to place you on ignore, dummy.

[RJR]

Super. horrid, nitwit creep, sicko, get bent. Too radically retarded to handle viable honest criticism of your stupidity.

You are so completely ignorantly mean that you cannot stop the senseless abuse...best to place you on ignore, dummy.

I saw your posts on 3 different boards, one being a Christian/Religious board! What is your purpose you wish to accomplish? You claim we are legally ignorant here on EL, are you attempting to assign a religious meaning to your posts? Which is it, legal or religious?

[aurelieus]

I saw your posts on 3 different boards, one being a Christian/Religious board! What is your purpose you wish to accomplish? You claim we are legally ignorant here on EL, are you attempting to assign a religious meaning to your posts? Which is it, legal or religious?

I first posted on a atheist site, they were horrid, even worse than this site; then on Christian sites, because I had written an ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ, showing that they cannot be Deity because they mistakenly deemed law to be a means to determining human behavior, that, if they were indeed Deity they would have known that we humans tick only via double nihilation when it comes to originating our acts. (I give a simple understandable explanation of the double nihilation in the OP). The Christians were predominantly very decent and loving toward me. The Christians are concerned with law, thus my communication with Christians, I myself do not subscribe to Jehovah or Christ; however, there is indeed some extraordinarily intelligent structure which has articulated both the universe and ourselves, via atomic particles. I simply want to provide others with an alternate perspective on how a human act originates, and, explain how our acts do not, cannot, originate on the basis of given states of affairs like law(s).

[RJR]

I first posted on a atheist site, they were horrid, even worse than this site; then on Christian sites, because I had written an ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ, showing that they cannot be Deity because they mistakenly deemed law to be a means to determining human behavior, that, if they were indeed Deity they would have known that we humans tick only via double nihilation when it comes to originating our acts. (I give a simple understandable explanation of the double nihilation in the OP). The Christians were predominantly very decent and loving toward me. The Christians are concerned with law, thus my communication with Christians, I myself do not subscribe to Jehovah or Christ; however, there is indeed some extraordinarily intelligent structure which has articulated both the universe and ourselves, via atomic particles. I simply want to provide others with an alternate perspective on how a human act originates, and, explain how our acts do not, cannot, originate on the basis of given states of affairs like law(s).

There are two arguments on the "Origin of the Species", Evolution and Creationism.

The best so called "Proof" of Creationism that seems to be evolving is that DNA Coding requires Intelligence, not Evolutionary progression. Thoughts!

[Taxing Matters]

When you undertook insult I reciprocated, it is that simple. No, you do not owe me grounds for pure assertions, you owe to reason/rationality.
I need to recall from which thinker I learned the world does not contain facts, Ryle perhaps, in his discussion of quasi-referential the-phrases, i.e., one need be careful not to be misled when a 'the' precedes a term, as in ''the unicorn'', into thinking the world contains unicorns; it is in the same sense that ''...the fact..'' is a systematically misleading quasi-referential the-phrase. That the world does not contain facts is not my idea, it stems from linguistic analysis; and, jumping all over me about it only illustrates your vacuous technique of absurdly addressing persons, instead of the merits of the position/argument that person has set forth. Flake-off bumkin.

Another insulting reply from you. I have not insulted you in this thread (read back through my posts and you will see that to be true), unless you count my rejection of your premise. And if you think rejection of your premise is insult then I dare say you do not understand debate at all. I'm not obligated to accept your premise nor is anyone else. And even if I had insulted you before (and I didn't) I certainly I didn't insult you in the reply you quoted, and you undertook to insult me again, without provocation. That tells me a lot of your mindset — you insult those who merely disagree with you. That's most unfortunate. I would hope that you'd find hurling insults beneath you. Obviously that is not the case.

[determinatio]

There are two arguments on the "Origin of the Species", Evolution and Creationism.

The best so called "Proof" of Creationism that seems to be evolving is that DNA Coding requires Intelligence, not Evolutionary progression. Thoughts!

It simply is not a case of either/or, rather, of both/and, i.e., both intelligence and random mutation. Cells/viruses are originally intelligently made and evolve via mutational inaccurate variant replication.

[RJR]

It simply is not a case of either/or, rather, of both/and, i.e., both intelligence and random mutation. Cells/viruses are originally intelligently made and evolve via mutational inaccurate variant replication.

I suggest you try to debate in a manner that does not require the individual reading it to have the combined knowledge of 2000 years of Philosophy study to decipher it. If you have that knowledge fine, I don't.

Your original post completely UNinterests readers.

[determinatio]

Another insulting reply from you. I have not insulted you in this thread (read back through my posts and you will see that to be true), unless you count my rejection of your premise. And if you think rejection of your premise is insult then I dare say you do not understand debate at all. I'm not obligated to accept your premise nor is anyone else. And even if I had insulted you before (and I didn't) I certainly I didn't insult you in the reply you quoted, and you undertook to insult me again, without provocation. That tells me a lot of your mindset — you insult those who merely disagree with you. That's most unfortunate. I would hope that you'd find hurling insults beneath you. Obviously that is not the case.

I have had so many constant abuses and insults I just mistakenly clumped you in. Yes, you are correct, I do not see any insult within your responses, sorry.

I suggest you try to debate in a manner that does not require the individual reading it to have the combined knowledge of 2000 years of Philosophy study to decipher it. If you have that knowledge fine, I don't.

Your original post completely UNinterests readers.

I am posting in the dark and do not know everyone's educational background, however, when doing a critique of law itself, one is under the necessity to employ what is deemed to be the intellectual instruments requisite to the task, toughminded instruments. Everyone wants the OP to be custom written particularly for them, which cannot possibly to done. Do you speak for all readers!? No. It is my responsibility to present my critique whether or not anyone is particularly interested, I am indifferent regarding the personal interests of persons. It is necessary to submit material that is radically critical in nature and that necessity does not, cannot, will not, win friends; though, it might influence people. I explain all of the historic positions which I employ, and, they only go back just about four hundred years...

I would enjoy a response from you regarding my answer to your origin of species query...