Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    I said a professional skipper is a person who is paid for teaching others to sail, or, who is paid to command a sailing vessel for the owner, and, at that point I did not say which I was, or, that I was both. Pay closer attention. Why do you want to argue concerning what I am explaining about the difference between a skipper and a captain, and, argue about what I did on San Francisco Bay!? Because you are merely another miserably mean bully who cannot interact with others in a civil manner, totally dumb.
    I've spent some time around sailors both military and civilian. If you think what I wrote mean and bullying then you are likely neither.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    I said a professional skipper is a person who is paid for teaching others to sail, or, who is paid to command a sailing vessel for the owner, and, at that point I did not say which I was, or, that I was both. Pay closer attention. Why do you want to argue concerning what I am explaining about the difference between a skipper and a captain, and, argue about what I did on San Francisco Bay!? Because you are merely another miserably mean bully who cannot interact with others in a civil manner, totally dumb.
    For someone who wants to whine about insults and bullying you're sure free with them.

    Perhaps his questions regarding your job are leading somewhere. There are differences in maritime law for powered vessels and sailing vessels. Given that you want to have a conversation, you need to hold up your end of the bargain, which you aren't doing. You just fling insults, reply in unnecessarily dense language to convey simple points and reply to questions by stating the same premise and questions followed by another insult.

    The one of the marks of an intelligent person is being able to convey ideas to others in language that they are able to understand. When I go to the doctor they don't communicate with me in the language they may use amongst themselves. When I communicate with my customers I don't do so using the terms that I would use amongst my fellow process and automation technicians and engineers. Not only does it make me come off as being a sanctimonious prick I'm also not conveying information in a usable manner to those that need to understand it.

    When you communicate sailing technique do you take an hour to convey the basics of tacking or do you draw a picture and take a few moments to explain the basics and then demonstrate? Do you employ the listen/see/do method of teaching or do you just talk at students all day? It's tough, teaching. I used to teach AC Theory and it's hard to simplify some of those concepts so that an apprentice can get to understand the concept and then build outward but I certainly don't start by discussing phasors, vectors, the components of impedance or turboencabulators and marzelvanes.

    At the end of the day, if you want to have a productive conversation here you need to be able to converse without sounding like a numpty.

  3. #83

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Did you ever have the need to apply/use/administer Maritime law or Admirality law? If you did, was it Ontologically unintelligible?



    You and I are raking leaves in a Tornado on that issue, neither will achieve their desired goal.
    Sure. At that time I had not yet realized the ontological unintelligibility of law, which makes no difference, for we employ ontologically unintelligible law whether we realize the foible or not. Like I said, I am attempting to engage in a dialectic whererby an ultimate compromise can emerge, wherein current practitioners realize the inefficacy and the moral bankruptcy of certain punishments mediated via law. Much of law is reasonable in its intent, however, we need quit our mistaken treatment of language of law as an absolute, whereby we currently punish and kill persons, via the mistaken notion that they "violate" law. We are currently brutal absoltistic barbarians murdering others in the name of our nonsensical absolutistic religion of law, when, in fact, language of law does not, cannot, determine human conduct.
    I realized this morning that you have been playing me for the fool, asking me to explain life, the universe, and everything , and, that I am kindhearted enough to have done so. You are merely another deviate, dishonest, dishonorable, inhuman, lying jurisprudentially-oriented nitwit, who unhesitatingly defecates upon human beings for laughs; nauseating anti-human misconduct of which you are proud.



    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    For someone who wants to whine about insults and bullying you're sure free with them.

    Perhaps his questions regarding your job are leading somewhere. There are differences in maritime law for powered vessels and sailing vessels. Given that you want to have a conversation, you need to hold up your end of the bargain, which you aren't doing. You just fling insults, reply in unnecessarily dense language to convey simple points and reply to questions by stating the same premise and questions followed by another insult.

    The one of the marks of an intelligent person is being able to convey ideas to others in language that they are able to understand. When I go to the doctor they don't communicate with me in the language they may use amongst themselves. When I communicate with my customers I don't do so using the terms that I would use amongst my fellow process and automation technicians and engineers. Not only does it make me come off as being a sanctimonious prick I'm also not conveying information in a usable manner to those that need to understand it.

