Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 99
  1. #71

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    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?
    I came here with a theoretical challenge to jurisprudence presented to jurisprudentially minded persons, and, it turns out to be an insult thread instead of an actual debate thread. I am so astonished at the class status of the constituents constituting this site, they clearly have a lot of class, all of it exceedingly low. It is an incredible state of affairs, that persons deeming themselves so exhalted, as persons who mediate law, acting so miserably mean toward another human being, simply because they are incapable of either comprehending or responding via reason to his OP. PayrolGuy has been issued a kindly challenge due to tacit indication that he thinks debate, not pure insult, can happen...I await his pleasure. I am here testing your metal...

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    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.
    I did in post #20 of this thread.

  3. #73

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    darwinrules;
    The concept of jurisprudential illusion actually is not all that difficult to understand. The membership here actually cannot afford either to participate in, nor to appear to realize the ineluctable necessity to consent to the correctness of the jurisprudential illusion construct; lifetimes of blind subscription to the ontological nonsense of law are at stake, hence, the membership is in bad faith concerning the fact that they do indeed live in jurisprudential illusion, and, have been unwittingly misleading themselves and others for a very long time. Members cannot possibly be honorable and honest and openly admit that, ontologically, law is nonsensical, that is precisely why there is no discussion, no debate, concerning the notion of jurisprudential illusion, not that persons here do not understand the notion. The constant focus on brutalizing me and repeatedly insisting that I simply go away, testifies to the actual state of affairs wherein members are face to face with a radically ugly disillusionment, which they are too sissy to face up to and admit.

    Burying members heads in the sand ultimately will not work, the thesis is going to be worked and worked and re-worked into language whereby it will go into print, and, ultimately, into common knowledge worldwide. All it amounts to is an honest criticism of law, which no one else has ever thought of or is able to do, and, hiding from the dread will not, cannot, serve cowards who prefer to attempt to run away.

  4. #74
    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 Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    darwinrules;
    The concept of jurisprudential illusion actually is not all that difficult to understand. The membership here actually cannot afford either to participate in, nor to appear to realize the ineluctable necessity to consent to the correctness of the jurisprudential illusion construct; lifetimes of blind subscription to the ontological nonsense of law are at stake, hence, the membership is in bad faith concerning the fact that they do indeed live in jurisprudential illusion, and, have been unwittingly misleading themselves and others for a very long time. Members cannot possibly be honorable and honest and openly admit that, ontologically, law is nonsensical, that is precisely why there is no discussion, no debate, concerning the notion of jurisprudential illusion, not that persons here do not understand the notion. The constant focus on brutalizing me and repeatedly insisting that I simply go away, testifies to the actual state of affairs wherein members are face to face with a radically ugly disillusionment, which they are too sissy to face up to and admit.
    You don't read so well. Most of us are NOT attorneys so have no dog in the fight that you assume we do. This has been stated numerous times but you're too invested in the idea that our livelihood is tied up in the law.

    In the above post you make your own ad hominem attack on the entirety of the membership here. You cry and complain abut how you've been treated but you continue to hurl far more bile and invective than anyone else has.

    You are just a garden variety bully. you call people names because they are unwilling to play your games and hew to the style of language that you claim is your everyday lexicon and I just don't buy it. no one would listen to a word that you have to say due to time and boredom.

    You make a great deal of assumptions regarding the superiority of your argument but the great thing about philosophy is that you can have pointless arguments that accomplish little. While I do believe that studying behavior, where is stems from, and how ideas influence our actions I'm not willing to discuss it in the manner that you insist and my (and others) unwillingness to do it your way has led to nothing but nasty name calling. I've certainly called you names....like pillock.

    So sit in your blanket fort and preen. You are superior to us plebes and proles. Your vaunted ability to understand such lofty concepts is simply beyond us.

    By the way, next time we can discuss electron theory and how it's applied to RF, transmission lines and wave propagation in these times of little to no solar activity. We can cram it full of technical jargon, discussion of far field plots, Smith charts, the merits of dipole antennas vs. vertical and more....oh, wait, this is a forum about law. Not radio, electricity or philosophy unlike If you want to discuss ontology, epistemology or more then you should go there and stop your kvetching and kvelling here.

  5. #75

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    You don't read so well. Most of us are NOT attorneys so have no dog in the fight that you assume we do. This has been stated numerous times but you're too invested in the idea that our livelihood is tied up in the law.

    In the above post you make your own ad hominem attack on the entirety of the membership here. You cry and complain abut how you've been treated but you continue to hurl far more bile and invective than anyone else has.

    You are just a garden variety bully. you call people names because they are unwilling to play your games and hew to the style of language that you claim is your everyday lexicon and I just don't buy it. no one would listen to a word that you have to say due to time and boredom.

    You make a great deal of assumptions regarding the superiority of your argument but the great thing about philosophy is that you can have pointless arguments that accomplish little. While I do believe that studying behavior, where is stems from, and how ideas influence our actions I'm not willing to discuss it in the manner that you insist and my (and others) unwillingness to do it your way has led to nothing but nasty name calling. I've certainly called you names....like pillock.

    So sit in your blanket fort and preen. You are superior to us plebes and proles. Your vaunted ability to understand such lofty concepts is simply beyond us.

    By the way, next time we can discuss electron theory and how it's applied to RF, transmission lines and wave propagation in these times of little to no solar activity. We can cram it full of technical jargon, discussion of far field plots, Smith charts, the merits of dipole antennas vs. vertical and more....oh, wait, this is a forum about law. Not radio, electricity or philosophy unlike If you want to discuss ontology, epistemology or more then you should go there and stop your kvetching and kvelling here.
    It does not matter whether or not you are attorneys, you, nonetheless, deem law an efficacy. You totally dismiss my propositions as ''philosophy", and, since you deem what I am doing philosophy, find it inacceptable upon this forum, while, all the while, I am simply doing critical thinking. I have never ever employed filthy anal insults as most, including yourself, have done. You make me angry via your brutal misconduct and,then wine when I return your own medicine, you cannot handle it. You are the most stupidly brutal of the lot, and, in response, I have,unhappily, become totally brutal and savage myself, however, I started out in peace with the benign purpose of raising the consciousness of persons who blindly mistakenly believe language of law is determinative among humans.

    Simply quit accosting me and, that will be it, it will be ended; nonetheless, members keep on and on...

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    It does not matter whether or not you are attorneys, you, nonetheless, deem law an efficacy. You totally dismiss my propositions as ''philosophy", and, since you deem what I am doing philosophy, find it inacceptable upon this forum, while, all the while, I am simply doing critical thinking. I have never ever employed filthy anal insults as most, including yourself, have done. You make me angry via your brutal misconduct and,then wine when I return your own medicine, you cannot handle it. You are the most stupidly brutal of the lot, and, in response, I have,unhappily, become totally brutal and savage myself, however, I started out in peace with the benign purpose of raising the consciousness of persons who blindly mistakenly believe language of law is determinative among humans.

    Simply quit accosting me and, that will be it, it will be ended; nonetheless, members keep on and on...
    There is no one here that can't handle as you try to return our own medicine. Nobody here is buying you line o' crap or spending the time you think is sufficient to counter it. This is making you angry but instead of leaving the forum to troll elsewhere, you whine about those here being bullies.

    What I really think bothers you is the fact that your theory can be countered with so few words that it casts a light on the fact that your theory is simply BS to begin with.

  7. #77

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    There is no one here that can't handle as you try to return our own medicine. Nobody here is buying you line o' crap or spending the time you think is sufficient to counter it. This is making you angry but instead of leaving the forum to troll elsewhere, you whine about those here being bullies.

    What I really think bothers you is the fact that your theory can be countered with so few words that it casts a light on the fact that your theory is simply BS to begin with.
    So, then, sensibly counter with your few words.

    The attempt to engage in rational polemic among what turns out to be ignorant dummies,is always labelled as trolling by the dummies, who cannot possibly do rational debate.

    I keep challenging you to rationally counter the original OP entitled Law is Ontologically Unintelligible, however, you do not and cannot, though I wish you would try; I will be kind and consider your attempt with compassionate response. All you ever do is assert this and assert that, without reasoned explanation.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    So, then, sensibly counter with your few words.

    The attempt to engage in rational polemic among what turns out to be ignorant dummies,is always labelled as trolling by the dummies, who cannot possibly do rational debate.

    I keep challenging you to rationally counter the original OP entitled Law is Ontologically Unintelligible, however, you do not and cannot, though I wish you would try; I will be kind and consider your attempt with compassionate response. All you ever do is assert this and assert that, without reasoned explanation.
    I did and you didn't reply. Go back to post #20.

  9. #79
    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 Not Determinative

    I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot? Thanks! I'm touched! And you're the most asinine, thin-skinned, arrogant, sanctimonious, pedantic pseudo-intellectual it's been my misfortune to quarrel with on this board.

    So, go soak your head and get a grip. You are not the smartest person in the room, you don't lend yourself to rational debate and you continue to prate the same nonsense over and over again.

    Before you go on about your treatment at my hands bear in mind that you claimed I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot so I'll require you to use simple small words. I can't comprehend beyond 2 or three syllables.

  10. #80

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot? Thanks! I'm touched! And you're the most asinine, thin-skinned, arrogant, sanctimonious, pedantic pseudo-intellectual it's been my misfortune to quarrel with on this board.

    So, go soak your head and get a grip. You are not the smartest person in the room, you don't lend yourself to rational debate and you continue to prate the same nonsense over and over again.

    Before you go on about your treatment at my hands bear in mind that you claimed I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot so I'll require you to use simple small words. I can't comprehend beyond 2 or three syllables.
    Fine. Worm-out and do not hold you word that you can dismiss my propositions via a few words. That's it. I hope to never interact with you ever again; I am sick of your inveterately pure ignorance and, stupidity.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

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

Legal Help, Information and Resources