You claimed various things about the necessity and efficacy of using language the way you have.
Yes, excellent, thank you, good. My personal understanding of the way I deem myself under the necessity to write philosophy the way I do is not a presentation of excuse, that is, at least not to me. I am giving you my report of how I tick; as an existentialist I am both without excuse and justification for what I am, for I am just plain raw-fucking-what-I-am; I am not under the necessity of justifying myself, of excusing myself, to anyone; and, I am not what I am and am what I am not, i.e., an absolute freedom, always becoming that which I am not yet, and, surpassing what I was...
My position regarding what I think is the way to owning theoretical intelligibility in my written presentation is correct and unassailable. Unless you can overthrow the bottommost ground of my presentation, i.e., determinatio negatio est, I cannot possibly be characterized as either mistaken, or crank . Once again, come at me dragon lady, in the negative language of the language you intend to demonstrate to be mistaken, else you cannot even outline what it is you claim you are defeating....I am tired...I need to ride my bicycle down the road and try to talk a friend into driving me into town to purchase fuel and food...Let us break for a bit, or feel free to respond while I am shopping....Negatio.
Yes, excellent, thank you, good. My personal understanding of the way I deem myself under the necessity to write philosophy the way I do is not a presentation of excuse, that is, at least not to me. I am giving you my report of how I tick; as an existentialist I am both without excuse and justification for what I am, for I am just plain raw-fucking-what-I-am; I am not under the necessity of justifying myself, of excusing myself, to anyone; and, I am not what I am and am what I am not, i.e., an absolute freedom, always becoming that which I am not yet, and, surpassing what I was...
My position regarding what I think is the way to owning theoretical intelligibility in my written presentation is correct and unassailable. Unless you can overthrow the bottommost ground of my presentation, i.e., determinatio negatio est, I cannot possibly be characterized as either mistaken, or crank . Once again, come at me dragon lady, in the negative language of the language you intend to demonstrate to be mistaken, else you cannot even outline what it is you claim you are defeating....I am tired...I need to ride my bicycle down the road and try to talk a friend into driving me into town to purchase fuel and food...Let us break for a bit, or feel free to respond while I am shopping....Negatio.
(August 30, 2018 at 12:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 9:14 am)negatio Wrote: No one has yet successfully attempted to achieve a theoretical destruction of the OP, all you guys are able to do is set forth argumentum ad hominin upon argumentum as hominem, completely bent on showing me to be all these horrible things, on and on, now I am " incompetent".
I am totally, completely, entirely without excuse; nor need I make excuses; I am not making excuse/excuses for an incompetence; wow, this just gets more and more and radically solely an argument against my person, and, not my position, which position is predicated upon Spinoza's dictum, and, Sartre's variation and employment of that dictum as "omnis determinatio est negatio''; even if you cannot follow my position solely because you are unable to track my absolutely disdainful attempt to present my position, you would have to be capable of destroying, at the theoretical level, Spinoza's infinitely rich dictum. I am not making excuses, I am describing the realities of philosophical position positing. Focus on just one little bit of the OP, e.g., my notion of "jurisprudential illusion", and, focus on overthrowing it...why the radically concentrated and ongoing attempt to impugn my person as a means to overthrowing my position ?! Argumentum ad hominem is not, cannot be efficient to overthrow a person's position...I am at a total loss to understand why practically everyone attacks my person here ?! It is so ignoble of you...
Did you notice how efficiently I threw/bucked-off these nerds who are continually attempting to constitute me as a troll ? I have not heard back from the stupid fucks, I must have made sense to them !
Distinguish my person from my position, attack the position; you've tried J., and you got your fucking ass totally kicked by your own negligent failure to posit an intelligible attack ! Disengage from stupid schoolyard insults !
It was just beginning to appear, here, that the philosophy sector of this forum, is engaged in a live Platonic/Socratic dialogical dialectical interpersonal exchange, regarding questions of interest to persons like Jormungander, I am hoping that is the case...however it appears so many of the persons on this site are so totally bent on expressing hatred, instead of rational dialogic, that I am extremely discouraged. Why, on earth, the constant and horrid attacks on my person, which in your lingo, is trolling, because it brings alienation/contention among members, not nobly conducted interchange ! ? Clearly, I have stumbled into a shadowy cave wherein the dwellers see only the false shadows of their own mistaken worldview, and, cannot, will not, attempt to nobly respond to a total stranger, who claims he had previously crawled up out of the cave he once dwelt in, and, acting on his Socratic responsibility to descend back into the cave and, inform the dwellers therein of what wonderful things he has seen, since leaving a shadowy cave. I will not be told that it is impossible for communication to transpire between a person with legitimate philosophical credentials, to communicate with cave dwellers who appear able only to exhibit absolute hatred in response to his report of what he has seen up in the light outside the cave ! I can not accept that ugly prospect, or, do the members think that, probably, I should ? According to the hateful Whateverist, I should no longer bother to respond to member concerns, because, according to W., the cave dwellers just plain do not give a fuck …, however, since I am now prepared to explain my position by continuing a discussion of the Neil lMc Cauley character in the piece of cinema named "Heat", because Neil is Sartre's jargon/language portrayed cinematographically, wherein Neil is this totally free thief wherein...pre-reflectively knowing that he is an absolute freedom, is...
