Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

---

Here we go again for the umpteen time !  More argumentum ad hominem !  Leave me fucking out of  it ! Attack my position, not me. Jesus fucking Christ ! Get off my back !  It does not matter what, personally,  I may or may not be !  It does not matter one fucking bit how retarded, ugly, and depraved I am !  In philosophy we focus on positions, not persons,  please.  Thank you. Duane.

Then make your position clear to me, much the same as Jor just did.

Edit: You seem to be able to get your point across very well when you're pissed off.

No, you make my position clear to yourself by yourself.  I cannot possibly do it for you. I have given my position and, then totally rewritten part of it for the members.  I am writing as clearly as I, as a radically limited human being, at this moment, can.  What I say, even at what appears to be the thickest, hardest, most unbearable juncture thereof, is insightfully crystal clear; totally translucent; ---- some of it is even absolutely original thinking. I have studied radically intently as an ideaologist...I successful wrote my way to a degree in philosophy with straight A's for teachers who stressed and demanded, clarity.  I can do clarity, I do clarity. Now, this is not college. What I am playing here is hardball.  I am undertaking a philosophical/theoretical destruction of our most fundamental religious beliefs, and, of the legalistic foundations of America itself.  My position is cast in a manner fit to survive the most possible insightful attack against it which might happen to be brought against it for centuries to come; for there will be those, like Jormungander,who can,and will,undertake to defeat it.  The OP is written to withstand the slings and arrows of future bright minds, for as long as possible.  The OP is enunciating a radical vision for the future; based upon the most difficult and powerful thought of the past, as exampled by Spinoza; Hegel; Sartre...it is not my thought that is, for the most part, is being presented here; it is Sprioza's; Hegel's; Sartre's, I am standing on their shoulders, and, I have, thanks to the infinite riches contained in Spinoza's dictum, invented at least one absolutely new theoretical construct of my own, i.e., jurisprudential illusion; --- the OP is playing absolute hardball within an absolutely tyrannical sociosphere, wherein men are constantly attempting to enslave others, by "law",
which law is totally and radically an overbearing loose cannon which requires resistance sufficient to tie it down.  Jurisprudence needs a goddamn good fucking swift theoretical kick in the balls, for it is a theoretically and ontologically unintelligible series of practices within the sociosphere, which are suffocating and destroying the originally intended reign of human absolute ontological freedom,in certain regions of human conduct, which original Americans insisted upon having in unmolested fashion.  I am playing theoretical hardball with what is the actual nonsense practiced by American jurisprudence, for the sake of getting it and its fucking nonsense off our backs; it,
jurisprudence, is capable, only, of, on and on and on, doing prohibitive law against human beings, which is making us sick, because it has no real understanding of what a  human being is.  Thank you brewer.  Negatio.