Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99
  1. #61

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    The TL;DR really could just be "I condescend from my sphere of superior ratiocination"

  2. #62

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    Perfect example of your incredibly arrogant belief that you are superior to everyone else. Only those who are complete jerks or have incredibly low self esteem behave in such a manner. You are behaving like a bully, but in a different way than other bullies.
    Your constant obsession with criticizing my person, which has nothing to do with the validity of my OP, and your inability to address my theoretical position, regarding the ontological unintelligibility of law, blatantly exhibit the questionable caliber of your own psyche; and you condemn me for being a jerk precisely while you conduct yourself as an insulting jerk, who cannot possibly pursue considerations other that those of mistaken adolescent ascriptions of personality dysfunction, while, all the while, you dysfunction via a blind and senseless hatred against a person merely charitably, nobly, attempting to relieve you of your own personal jurisprudential illusion.

    The constant and ongoing brutal insulting and belittling misconduct undertaken by you, and most other responding members, has degenerated what I began as a noble scholarly critique of law per se, addressed to persons lacking self-awareness of the mistakenness of the presupposition whereupon sociospheric law is predicated, into a mere savage and stupid inter-insult continuum wherein, indeed, I am reduced to precisely the self-same ilk of stupid bully, as you, and most of the vacuous others responding here. I am going to have to keep you caged-up in the ignore option, if I am going to get any possible peace here, to pursue the high-minded objective of illuminating, for jurisprudentially oriented persons, the structure of their delusion regarding the putative efficacy of language of law. And, of course, the constant stupid ad hominem attacks are grinding me down, and it is anyone's guess whether or not I don't let the bastards grind me down, via their irrational and destructive hatred, exercised in lieu of rationally reasoned response to a profound and indefeasible criticism of the central presupposition employed by the jurisprudential weltanschauung.

    You are precisely the type of intolerant/hate-filled person, who would have readily participated in the process and the act of Christ's murder at the cross.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    "When a debate seems intractable, with little agreement as to how one might proceed towards a resolution, it is understandable that the philosopher should consider whether something might be amiss with the debate itself. Famously, in the last century, philosophers of various stripes explored in various ways the possibility that at least certain philosophical debates are in some manner deficient in sense. Such moves are no longer so much in vogue. For one thing, the particular ways they have been made have themselves undergone much critical scrutiny, so that many philosophers now feel that there is, for example, a Quinean response to Carnap, a Cricean reply to Austin, and a diluting proliferation of Wittgenstein interpretations."

    Gross, Steven. “Putnam, Context, and Ontology.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 4, Dec. 2004, pp. 507–554.

    You are, of course, free to continue your high-minded discharge of superlative condescending garrulous superficial pleonasms from high atop your sphere of superior ratiocination upon the vacuous ilk with psyches of questionable character who frequent the Expert Law forums. There are no laws, intractably onotologically unintelligible or written clearly and concisely, to stop you.

    By all means, leverage the forum's "block" functionality. Clearly, any form of negative feedback elicits such a strong response from you. You've responded ferociously to comments that you've characterized as ad-hominem, when they were clearly not. Eventually, who knows - maybe you'll begin arguing with yourself.

    Wittgenstein's statement that “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” seems particularly apt in this situation.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    We really need a like button.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,474

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    We really need a like button.
    Ditto

  6. #66

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    "When a debate seems intractable, with little agreement as to how one might proceed towards a resolution, it is understandable that the philosopher should consider whether something might be amiss with the debate itself. Famously, in the last century, philosophers of various stripes explored in various ways the possibility that at least certain philosophical debates are in some manner deficient in sense. Such moves are no longer so much in vogue. For one thing, the particular ways they have been made have themselves undergone much critical scrutiny, so that many philosophers now feel that there is, for example, a Quinean response to Carnap, a Cricean reply to Austin, and a diluting proliferation of Wittgenstein interpretations."

    Gross, Steven. “Putnam, Context, and Ontology.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 4, Dec. 2004, pp. 507–554.

    You are, of course, free to continue your high-minded discharge of superlative condescending garrulous superficial pleonasms from high atop your sphere of superior ratiocination upon the vacuous ilk with psyches of questionable character who frequent the Expert Law forums. There are no laws, intractably onotologically unintelligible or written clearly and concisely, to stop you.

    By all means, leverage the forum's "block" functionality. Clearly, any form of negative feedback elicits such a strong response from you. You've responded ferociously to comments that you've characterized as ad-hominem, when they were clearly not. Eventually, who knows - maybe you'll begin arguing with yourself.

    Wittgenstein's statement that “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” seems particularly apt in this situation.
    That's just it, there has been no rational debate, only antisocial attack against my person, which indicates that those responding to me, thus far, cannot do debate, doing only personal attack/insult, which sites with integrity do not tolerate. The invariant personal insult is clear indication that I am completely wasting my time here among what are predominantly stupid savages, who cannot possibly do reasoned polemic, and only do brutal derogation of persons whom they bait, by continual ignorant insult, into intractable and futile petty arguing! Radically and incredibly horrid imbecile persons constitute the membership of this forum, and, their conduct is possibly worse that that of atheist forums, which is quite an accomplishment in depravity! The ongoing retarded,brain dead, and hateful misconduct, exhibited by constituents of this legal help site, reflects absolutely poorly upon American jurisprudence, and casts signifiant doubt upon the authenticity of persons here, who deem themselves to be a philanthropic set of benign individuals doing right for and by others! What a tremendous joke...

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    There can be no rational debate because there is nothing we can write here that you don't either ignore or label as a personal attack on you.

  8. #68

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    ....personal attack/insult, which most sites do not tolerate at all. .
    Yet, strangely, here you are - in a forum that does permit what you perceive to be personal attacks or insults.
    Since this is the outlier in your experience, why do you remain here if you know that other forums are more receptive to you?

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    ...clear indication that I am completely wasting my time here
    Yet, you continue to waste your time. Why?

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    membership of this forum, and, their conduct is possibly worse that that of atheist forums
    OK, I guess you should avoid the "atheist forums" as they don't seem to enjoy your presence either.

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    What a tremendous joke...
    Is that self-referential?

  9. #69

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    There can be no rational debate because there is nothing we can write here that you don't either ignore or label as a personal attack on you.
    So, then, if you think there can be debate, take a position, any rational position, against anything whatsoever contained in the OP, in the fashion of a gentleman.

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    Yet, strangely, here you are - in a forum that does permit what you perceive to be personal attacks or insults.
    Since this is the outlier in your experience, why do you remain here if you know that other forums are more receptive to you?



    Yet, you continue to waste your time. Why?



    OK, I guess you should avoid the "atheist forums" as they don't seem to enjoy your presence either.



    Is that self-referential?
    creepy;
    I have already extensively explained why I have remained here, i.e., because legally oriented persons are the persons I would like to interact with. No, no self-reference; do not pretend that you do not understand that I am referring to the mission of this site, i.e., helping persons with legal matters, as being made a travesty, by the supreme misconduct continually exhibited against me, a person pursuing certain legal considerations, by those who are the constituent members of this putative help site.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Well, 71 posts later over the course of less than two weeks and it doesn't seem like you've found much success.

    You've made it clear that, in your opinion, you've been unsuccessful in your quest for meaningful debate because of the misconduct exhibited against you by the members of this site. It's not you - no, it's everyone else.

    Why, then, do you continue here? There are countless other forums where you'll likely find people more interested in debating with you?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources