I never seriously respond to anyone who would use a monstrosity like "properly intellectually instrumented person" unironically in a sentence. I'm weird that way.

(August 21, 2018 at 11:16 am)Astreja Wrote: What is telling is that Mr. High-And-Mighty-Philosopher is concerned about his own fame as a philosopher, rather than being concerned about accurately transmitting his worldview.

It'll probably take less than a year after his eventual death for his POV to be relegated to the dustbin of history, and all those carefully-chosen words simply forgotten because no one bothered to read them or take them seriously.  By contrast, people will probably continue to use one-liners I've casually dropped in conversation because the remarks were short, funny, and easy to remember.  (I don't even care if they get attributed to me or to that prolific chap Anonymous.  It's all good.)

Memes are where the real power is, Negatio.

It is not possible that I am inaccurately setting forth my world view ! That is an absolutely absurd assertion ! No way that I am a philosopher, or deem myself a philosopher. I am, perhaps, an ideaologist… Than you Astreja. Duane C.

Hey, negatio,

Here is a simple challenge for you. Reply to this post and put your reply either before or after the quote. Either will do.

I want to see can you even take that first step.

(August 21, 2018 at 12:01 pm)negatio Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 3:24 am)purplepurpose Wrote: Could you boil down your post to few main points(Edit it). Nobody will read this nightmare wall of text.

Nonetheless, a firestorm of responses to my putatively unintelligible writing has erupted !  This is fun.  I love the interaction.  Some of it is so flippantly and fallaciously violent against my person, instead of against my position, that it is nauseating !  Some radically patient, intelligent, and properly intellectually instrumented  person or persons will read it, and, hopefully, attempt to rationally destroy the stances I have taken against Deity and Law...My post is, to me, boiled-down, and, pursues just a few main points ! Thank you.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote tags

For truth yet it be told that if one perchance has the opportunity to evoke such strong responses by means of some machination that irritates the audience beyond redemption then needless to say it is not surprising in the slightest that they shall respond in kind and your original intention shall be all but forgotten. Dare I ask of you to enlighten me as to whether this was indeed your original intention, or it was some serendipitous finding that you came across and exploited for your own personal textual pleasure. I am not one to judge another person's delights, for one persons meat is another person's poison, especially if said is forced down one's throat inn a most unwelcome manner. But I digress! The fact that you find such fun in these interpersonal interactions suggest that your sole intention from the very outset was to evoke emption in your enraptured readers. Am I right in postulating this or was it all a happy accident? Because if it was indeed the former then one can lay the charge of you deliberately being, what is commonly referred to in the vernacular of the space of the Internet, of being similar to that mythical creature that lives underneath structures that allow transportation and perambulation over other structures, whether natural or artificial such as waterways or buildings. I do of course refer to the accusation, at the very least the suspicion that you are purported to be a troll. I for one, and I hope I do not offend you in this, consider this to be an entirely valid accusation of which there is much evidence already garnered in the 11 pages of digital text created so far, as displayed when viewed in a browser of HTML. You do in fact seem to have forgotten about your original post of musings of the philosophical kind, for I hesistate to call it philosophy whereby like the field of science, one has to be properly published and peer reviewed for it to be considered work fit of such a description. But I do not wish to insult another who is s fond of speech patterns common to classical English literature, for I used to be a reader of such works myself. But I do feel compelled to warn you that others may feel that there is now enough evidence to report you to the moderators of this virtual online interactove forum of being a troll.

I am not quoting American law.  I am addressing a universal issue regarding what is a world-wide, mistaken, jurisprudential presupposition, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct.  Human conduct arises not on the basis of a given state of affairs like a language of law, rather, human conduct arises out of nothing via Sartre's double nihilation... Thank You.  Duane C.

---

Mathilda.   Absolutely no.  I have not set out to precipitate contention.  I simply wanted to upload my writing to an online forum.  I am totally surprised that people have latched onto my lack of knowledge regarding what they deem to be the proper internet mode of quoting an author.  Nonetheless, many cruel persons are attacking and insulting me simply because they have seized upon and made an issue of my lack of knowledge regarding what they consider the correct means of quoting another writer.
Philosophical writing and interaction is properly polemic.  However, no one is actually able to attempt to discuss the meaning of my original post, all they seem to want to do is prove me incorrect regarding this miniscule issue of my not , according to many members, properly quoting authors.
Since yesterday I have seen the term troll employed repeatedly, and, had no idea what it meant.  I just looked it up, and, no, absolutely not.  I am not intentionally attempting to disrupt and precipitate contention among the members of this forum.  All I seem to be doing is attempting to defend myself against constant ad hominem attacks.
The last thing I need is for persons to deem me an intentional troll.  It would be a very very cruel and inaccurate ascription of fault to declare me to be a troll.  Persons on this forum are radically cruel, and the last thing I wanted was contention; however, that is what is now predominantly transpiring.  Though conflict is central to being human, I absolutely am not intentionally attempting to precipitate conflict and contention among the members.  
Thank you so very much Mathilda, for advising me so very relevantly; you are very good and very kind.  This, then, is the last sentence which I will ever write on this radically mean and violent forum... Duane

Who the hell has ever claimed that legal language determines human conduct?

Seriously, citation needed.

This is simply not worth the time. If you, the OP, suck as bad at philosophy as you do at everything else -- clear writing, quoting properly, productively engaging criticism -- then there is little reason to expect any return on the investment of trying to wade through your incompetently constructed and inept initial post. You're nothing more than yet another moron who blames everything but himself for his failures. And I am tired of your whining. If you want to demonstrate your supposed argument, then do so, instead of this constant blather about how superior you are and how it is not your fault that you are not communicating your ideas clearly. You haven't addressed the actual substance of your argument once in any of the posts following the original one. The fact of the matter is that you have all the hallmarks of an incompetent and pompous ass, and none of those of someone with something genuine to contribute. Crawl back under whatever rock you crawled out from. You're simply wasting other people's time here with your nonsense.

I never attacked him, at all, just saw some guy having trouble with the quoting system and wanted to help. I was interested in reading what he had to say, once he'd learnt to use the forum properly, but he has steadfastly ignored all advice and continues to paint it, God knows how, as a cruel attack on his person. So I washed my hands of it.

It's not our place to explain how every little piece of the forum works. These are common features of any forum software, well understood by those who regularly frequent such forums. We're not about to dumb down our discourse because you are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting and learn how it works.

(August 21, 2018 at 1:12 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: It's not our place to explain how every little piece of the forum works. These are common features of any forum software, well understood by those who regularly frequent such forums. We're not about to dumb down our discourse because you are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting and learn how it works.

Especially seeing how he's not willing to calm down his whole Cicero complex with his bloated syntax and vocabulary