(August 24, 2018 at 10:35 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 10:30 am)negatio Wrote: Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge Browser

Great. We can work with that. Unix based would be more challenging, though I could still do it.

Was I correct in my guess that you were confused by the "=" terms  in the quote tags? No foul, they are not obvious.

Confused would be in advance of where I am, when I see "=" it does not signify anything to me, and, I ask myself, why is there an equal sign there ?  What is the equal sign saying ?

(August 24, 2018 at 9:50 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: It is if one has an unusual setup. I am pretty sure that our protagonist is on a unix based platform, with an unusual browser, and an odd offline editor for composing replies which are then copypasta-ed into exactly the wrong place in his replies. It took some patient effort and a few harsh comments to get there, but he is figuring it out.

My suspicion is that he does not see the friendly interface we are all accustomed to, but a source code viewer of some description. Thus by default, he sees tags directly.

Is that true? I have no idea until negatio actually tells me, but give the guy a break. He has shown willing. Slowly, I will grant, but still...

He has claimed difficulty understanding all the equals signs. That makes me think he sees something of this style of kidney...

I am certain that I never told you I could not figure out how the enter key works !  You are mistaken.  Where are all these rules of procedure, that might help...

Quote:The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.

Surely at this point, for you, "The brute fact that the law against growing weed here is really the only reason I'm not growing weed."  What I am saying is that in actual fact, irregardless of what you currently think of the law against growing weed, that law per se is not determining you not to grow weed, nor are you determining yourself not to grow weed based upon the law. I am saying that, given the way your acts arise as a human being, law absolutely cannot actually determine you to do or not do something, nor can you actually determine yourself to do or not to do something based upon the law.  This appears absurd, right ?  Rather, what is absurd is when man does something, and, then turns around and points to something in the world, saying that is the reason I did or did not do such and such.  And, I am backing this apparently absurd  position up via my reflective understanding of how my actions actually arise in the world, wherein all human determination is negation, and, is not a state of affairs wherein I am in motion moved by a given law.

I'm sorry, leaving this thread it's making my head hurt worse than my 14 year old does.

I know you gave it a decent try negatio but perhaps if you spent sometime looking at how other posts go, it might help you to familiarize yourself with things here.

Good luck though.

(August 24, 2018 at 9:58 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 8:20 am)negatio Wrote: You've completely lost me here, I do not follow you, what brute fact ?

The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.  The very moment it changes..I will be growing copious amounts of weed.  Law is not completely efficacious when it comes to human determination, granted..but it's not entirely without efficacy, either.  You've built your argument around a general rule that doesn't hold.  

Quote:"...you might even have misattributed the incompetence central to your argument..."
You write excellently, however, at first glance your statements are not immediately apprehensible, I think that by ''misattributed'' you mean that I am mistaken in saying Christ is mistaken !

I'm suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

In plain language, and playing the part of an apologist;

"Didn't god know that law was an imperfect tool?  That it would predictably fail a great portion of humanity - those for whom law does not drive their determination?  Isn't this base incompetence?"
-Man's base incompetence.   None are righteous, not even one.  Yes, god did know that.

Quote:I'm suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

What I am saying is that the language of law per se is not efficient to determine our acts, and,  nonetheless,it is precisely the language of law which is always the basis of any ascription of fault which a prosecutorial officer may bring against you; the language of law is precisely that whereby a magistrate, or a jury, will both mediate and decide your fate, if and when you are at jeopardy; and, the police; the prosecutorial officer; the magistrate, and the jury, all believe it is the law which is guiding and determining their actions against you in a court of law;---- what I am saying is that in fact each of these persons who think they are acting in accord with and via law, are, in actuality laboring under an ancient positivist/materialist/causalist illusion, which I call the jurisprudential illusion, via which illusion these persons are completely convinced that the language of law is somehow determining everything they are doing in that courtroom, and/or, they are, by given language of law, are determining themselves to do all the several things they do in that courtroom, regarding the disposition of your particular case; and, I am saying they are deadly seriously believing their language of law is the determinant at operation in the courtroom, when, in fact, they are all performing the existential absurdity of a human being, who is  in reality determined to action by non-existent states of affairs within the mode of action origination which is the double nihilation, claiming, nonetheless,  and mistakenly,that they are being determined in their actions in that courtroom by the being-in-itself that we call the language of law.  Persons cannot possibly be competent to moderate their actions in accordance with law, and, law per se is not comoetaant to determine the acts/actions of human beings, because, human beings are not determined to action by given states of affairs like law(s), rather all human determination is a process of negation transpiring via the human double nihilation.

(August 24, 2018 at 12:31 pm)negatio Wrote: What I am saying is that the language of law per se is not efficient to determine our acts

That has some truth to it, but it's not an absolute truth, which is why you need to reformulate your argument.  Your argument, as stated, depends on it being absolute.  A general rule that holds.

It simply doesn't.  

Law is at least efficient enough to keep me from doing something I want to do, and I'm just discussing human law, here.

The contention is that law, in the general sense, demonstrates incompetence on the part of a god...but..again in the general...it doesn't. It may in reference to some specific law. Ultimately I'd agree with you, that god is awfully dumb for a god and some of that can be seen in gods laws. I'm suggesting that your particular line of reasoning doesn't demonstrate that. Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it......

Me man, me find law sometimes determinitive. You wrong. Feel me?

(That one was straight up for you, Emjay, lol)

(August 23, 2018 at 8:55 am)negatio Wrote:

Quote:Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language ?

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

You are failing to communicate clearly.

@negatio. Since you've asked above... The = (equals sign) in an opening tag is used for supplying (optional) parameters of the tag in question, that control/affect its behaviour, in this case, for the quote tag, there are three possible parameters; quote=, pid=, and dateline=, and they determine what will be shown above the quoted text:

If you leave them blank (since they are optional) you'll get a quote box that only says 'Quote:' eg:


The above quote displayed:

Quote:This quote has no = (equals signs) in its opening tag, so here the tag is being used without supplying any parameters. As such, when displayed it will not show any author or date information above the quoted text.

Notice it only says 'Quote:' at the top, not 'Author Wrote:', since no author parameter was supplied, nor does it say on the right hand side any date information such as an actual date or 'x mins/hours ago', since no date parameter was supplied. So this, without parameters, is basically the use of the quote tag pared to the bone.

When you press Reply on the other hand, all of those parameters are automatically filled in for you and most of the time you should not have to mess with them, for instance (just showing one of my previous posts for the sake of this demonstration):


The above quote displayed:

(August 23, 2018 at 11:45 pm)emjay Wrote: That's serendipitous negatio, meet the guy I was suggesting you'd probably get on like a house on fire with; Kernel Sohcahtoa. Imo you both have a very similar writing style/manner.

Anyway, I think you've got me mixed up with Lucanus... he's the one who said he's doing exams and about to graduate, not me. I've never set foot inside a university. But thanks for the thought

Note that all three parameters were automatically supplied when the Reply button was pressed, and in the output it says 'emjay Wrote:' above the text on the left, using the supplied author parameter, and the datetime information above the text on the right, using the supplied 'dateline' parameter.

So that's the difference in syntax and appearance between a quote tag supplied with no parameters... as you might if you want to construct a quote from scratch, rather than replying to a specific post on the site... and one with parameters, as for instance supplied automatically when you press the Reply button. As a user you shouldn't ever realistically need to manually supply the latter two parameters - pid and dateline - because they are specific to replying to a particular post on the site, so they should always be supplied automatically when you press the Reply button to do that. But the first one, quote='author', you might do manually from time to time, for instance to quote some famous author.

Hope this is helpful.

(August 24, 2018 at 9:58 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 8:20 am)negatio Wrote: You've completely lost me here, I do not follow you, what brute fact ?

The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.  The very moment it changes..I will be growing copious amounts of weed.  Law is not completely efficacious when it comes to human determination, granted..but it's not entirely without efficacy, either. 

Right. I am firmly in the legalise camp on this. Do I want to use it? Not really, although I have in the past. Legalising it is not going to force me to do so, but it sure as hell wipes out the crooks. And by now, surely America realises that prohibition simply does not work, no? A whole century has passed since that was shown to be utterly useless.

(August 24, 2018 at 9:58 am)Khemikal Wrote:

Quote:"...you might even have misattributed the incompetence central to your argument..."
You write excellently, however, at first glance your statements are not immediately apprehensible, I think that by ''misattributed'' you mean that I am mistaken in saying Christ is mistaken !

I'm suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

Law is necessarily flawed and necessarily a long way behind the reality on the ground.

(August 24, 2018 at 9:58 am)Khemikal Wrote: In plain language, and playing the part of an apologist;

"Didn't god know that law was an imperfect tool?  That it would predictably fail a great portion of humanity - those for whom law does not drive their determination?"
-It is man that is imperfect, and none are righteous, not even one.  Yes, god did know that.  He was very well aware of this.

Sure, "god" knew all that, killed everyone bar a family of eight and thus endorsed incest. How lovely. Hello, Oedipus.