    When you communicate sailing technique do you take an hour to convey the basics of tacking or do you draw a picture and take a few moments to explain the basics and then demonstrate? Do you employ the listen/see/do method of teaching or do you just talk at students all day? It's tough, teaching. I used to teach AC Theory and it's hard to simplify some of those concepts so that an apprentice can get to understand the concept and then build outward but I certainly don't start by discussing phasors, vectors, the components of impedance or turboencabulators and marzelvanes.

    At the end of the day, if you want to have a productive conversation here you need to be able to converse without sounding like a numpty.
    Mark47n;
    I have already explained more than once, i.e., when the objective is to demonstrate the ontological unintelligibility of language of law, one is under the necessity to employ language precisely pertinent to that task, and, that language is tough to follow; and, I cannot write a version for every person incapable of comprehending the polemic which I am presenting. In this instance the reader has to rise to the challenge of understanding a position which, undertaking the very profound task of speaking the unintelligibility of law as we now conceive it, cannot viably speak in language other than the language of existential ontology, and in the language of the modus operandi of the origin of human action. The OP cannot be dumbed down. I have tried and tried to dumb it down. Do you think you are the first to complain about it!? I am not exactly stupid, and, I see that I cannot but proceed via the toughminded language of human existential ontology, in the quest to throw light on the ontological unintelligibility of law. Your response exhibits that you think you surely know precisely far far better than I, regarding how a critique of the notion of law per se ought be penned; and, like I said, then, you must be in possession of that ideal essay, and should publish it here for everyone's edification!.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Balderdash.

    I'm a professional writer. The first rule of writing is keep it clear and simple.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    I realized this morning that you have been playing me for the fool, asking me to explain life, the universe, and everything , and, that I am kindhearted enough to have done so. You are merely another deviate, dishonest, dishonorable, inhuman, lying jurisprudentially-oriented nitwit, who unhesitatingly defecates upon human beings for laughs; nauseating anti-human misconduct of which you are proud.
    No, I have not been playing you for a fool, you ARE a fool. I have read every site you have posted on and the responses. Your problem is you believe everyone in the world has an IQ of a Planarian except you.

    I'll leave you with this, then goodbye. I have met and conversed with people over my life who could make you look like you have the brain of an Isotelus.

  6. #86

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    No, I have not been playing you for a fool, you ARE a fool. I have read every site you have posted on and the responses. Your problem is you believe everyone in the world has an IQ of a Planarian except you.

    I'll leave you with this, then goodbye. I have met and conversed with people over my life who could make you look like you have the brain of an Isotelus.
    Yes, you and your associates are all such ''great legal minds'', that you unquestioningly swallow, hole-hog, the mistaken presupposition that given language of law is determinative of human conduct, when, actually, human conduct originates ex nihilo. If you are so superior you might readily write a cogent theoretical destruction of the OP, however, since you cannot even begin to understand it,(and your lack of understanding is not ascribable to my writing style, but to your lack of the cerebral energy to undertake a bit of research into existential ontology), you are incapable of doing the manly and scholarly act of rebutting the OP via reasoned argumentation.

    Every site I have ever posted on is populated by precisely the same ilk of persons as yourself, i.e, persons entirely incapable of comprehending the OP who can only do horrid hateful insult (except for some of the Christians) and, argumentum ad hominem. I have cultured my sapientality to a level which indeed the majority of persons have not and cannot achieve, and, I am in possession of an inborn radically high intelligent quotient, i.e, I am essentially a Deity per being in possession of a transcendently masterful sapientality, able to demonstrate, in writing, that neither Jehovah nor Christ were Deity; so yes, indeed I do consider myself superior to most persons simply because I have, by infinite study and constant writing, become a superior intelligence. Defeat my OP chump, or, get off my case; it is impossible for you, and, your great legally minded associates, taken together, to defeat my thought. I came to this site, as I do all sites, with a beautifully reasoned script grounded in radically efficient twentieth century existential instruments of thought, and, all I encounter is abysmally horrid and ignorant abuse and insult, and, as a participant in that abuse and insult you, nonetheless, pretend to be above me, yea, sure; you have a lot of class, all of it low...it is per your misconduct and the ongoing misconduct of most others who have responded that I, unfortunately write this horrid portrait of you and the others...

