RE: Ontological Disproof of God
August 21, 2018 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: August 21, 2018 at 12:52 pm by negatio.)
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
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
