Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

@ Negatio
So you really don't give a shit about letting other people understand your arguments. I mean, it's ok. But to be honest, if you can't take the criticism, stay out of the forum.

As I probably made clear, English is not my first language, and your style of writing (clearly reminiscent of the classical style of certain Latin and Greek authors I've had the dubious pleasure to translate in high school) is way too abstruse to make me even consider the possibility of trying to make sense of it!

Seeing as we're 18 (or however many) pages into this thread, and this same objection, along with many others, has been met with accusations of "ad hominem" attacks, and you are somehow still borking quotes all over the place, I am even more inclined to doubt in your good faith.

In philosophy, and this is the philosophy sector of the forum, criticism cannot be mere pure assertion; what on earth are you talking  about Lucanus, you gave me constructive criticism, I took it, and posted a new writing of the first sentence of a philosophical/theoretical destruction of the ontological unintelligibility in jurisprudence, in short, I wrote you discrete statements which, are the beginning of an explanation of the theoretical tools which underpin my particular position, i.e., the position I essentially am taking is that the most fundamental presupposition presumed by American jurisprudence is an incorrect presupposition, i. e., that all these doctors of jurisprudence presuppose, incorrectly, that their language of  law determines them to act, via law, against persons in court; or, that the jurisprudents' determine themselves, by language of law, to act against persons via punishment, etc..  Jurisprudence relies primarily on a concept which it calls "stare decisis", which is simply a system of employing precedent in deciding/determining the ruling which shall be made in a given new case.  Stare decisis is a system of determination via past events, and, no past event is efficient to determine a human being to do or not do anything.  There is no efficacy in the past which can, in fact, reach into our present freedom and determine that freedom on any wise whatsoever...and, blah, blah, on and on.... borking quotes, yes, of course, I don't understand the system at the level of other members...what does that have to do with philosophy ?!  I am such a fucking fuck-up that I just became a Junior Member of this Forum, in a mere ten or so days. Negatio. P.S. I have worked very extensively on, and instantly totally lost, some of the most beautiful sentences which I have ever written, by making the radical mistake of going into the preview box; just unintentionally grazing a key on the keyboard, or clicking the mouse to bring up the curser, has cost me big-time in that fucking bullshit space...one, most of the time, when writing, has to constantly deal with the robot running all the words together, to the point of wasting so much effort that it is absolutely horrid; when one enters the edit box, and clicks the mouse to bring up the cursor, the cursor leaps wildly upward to a totally different position in the edit box, while, one has a writing merely just sitting awaiting editing, and in that box you can instantly loose your work quick-like-a-mouse, instantly, and that is no place to be and no feeling to have to endure.
In philosophy, going directly for the throat of an opponent when positing a polemic, is the most efficient and hard-hitting possible means of defeating the opponent's presupposition(s), and, thereby, his overall position, and, going for the throat is going at the presupposition(s) which are mistakenly made.
  It is not that I will not take criticism, I accept criticism, however it cannot be presented as pure assertion; as ad hominem argumentation; as personal insult----it has to be reasoned and rational argument against the intelligibility of the opponents position, which clearly demonstrates, logically,a destruction of that position.  Negatio.