Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 105
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Determinatio, the debate of the existence of a Higher Power has been evident since the beginning of time by millions of opinions and reasoning. I really do not care to discuss that in any great lengths as it would involve too much typing, (not to be funny here though), voice/in person debate is another matter.

    Have you ever heard of Lewis's trilemma or Pascal's Wager? I do not have a degree in Divinity nor am I a Scientist like Darwin. I simply apply reasoning that of course you do not agree with. I'll leave it at that if you don't mind.

  2. #52

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Determinatio, the debate of the existence of a Higher Power has been evident since the beginning of time by millions of opinions and reasoning. I really do not care to discuss that in any great lengths as it would involve too much typing, (not to be funny here though), voice/in person debate is another matter.

    Have you ever heard of Lewis's trilemma or Pascal's Wager? I do not have a degree in Divinity nor am I a Scientist like Darwin. I simply apply reasoning that of course you do not agree with. I'll leave it at that if you don't mind.
    No, I have never heard of Lewis's trilemma or Pascal's Wager, interesting...okay, neither do I particularly care to discuss divinity.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Did OP forget his login details and have to make a new account? Maybe planning to have a puppet account to help himself and for get which account was logged in?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    No, I have never heard of Lewis's trilemma or Pascal's Wager, interesting...okay, neither do I particularly care to discuss divinity.
    Your original post is nothing more than various philosophical arguments, such as listed by the link, of a collection of thoughts that serve no purpose in the structure of Jurisprudence. Have you ever read ANY court/case law decision penned that exhibits support for your argumentitive basis? I can answer that, NO! If a Constitutional issue is to be decided, it will not be based on Philosophy. You have offered us NO hint whatsoever that you understand even the basic principles of law or Federalism, which William Rhenquist strongly promoted.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

    Any person who has even marginal reading skills can assemble a collage of philosophy as you posted. As you can see, there are plenty of points of authorities cited to argue any point. If you wish to debate/discuss law, do it, don't use philosophy as a crutch.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    The staff has both been making it impossible for me to log in, and, now, is employing censorship, in an UnAmerican fashion, in order to discourage me from freely enunciating my views.
    RJR,
    It is not my purpose to engage in jurisprudence and the fine points of writing points and authorities. I am concerned with mistaken fundamental presupposition entertained by jurisprudence, i.e., the presupposition that language of law determines juristic acts, or, that jurists determine themselves to act on the basis of language of law. Call it ''philosophy'' or whatever you like. It is critical thinking/reasoning grounded in Spinoza's dictum, which regards determination; which regards how human beings accomplish determinations/decisions, and, which, via Sartre's utilization of Spinoza's insight that all determination is negation, supports my contention that given language of law is not determinative among human persons. I am not endeavoring to support my position via employment of existing judicial decision! One would be self-inconsistent to employ the instruments of thought of the position one is criticizing in support of one's position ; no I will not use jurisprudence to kick jurisprudence in the nuts. I am, simply, pointing out a very basic and fundamental error entailed in jurisprudential thinking, i.e., that given law is determinative of human conduct, while, all the while, human conduct arises only on the basis of desideratum, absence, lack, non-being.
    I completed a course in the fundamentals of Legal Assistance, wherein I leaned that jurists employ general principles of law in deciding issues; and, I did a course in Legal Philosophy; and, I have been shit on by "the law" over a lifetime, which is a great course in law!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Now you have exposed the real reason for your verbal diarrhea that reads like someone is trying to use every word to impress your readers. Much of what you write doesn't follow logical thought.

    So you are mad at how the law has screwed you. We get that now, apostate.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Now you have exposed the real reason for your verbal diarrhea that reads like someone is trying to use every word to impress your readers. Much of what you write doesn't follow logical thought.

    So you are mad at how the law has screwed you. We get that now, apostate.
    You are a pure blooded ingrate who cannot possibly proceed except via insult and, you delude yourself into thinking you see illogic in my propositions; your constant argumentum ad hominem illustrates the dire level of your thought processes. Attack the position not the man. You merely exhibit your ignobility.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    Attack the position not the man. .
    That is exactly what I did and your response proves what I posted. Go back and read what you posted.

    You are a pure blooded ingrate who cannot possibly proceed except via insult
    What are you trying to say here? What is a pure blooded ingrate? Let's start with ingrate.



    noun: ingrate; plural noun: ingrates

    an ungrateful person.
    What exactly in the context of your posts or mine, should I be grateful for that you call me an ingrate?

    You call me pure blooded . I won't even speculate on that. Perhaps you could explain.

    who cannot possibly proceed except via insult and, you delude yourself into thinking you see illogic in my propositions;
    There is no logic in your propositions. Your propositions are nothing more than your subjective views of the world around you. That, by definition precludes the objective reality we all live in. If you don't know the difference between the two I suggest you do some reading on the subject. Giant In Chains by Barrows Dunham might be a good place to start. I read that back in the 1970's when I was studying philosophy in collage and it always stuck with me. The difference of what is true and what is known to be true.

    constant argumentum ad hominem illustrates the dire level of your thought processes.
    I believe this is my third post in this thread. In my first post I postulated that you have a problem with reality. That was not an insult but rather my take on your mindset taken from your rather long posts. If you took it as an insult, then I may have hit a nerve. And now you throw insults and attacks at me. I think you are projecting. Your last defense.

    illustrates the dire level of your thought processes.
    Again, what is the dire level of my thought processes? I know you for who you portrayed yourself to be. A pseudointellectual apostate with a grudge against the law.

  9. #59

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Every site I post on the members can only feebly lazer-focus on what they think the structure of my person is, and, they cannot, do not, will not, focus of the OP. In order to defeat the OP you would have to overthrow the concept ''determinatio negatio est" (Spinoza's dictum), which you cannot do in a million years. An ingrate is more than a mere ungrateful person, he is an imbecile...When I respond to your stupidly cruel insulting posts, I stretch the limits of notions whereby to describe your deep-seated imbecility, exhibited by your continually rattling my cage and picking on my person, instead of articulating rational argument against my theoretical/ontological critique of the mistaken notion that law is determinative among men. I wish you would forget I exist, your hateful stupidity is too hard to swallow. All you do is make pure mere assertions, assertion has to be backed by reasoned argument. When I assert law is not an efficacy among persons because persons are not determined to act by given states of affairs, I back the assertion up with established long standing reasoned positions regarding the notion that all human determination is negation, thus, in order to demonstrate me to be a nut-job, you will have to bring down highly respected historical figures of great standing in the world, Sartre was awarded the Nobel prize and refused to accept it in protest to the Viet Nam war...Sartre founded his works upon Spinoza's dictum.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    , instead of articulating rational argument against my theoretical/ontological critique of the mistaken notion that law is determinative among men. I wish you would forget I exist, your hateful stupidity is too hard to swallow.
    Once again, you prove my point. Your wish is granted. Now wipe your mouth with toilet paper and flush it down the toilet.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources