Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

I thought the radical freedom provided by double nihilation meant that law and ordinary circumstance was ineffectual in determining your fate, that via the double nihilation, man could rise above such things?  You seem to be refuting your own argument by your very actions.  If double nihilation really does offer an escape from facticity and ordinary circumstance, then this song and dance of yours is nothing but bullshit.

No, you are failing to make a distinction.

I indeed maintain law an inefficacy among men, I, perhaps only I, in the whole world.

However, persons like Khemikal who claims he truly believes he is bound by law to forbear growing weed, sine he fully believes in law, can violate law;
K. and I live in two different worlds, and, when I am in the world wherein persons believe in law, I have to interact with such law-believers in a fashion consistent with the demands law makes upon them in their world, thus, I can, when inside that world, accuse such persons of violating their own law, whether, or, not, I do not believe in either the validity or efficacy of law as a so called "force", in the world.  J., you are so goddamn quick to think you have found me in self-inconsistency/contradiction.  In fact, I know, that to maintain self-consistency in my own position I cannot genuinely file complaint against the intense multiplicity of members who, against their own law, insulted a newbie big -time.
So, you get it ? Two different and distinct worlds, and when in your law-world I can participate in speaking of law as if it were a reality, else I could not, subsequently, point out that Law is delusion/illusion.  I fully expect a dragon lady to be as mean as a snake, and strike as quickly as possible, however, your bite was not fatal, again !  Duagatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

It only takes a single counterexample to demonstrate that a universal claim is false. I could have competently argued against your entire textwall like so;

I exist, therefore you are wrong.

[Angrboda]

[W]hen I am in the world wherein persons believe in law, I have to interact with such law-believers in a fashion consistent with the demands law makes upon them in their world...

Why?

[Losty]

Insulting is not against the rules. This isn’t that hard to understand.

Kit and KevinM1 sent me a copy of forum law positing against insulting newbies; Kit and Kevin probably did not counterfeit the language of the law, (which is beautifully written), like when Khemikal faked the presence of a Jihadist Muslim on my thread, which was pretty scary harassment/insult.
Negatio

There is no rule that prohibits insulting newbies. There is a rule against posting insulting language in the introduction forum. You have never posted there.

[emjay]

Otherwise known as confirmation bias. It sucks... especially to be on the wrong end of it... but unfortunately it is a part of human nature. Going forward you can either continue to lash out, whether justified or not, and continue to reinforce that perception, or you can aim to break the cycle, for instance, as Losty suggested, by introducing yourself in the Introductions forum.

Have I been radically intently insulted for the past three weeks ?  Yes or No.  Yes.  So, you will not disallow me writing a description of a methodology of insult employed by staff and members in the name of a myyside ascription.

I am simply going to describe staff and members as they have constantly addressed me via insult THE INSULT THAT IS AGAINST STAFF's very OWN LAW, to which staff and members have exhibited a complete indifference and, then prroceed to  accuse me of breaking their law, while they break their own law, big time. ; an unethically duplicitous conduct.  A totally radically ugly state of affairs wherein forum law is being ignored/broken, i.e., the forum law against insulting newbies.  Do not attempt to worm out of me positing a description of the horrid state of affairs transpiring within the forume, by members breaking, with relish, their own fucking law !  I have taken my licks here, even up to the point of a Kafkaesque punishment of having my life span here reduced, absent a hearing, by 25%, while being denied the possibility for talking back to the horrid, destructive, inauthoritative authorities of the forum, without exhibiting confirmation of my being a criminal in your midst.  Remember the Sean Connery film "Zardoff"', where punishment was to be artificially  aged a certain number of years ?  Yea, sure, now it is "confirmation bias" which plagues me, no, it is the pure criminal conduct of staff/members in a total indifference to their own law, which underpins my apparent maladaptation here.  The conduct of staff/and members is so radically ignoble and unethical and, unlawful, and has so very alienated me, that I am no longer interested in attempting a noble and civil interaction with staff/members .Emjay, you are one of the few who has been decent, not inhuman.
Law is the grandest, most successful ongoing, most radically destructive con which man has ever devised, and, I see right through ''law'' as not being an honest means to attaining human  civilization, law is a dishonesty; an ignobility; a CON. The forum is employing atheism as an excuse for conducting themselves as absolute barbarians.  Forum wants to continually deny me the language which I have seen to be requisite to describing the law con, which denial is unfathomably fucking stupid; always demanding some other language; some other simplicity; some other Duane, all properly make over in their criminally ill image.

