(January 17, 2021 at 6:11 pm)brewer Wrote: @senorlegalo You might try talking to us and not at us. Just a thought.

Nah it's more entertaining seeing him work into a foam. I"m taking bets on how many posts he reaches before getting Mjolnir'd

Of course law isn't determinative of human conduct. It doesn't tell us what we can or cant do to any practical extent.

(January 17, 2021 at 6:00 pm)senorlegalo Wrote:

(January 17, 2021 at 4:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Of course you can submit your own ideas here. What you can’t do is 


In other words, if you’d like to present your thoughts in a manner other than copy/paste or linking from another website, you’re more than welcome to do so.

Boru

Everything I write is primarily for posting on forums. However I  fail to follow your nonsense about copying and pasting, which is the only efficient mode of assembling one's posts in a digital world.  I do not need to write everything from scratch for your sake; it is none of your fucking business that a particular sentence of mine was extracted via copy and paste from a larger manuscript.  You spend to goddam much time attempting to subjugate and rule other persons, in the name of bullshit rules, instead of simply furthering an atmosphere of free and open exchange of ideas among reflective minds. One has to hold one's nose here while immersed in the stench of just another instance of attempted absolute absolutistic rule, by law, of human freedom, while, all the while, law per se is not, cannot be, determinative of human conduct; which is what I want to explain to the members here...

---

(January 17, 2021 at 5:53 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Godwinned in the third post. Astounding.

What on earth is "Godwinned"!? Do you mean that God won something? Do you mean that God got winded? Please sayest what you mean...

Actually, it IS my business when you break the rules. That’s why they gave me this pretty red suit. Like it? *gives a little twirl*

I’m deeply, desperately sad that we can’t create a special set of rules just for you. But, since you explicitly agreed to abide by the Rules that are already in place, there’s not a lot I can do, other than to suggest that you put on your big boy pants and try to act like a grown up type person.

Boru

(January 17, 2021 at 6:09 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: You'll be missed.

ⓘOfficial sources have determined this claim to be false.

---

(January 17, 2021 at 6:00 pm)senorlegalo Wrote: Everything I write is primarily for posting on forums. However I  fail to follow your nonsense about copying and pasting, which is the only efficient mode of assembling one's posts in a digital world.  I do not need to write everything from scratch for your sake; it is none of your fucking business that a particular sentence of mine was extracted via copy and paste from a larger manuscript.  You spend to goddam much time attempting to subjugate and rule other persons, in the name of bullshit rules, instead of simply furthering an atmosphere of free and open exchange of ideas among reflective minds. One has to hold one's nose here while immersed in the stench of just another instance of attempted absolute absolutistic rule, by law, of human freedom, while, all the while, law per se is not, cannot be, determinative of human conduct; which is what I want to explain to the members here...

---

What on earth is "Godwinned"!? Do you mean that God won something? Do you mean that God got winded? Please sayest what you mean...

Godwinned, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

It is not so astounding that when a person encounters quasi-Nazi censorship, in the form of chicken shit rules which suffocate the free expression of writing, that one call a spade a spade.
Most of those responding thus far have only stupidly done ad hominem fallacious response to my propositions, which fallacious responses total up to meaninglessness.  
Only the fellow who concurred that law is not determinative of human conduct has tread a decent path of interchange.  Fuck all of  you imbecilic ignorant persons, who only wish to goad my person until I directly insult you in point blank terms and, get banned.  Fucking think I give a shit if I am banned from a site populated by mean barbarians with sub-performative intelligence quotients...!?

I am here in the attempt to post an integral critique of law and law enforcement and to present a possible alternative mode whereby we may attain authentic civil civilization, but, since the climate is so totally prohibitive here, and, the climate is so personal attack oriented, there is the chance of a snowball in hell that I will run the gauntlet of abuse unto the place where I present an edifying critique of law, whereby we now attempt to have and do civilization...

Don't give him any bananas and he'll leave quick enough.

(January 17, 2021 at 6:15 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Of course law isn't determinative of human conduct.  It doesn't tell us what we can or cant do to any practical extent.

Moderator Notice
That’s three.

Or, you could just have the convo.

Law is not descriptive of human behavior. The existence of a law does not mean that a person practically cannot do x - or that there would be more x if there were no law. I think that we're on the same page so far - is this what you meant?

(January 17, 2021 at 7:22 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Don't give him any bananas and he'll leave quick enough.

Too taxing for you to even contemplate participating in a genuine philosophical polemic, wherein a dialectical interchange between persons genuinely transpires ?

The absolute stupidity here calls human dialectical interchange "trolling"; too radically fucking stupid to know that human history proceeds via contention between antithetical positions, wherein, after intellectual combat, a synthetic compromise is attained in a new societal structuration...

Will I leave because you are, in toto, so fucking vicious and ignorant, that I become hopelessly nauseated and realize the absolute vanity of attempting to communicate with imbeciles; or, will I leave because I am driven off by brutal hatred; or, because I am banned by the all knowing and self righteous gods, who monitor this church of hate; who insult, abuse, and, absolutely war against the free exercise of absolute human ontological/intellectual freedom, by chicken-shit rules designed to suffocate communication?

(January 17, 2021 at 7:46 pm)senorlegalo Wrote:

(January 17, 2021 at 7:22 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Don't give him any bananas and he'll leave quick enough.

Too taxing for you to even contemplate participating in a genuine philosophical polemic, wherein a dialectical interchange between persons genuinely transpires ?

The absolute stupidity here calls human dialectical interchange "trolling"; too radically fucking stupid to know that human history proceeds via contention between antithetical positions, wherein, after intellectual combat, a synthetic compromise is attained in a new societal structuration...

Will I leave because you are, in toto, so fucking vicious and ignorant, that I become hopelessly nauseated and realize the absolute vanity of attempting to communicate with imbeciles; or, will I leave because I am driven off by brutal hatred; or, because I am banned by the all knowing and self righteous gods, who monitor this church of hate; who insult, abuse, and, absolutely war against the free exercise of absolute human ontological/intellectual freedom, by chicken-shit rules designed to suffocate communication?

Who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

Or are you always a verbose asshole?

Congrats senorlegalo on your ability to use a great many complex words to say absolutely nothing at all. You would make an excellent snake oil salesman.