  7. #87

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    I bought the book (link) you published in 2016 - for anyone else who's willing to part with $2.99. (I'm sorry, I meant "treatise" as you've clarified in the description.) I am genuinely curious - what do you hope to gain or achieve by regurgitating your pleonasm in such an oddly combative way? You've jumped from forum to forum for at least the last four years; each time you've been met with similar feedback.

    Do you really want to engage people in substantive discussion? If so, you might find more success if you throw the thesaurus away and try a different approach - one that's perhaps a little less.... verbose.

    Do you just enjoy writing in your own peculiar style, maybe using the almost half a decade's worth of negative feedback to fuel your writing fire?

    I am genuinely curious. You seem rather intelligent, and you're obviously in the "debate the issues" sub-forum.... have you considered taking a different, more productive, approach to debate?

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Is this him too? Posting on a bitcoin forum! Why? Why? Incredible!

    https://forum.bitcoin.com/legal/why-...le-t75355.html

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    Sure. At that time I had not yet realized the ontological unintelligibility of law, which makes no difference, for we employ ontologically unintelligible law whether we realize the foible or not. Like I said, I am attempting to engage in a dialectic whererby an ultimate compromise can emerge, wherein current practitioners realize the inefficacy and the moral bankruptcy of certain punishments mediated via law. Much of law is reasonable in its intent, however, we need quit our mistaken treatment of language of law as an absolute, whereby we currently punish and kill persons, via the mistaken notion that they "violate" law. We are currently brutal absoltistic barbarians murdering others in the name of our nonsensical absolutistic religion of law, when, in fact, language of law does not, cannot, determine human conduct.
    I realized this morning that you have been playing me for the fool, asking me to explain life, the universe, and everything , and, that I am kindhearted enough to have done so. You are merely another deviate, dishonest, dishonorable, inhuman, lying jurisprudentially-oriented nitwit, who unhesitatingly defecates upon human beings for laughs; nauseating anti-human misconduct of which you are proud.




    Mark47n;
    I have already explained more than once, i.e., when the objective is to demonstrate the ontological unintelligibility of language of law, one is under the necessity to employ language precisely pertinent to that task, and, that language is tough to follow; and, I cannot write a version for every person incapable of comprehending the polemic which I am presenting. In this instance the reader has to rise to the challenge of understanding a position which, undertaking the very profound task of speaking the unintelligibility of law as we now conceive it, cannot viably speak in language other than the language of existential ontology, and in the language of the modus operandi of the origin of human action. The OP cannot be dumbed down. I have tried and tried to dumb it down. Do you think you are the first to complain about it!? I am not exactly stupid, and, I see that I cannot but proceed via the toughminded language of human existential ontology, in the quest to throw light on the ontological unintelligibility of law. Your response exhibits that you think you surely know precisely far far better than I, regarding how a critique of the notion of law per se ought be penned; and, like I said, then, you must be in possession of that ideal essay, and should publish it here for everyone's edification!.
    Nope. No essay from me. I choose to not be verbose for it's own sake. Everyone here has there own notions and are free to display it topically. To address it in such an abstract manner is outside the scope of these forums save Debate the Issues. IF you really want to beat this into the ground then I suggest you simply take it there.

    Mark47n out.

  10. #90

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Nevermind.

    "I write radically beautifully, intelligibly, fantastically, superlatively. This is not the only forum this piece is posted upon, and others, on existentialist forums, have informed me my writing is intelligible. You simply are not intellectually instrumented, via having studied Spinoza, Heidegger and Sartre, to readily comprehend the language of the negation, the language of the originative mode whereby human action transpires. Nor do you follow/comprehend extensive thoughts. It is a terrible thing, because you blame me for your lacks, failings; instead of taking full responsibility for yourself, and admitting that you have neither the education, nor the reflection, to read a philosophy of nihilation. The male physiology is incapable of absorbing spermatozoa, as is not the case with the female. Spermatozoa fatally vetoes and dissolves the homosexual's somatic integrity. Your brain matter has been dissolved by corrosive ejaculate. I will not be insulted by a cum-soaked-old-cock-sucker who, cries like a little girl, the moment she encounters some hard, stiff, thinking"

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources