Ontological Disproof of God

[brewer]

Negatio falls apart when told he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

Unfortunately, he's able to communicate better when this happens. Maybe the high horse or pedestal is not the place for him.

[negatio]

You can't defend your OP

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.




I

---

These are all nothing but excuses for your incompetence.  You can't defend your OP in either jargon or simple language.  Expressing things in jargon doesn't make your position less defeasable, except insofar as it makes it incomprehensible, it just presents a barrier to understanding.  If you'll read real philosophers, they don't talk or write like this.  Even Sartre only used his neologisms after patient introduction of their meaning and plenty of examples.  So you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

And for what it's worth, you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.


Here's another definition that I find useful here.

@negatio: Have you defined what a god / deity is anywhere here?

Robvalue, yes, indeed, I started on that when I informed the members that Deity is, at its simplest, just a hierarchical construct, wherein that which is next higher than one on the continuum of beings, is one's Deity.  This was the view of a Philosopher named Alexander, thus, for instance: God; Man; Khemikal; Cro Magnon man; Neanderthal man … You see.  And, of course, Deity is commonly thought of as that which made/created man...Thanks a million Robvalue, how refreshing to have the opportunity for a civil interchange with a member ! Negatio.

---

you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

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.

Has it crossed your mind even once that this forum may be read by people whose first language is not English? Your writing style, with the endless run-on sentences is needlessly complicated and essentially works as a smokescreen. It actively makes me not care about your arguments, because it makes me feel like you don't give a shit about being understood.

Wow, Lucanus, thank you. Yes, indeed, such a realization totally has not crossed my mind ! Wow, of course.  Indeed, I see.  I, indeed, must apologize; of course I had no idea...Negatio. Wow.

[Angrboda]

You can't defend your OP

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.

you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

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.

---

---

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.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure how you go about tackling characters in books of fiction. Are we saying that Yahweh, if he was real and as described, wouldn't be a deity? Or that within the fictional universe of the book, he isn't a deity? (Or maybe that the fictional world as described can't correlate with ours?)

He appears to be higher on the hierarchy than us in either case, just by being more powerful, even if he's a total dimwit. And he supposedly made man, in both cases.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, theres alot wrong with his idea of divinity, if he's trying to tackle the judeo christian god.  God doesn't try to rule over us by law, god rules over us by fiat.  It's a god, ffs.  

What he's trying to establish, though, is that the issuance of laws shows god's ignorance of man's essential nature - thus denying the validity of an ontological claim about that god.

The trouble, ofc, is that even if we assume that his assertions regarding the nature of man are entirely true (which they aren't, lol) god still (allegedly) knew that man would be incapable of being righteous before the law.

[negatio]

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.




I

---

Robvalue, yes, indeed, I started on that when I informed the members that Deity is, at its simplest, just a hierarchical construct, wherein that which is next higher than one on the continuum of beings, is one's Deity.  This was the view of a Philosopher named Alexander, thus, for instance: God; Man; Khemikal; Cro Magnon man; Neanderthal man … You see.  And, of course, Deity is commonly thought of as that which made/created man...Thanks a million Robvalue, how refreshing to have the opportunity for a civil interchange with a member ! Negatio.

---

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.

Has it crossed your mind even once that this forum may be read by people whose first language is not English? Your writing style, with the endless run-on sentences is needlessly complicated and essentially works as a smokescreen. It actively makes me not care about your arguments, because it makes me feel like you don't give a shit about being understood.

Wow, Lucanus, thank you. Yes, indeed, such a realization totally has not crossed my mind ! Wow, of course.  Indeed, I see.  I, indeed, must apologize; of course I had no idea...Negatio. Wow.

Lucanus, WOW, WOW.  A solidly edifying, incisive, point-blank/dead-on constructive and wholly viable positive criticism !, of course, the infinite run-on sentencing which I do so so dearly love to indulge, thinking I  am so fucking smooth, when, in fact, you, Lucanus, are stricken by what appears to you to be the mal-adaptive apparent absurdity of the length of the individual thoughts; that, then, you deem to be at the heart of an apparent absurdity ,and, an instant seeming foolhardiness of expression. Wow …
Yes, as you see, with all of my replies to members, I can do chop, chop, chop, in short intelligible segments. Oh, Oh, Oh, NO ! to tear myself away the beautiful Melvilleian infinitely ongoing enunciatory style...AHHHHHHHHAH; HELP ME, HELP MY VANITY from seeing a period, finally, once and for all, put to its existence ! ?
I will re-read the OP, with your top-notch thinking/criticism in mind, and see what ticks in the Duane-brain !  This dialectic is good medicine. Thank you so very much Lucanus !  Negatio.

---

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.

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.

---

---

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.

Grow the fuck up, bitch.

I am a being who IS archaic now that I am  no longer thirteen years old, but, the thirteen year old knowledge is still with me, you cannot bar a more ancient consciousness from possessing what is now archaeological, and prior, I was here in the prior time when it was, and still is, to me, perjorative.  Now you are fucking telling me, my worshipful Deity, precisely how I should even function, i.e., function in even my very own historicity !  ?  Wow, what a beautiful juncture to give you some of your  own swear/cursing-medicine and, articulate a beautiful, poetic, cursing, custom designed for you J.: You goddamn fucking cold-hearted dragon-lady asshole fucking puta la pinche burro cavrone chinga panocha !  Negatio.

---

I'm not sure how you go about tackling characters in books of fiction. Are we saying that Yahweh, if he was real and as described, wouldn't be a deity? Or that within the fictional universe of the book, he isn't a deity? (Or maybe that the fictional world as described can't correlate with ours?)