Or Adam and Eve. According to the babble, Cain had it away and built a whole city for himself and had kids with whom? Watch the pretzel logic the apologists come up with for that.

The random birth sows that women are supposed to be remain nameless. This is because christianity places no value on the feminine. Women are merely chattel, possessions.

As a man, I find a strong, independent woman really attractive. Christianity would have me beat the very same for insubordination of my authority. That is just sick.

(August 24, 2018 at 12:45 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 12:31 pm)negatio Wrote: What I am saying is that the language of law per se is not efficient to determine our acts

That has some truth to it, but it's not an absolute truth, which is why you need to reformulate your argument.  Your argument, as stated, depends on it being absolute.  A general rule that holds.

It simply doesn't.  

Law is at least efficient enough to keep me from doing something I want to do, and I'm just discussing human law, here.

The contention is that law, in the general sense, demonstrates incompetence on the part of a god...but..again in the general...it doesn't.  It may in reference to some specific law.  Ultimately I'd agree with you, that god is awfully dumb for a god and some of that can be seen in gods laws.  I'm suggesting that your particular line of reasoning doesn't demonstrate that.  Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it......

Me man, me find law sometimes determinitive.  You wrong.  Feel me?

(That one was straight up for you, Emjay, lol)

Are you calling me dumb? Oh right, I already did

I'm gradually getting there, so I probably will comment on it at some point. But till then I'll happily take the Khemikal Digest

(August 24, 2018 at 1:15 pm)emjay Wrote: @negatio. Since you've asked above... The = (equals sign) in an opening tag is used for supplying (optional) parameters of the tag in question, that control/affect its behaviour, in this case, for the quote tag, there are three possible parameters; quote=, pid=, and dateline=, and they determine what will be shown above the quoted text:

If you leave them blank (since they are optional) you'll get a quote box that only says 'Quote:' eg:

Code:

[quote]
This quote has no = (equals signs) in its opening tag, so here the tag is being used without supplying any parameters. As such, when displayed it will not show any author or date information above the quoted text.
[/quote]

The above quote displayed:

Quote:This quote has no = (equals signs) in its opening tag, so here the tag is being used without supplying any parameters. As such, when displayed it will not show any author or date information above the quoted text.

Notice it only says 'Quote:' at the top, not 'Author Wrote:', since no author parameter was supplied, nor does it say on the right hand side any date information such as an actual date or 'x mins/hours ago', since no date parameter was supplied. So this, without parameters, is basically the use of the quote tag pared to the bone.

When you press Reply on the other hand, all of those parameters are automatically filled in for you and most of the time you should not have to mess with them, for instance (just showing one of my previous posts for the sake of this demonstration):

Code:

[quote='emjay' pid='1804881' dateline='1535082316']
That's serendipitous ;) negatio, meet the guy I was suggesting you'd probably get on like a house on fire with; Kernel Sohcahtoa. Imo you both have a very similar writing style/manner.

Anyway, I think you've got me mixed up with Lucanus... he's the one who said he's doing exams and about to graduate, not me. I've never set foot inside a university. But thanks for the thought :)
[/quote]

The above quote displayed:

(August 23, 2018 at 11:45 pm)emjay Wrote: That's serendipitous negatio, meet the guy I was suggesting you'd probably get on like a house on fire with; Kernel Sohcahtoa. Imo you both have a very similar writing style/manner.

Anyway, I think you've got me mixed up with Lucanus... he's the one who said he's doing exams and about to graduate, not me. I've never set foot inside a university. But thanks for the thought

Note that all three parameters were automatically supplied when the Reply button was pressed, and in the output it says 'emjay Wrote:' above the text on the left, using the supplied author parameter, and the datetime information above the text on the right, using the supplied 'dateline' parameter.

So that's the difference in syntax and appearance between a quote tag supplied with no parameters... as you might if you want to construct a quote from scratch, rather than replying to a specific post on the site... and one with parameters, as for instance supplied automatically when you press the Reply button. As a user you shouldn't ever realistically need to manually supply the latter two parameters - pid and dateline - because they are specific to replying to a particular post on the site, so they should always be supplied automatically when you press the Reply button to do that. But the first one, quote='author', you might do manually from time to time, for instance to quote some famous author.

Hope this is helpful.

Wow, thanks a million emjay, you really know your stuff.  I am not so inept at responding to posts that my whole thread looks horrid, and it is giving people headaches to spend time here !  I just now recently figured out how and where to write in the space I am typing in right now, but, I am not even sure if it is proper to type now, without entering some special code...

Knowing when to hit the return key to create paragraphs might help. Your blocks of text look like runaway gibber.