I thought if staff/members might allow me to describe them, so that they might gain some realization of how fucking twisted and cruel they are to others, we might, subsequently, kiss and make up, and then, return to other considerations...So, if you are not interested in an auteur writing a free portrait of your Forum, just say so; however, I may just continue to get it all out of my system...Negatio

There is no rule/law on this site prohibiting members and/or staff from insulting newbies - you've completely misunderstood that. The rule is for members to refrain from insulting / rude behaviour in the Introductions forum. You haven't been in the Introductions forum so that rule does not apply here.

And you're making a massive thing out of something that didn't need to be; the 25 points thing. According to the Rules, which again I strongly suggest you read, points from Official Warnings expire after a month. And even if you did manage to accumulate 100 points, it results on a loss of posting privileges for one week. So you're blowing it way out of proportion. Those warnings are to give rulebreakers a chance to correct their behaviour or show willing to do so, which in this case of improving your quoting, the staff acknowledged you did.

That should've been the end of it, and it would have been had it not been for your paranoia building this up into some grand conspiracy of hypocrisy by the staff. That is simply not the case. You're still here aren't you? That's thanks to this rule system; apparently on other sites it can be far more subjective, where you can be banned on the whims of staff members. That can't happen here.

[negatio]

Did you report any of the posts in which you were insulted?

No, I was unaware of the law at that time. However I would have realized to so report would have been inconsistent with my OP, so I would not have reported; I would have been doing nothing at all whatsoever, all day, than reporting nasty horrid motherfuckers, and nothing else.  However, mh.brewer got so bad I did send in a formal e mail to Staff, asking if anything could be done for me regarding his absolute viciousness.  Losty replied saying there is no rule against being vicious. Now that I look back on her response, I think to myself: If there is law against insult, how much more so ought being absolutely horridly vicious to a member  be against forum law...Negatio.

[Mister Agenda]

Did you report any of the posts in which you were insulted?

No, I was unaware of the law at that time. However I would have realized to so report would have been inconsistent with my OP, so I would not have reported; I would have been doing nothing at all whatsoever, all day, than reporting nasty horrid motherfuckers, and nothing else.  However, mh.brewer got so bad I did send in a formal e mail to Staff, asking if anything could be done for me regarding his absolute viciousness.  Losty replied saying there is no rule against being vicious. Now that I look back on her response, I think to myself: If there is law against insult, how much more so ought being absolutely horridly vicious to a member  be against forum law...Negatio.

You could do an intro thread, which is common courtesy. No one is allowed to insult you there.

[negatio]

There is no rule/law on this site prohibiting members and/or staff from insulting newbies - you've completely misunderstood that. The rule is for members to refrain from insulting / rude behaviour in the Introductions forum. You haven't been in the Introductions forum so that rule does not apply here.

No, emjay, you perhaps did not read far enough into the law.  The law states that it extends to prohibiting members from insulting newbies in other portions of the forum as well...x

[The Grand Nudger]

[emjay]

There is no rule/law on this site prohibiting members and/or staff from insulting newbies - you've completely misunderstood that. The rule is for members to refrain from insulting / rude behaviour in the Introductions forum. You haven't been in the Introductions forum so that rule does not apply here.

No, emjay, you perhaps did not read far enough into the law.  The law states that it extends to prohibiting members from insulting newbies in other portions of the forum as well...x

Where does it state that then, or what, exactly does it state?