Very very sad. Love; Negatio.
You claimed various things about the necessity and efficacy of using language the way you have. I was attacking those claims. That is not an ad hominem as I was not attacking your supposed disproofs about God, but your defense of your behavior. So, no, I didn't engage in any ad hominem, aside from the remark about whether you could defend your OP or not, which wasn't directed at the soundness or validity of your argument, but was more an expression of exasperation at your ridiculous behavior. You do make excuses for yourself. And when those excuses are undermined, you cry about people attacking your excuses. Grow the fuck up, bitch.
(August 30, 2018 at 9:14 am)negatio Wrote: a form of language regarded as barbarous, debased, or hybrid. Yea, I don't know a goddamn fucking thing ! So you see, J., "jargon" does have a perjorative connotation, and, since you clearly did not know that, you're reply entails an incompetence to the degree you lacked complete apprehension of the term; I suggest you change tack; get off constant attempt to embarrass me via continuously positing fallacious argumentum ad hominem. Admit it J., you are totally and absolutely incapable of rationally, efficaciously, positing anything rational against the OP...now I do see that you are so damned angry with me that you cannot see straight, and, thus the constant, vain, ongoing, ragging...If you could ever get off my case, and, explain why the OP is a piece of shit, I am sure you could soar to heights of philosophical expression which will uplift and edify everyone now participating in the philosophy forum. Negatio.
It can be used in the pejorative sense, in this case it was not. If you misunderstood the sense in which it was being used, I'm sorry. As a technical matter, Oxford refers to the definition you quoted as "archaic." So, no, that is not correct either. But by all means, throw shade whenever and however the opportunity arises. As noted above, pointing out that your excuses for your behavior don't wash is not an ad hominem argument. For someone who whines about other people making ad hominem arguments, you seem to engage in a lot of them yourself. Nobody is trying to embarrass you, and I am not in the least bit angry. I am more amused than anything. You seem little more than yet another internet crank who is obsessively convinced of his brilliance and is immune to attempts at rational discussion. If you can't at least make an attempt to make yourself understood, don't waste our time with empty excuses for your failure. I did ask you about the key turn of your argument, the relationship between nihilation and law, and all I got was a restatement of your initial arguments. That's not helpful.
(August 30, 2018 at 8:01 am)negatio Wrote: Referencing Jormungandr's":
''It might help you if you put the editor in source mode and respond that way. (You can also select to put the editor in source mode by default under User CP > Edit Options.)''
I have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, what you just so kindly advised can possibly mean ! You lost me at ''source mode'', what is it that I am not doing correctly now ? I think you are saying that it is something which I am not doing … and, that absent something is putting the editor in ''source mode'' whatever that is !
Are you using the mobile version of the forum interface (on a phone or tablet) or are you using the desktop version? The forum software offers two different modes of editing a post. All posts are a mixture of text that is intended for display, and embedded codes which tell the software how the text is to be displayed. These embedded codes are enclosed in square brackets, and usually come in pairs (e.g. [ quote ] and [/ quote ], without the spaces). To accommodate editing, the editor can display your reply two different ways. It can display it without visual display of the codes, formatted as the post will look when it is posted (notable by the inclusion of line boxes around quoted text). Or it can display it in its "raw" form showing the text of your reply including the embedded codes. That is called source mode. (My prior post contained pictures, perhaps your device didn't display them.) I was pointing out that it might be easier to edit your replies in source mode, rather than using the simulated display editor. You can use source mode one of two ways. One, by toggling it on whenever you edit a post (assuming you aren't using the mobile version on a phone or tablet), by selecting the last icon on the row of buttons directly above the box in which the text you are replying to is displayed. Or, you can go to the User Control Panel ("User CP" link at the top right of the page), click on "Edit Options" (midway down on the left side of the page), and checking the box beside "Put the editor in source mode by default" (on the lower right of the page). If you are using the mobile version of the forum interface (on a phone or tablet), then you don't have a choice; the mobile version uses source mode and only source mode.