He appears to be higher on the hierarchy than us in either case, just by being more powerful, even if he's a total dimwit. And he supposedly made man, in both cases.

Far-out, robvalue; you pose a complexity I which you now  have me thinking about, and, at this moment I can just give you a prima facie response.  I am saying, and I think, demonstrating, by the logic of existential ontology, that Yahweh is not, cannot, be Deity to we humans, because he clearly exhibits his inferior comprehension of how I tick as a human being.  If he indeed made me, why doesn't he have a reflective comprehension of how I even originate my acts ?!  Whether the Bible is a fictional work, or not, what matters is that the entire earth continually dwells on what Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ mean to every moment of the existence of millions and millions of human lives; that we have built our cultural and legal institutions upon the way we perceive Jesus Christ; we restarted our history from the essential date of his birth; his reach, his influence on us is everywhere, and, nonetheless, he exhibits a total  misunderstanding and lack of understanding of how we originate and upsurge our actions as human beings; He would have us determine ourselves to act, and forbear action, in this world, via obeying his word, which is now scripture ---- he is dead wrong, I  as a human being am not, can not, will not, be determined in my acts by the past language that was Christ's, Yahweh's, Jehovah's exhortation, nay, demand, upon  penalty of eternal death, that I determine myself via his word,  that is  a fucking slavery to which I will not, can not subscribe !  And, our legal system of law is demanding the selfsame goddamn fucking shit from me, in a stupidly ignorant manner wherein that legal system exhibits a radically destructive lack of understanding of even the most fundamental way  I, via whatever force that made me, tick. Therefore, neither American law, any law, or any of the so-called deities mentioned herein, are, in fact Deity to me !  They are all fucking stuck on stupid regarding their so-called understanding of human beings....I will contemplate your poetically presented questions in an ongoing manner, and hope to interact with you again, robvalue,  Thank you. Negatio.

---

[quote='negatio' pid='1807813' dateline='1535642005']

Wow, Lucanus, thank you. Yes, indeed, such a realization totally has not crossed my mind ! Wow, of course.  Indeed, I see.  I, indeed, must apologize; of course I had no idea...Negatio. Wow.

Lucanus, WOW, WOW.  A solidly edifying, incisive, point-blank/dead-on constructive and wholly viable positive criticism !, of course, the infinite run-on sentencing which I do so so dearly love to indulge, thinking I  am so fucking smooth, when, in fact, you, Lucanus, are stricken by what appears to you to be the mal-adaptive apparent absurdity of the length of the individual thoughts; that, then, you deem to be at the heart of an apparent absurdity ,and, an instant seeming foolhardiness of expression. Wow …
Yes, as you see, with all of my replies to members, I can do chop, chop, chop, in short intelligible segments. Oh, Oh, Oh, NO ! to tear myself away the beautiful Melvilleian infinitely ongoing enunciatory style...AHHHHHHHHAH; HELP ME, HELP MY VANITY from seeing a period, finally, once and for all, put to its existence ! ?
I will re-read the OP, with your top-notch thinking/criticism in mind, and see what ticks in the Duane-brain !  This dialectic is good medicine. Thank you so very much Lucanus !  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.


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.

---

---

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.

Grow the fuck up, bitch.
[quote]
I am a being who IS archaic now that I am  no longer thirteen years old, but, the thirteen year old knowledge is still with me, you cannot bar a more ancient consciousness from possessing what is now archaeological, and prior, I was here in the prior time when it was, and still is, to me, perjorative.  Now you are fucking telling me, my worshipful Deity, precisely how I should even function, i.e., function in even my very own historicity !  ?  Wow, what a beautiful juncture to give you some of your  own swear/cursing-medicine and, articulate a beautiful, poetic, cursing, custom designed for you J.: You goddamn fucking cold-hearted dragon-lady asshole fucking puta la pinche burro cavrone chinga panocha !  Negatio.

---

I'm not sure how you go about tackling characters in books of fiction. Are we saying that Yahweh, if he was real and as described, wouldn't be a deity? Or that within the fictional universe of the book, he isn't a deity? (Or maybe that the fictional world as described can't correlate with ours?)

He appears to be higher on the hierarchy than us in either case, just by being more powerful, even if he's a total dimwit. And he supposedly made man, in both cases.

Far-out, robvalue; you pose a complexity I which you now  have me thinking about, and, at this moment I can just give you a prima facie response.  I am saying, and I think, demonstrating, by the logic of existential ontology, that Yahweh is not, cannot, be Deity to we humans, because he clearly exhibits his inferior comprehension of how I tick as a human being.  If he indeed made me, why doesn't he have a reflective comprehension of how I even originate my acts ?!  Whether the Bible is a fictional work, or not, what matters is that the entire earth continually dwells on what Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ mean to every moment of the existence of millions and millions of human lives; that we have built our cultural and legal institutions upon the way we perceive Jesus Christ; we restarted our history from the essential date of his birth; his reach, his influence on us is everywhere, and, nonetheless, he exhibits a total  misunderstanding and lack of understanding of how we originate and upsurge our actions as human beings; He would have us determine ourselves to act, and forbear action, in this world, via obeying his word, which is now scripture ---- he is dead wrong, I  as a human being am not, can not, will not, be determined in my acts by the past language that was Christ's, Yahweh's, Jehovah's exhortation, nay, demand, upon  penalty of eternal death, that I determine myself via his word,  that is  a fucking slavery to which I will not, can not subscribe !  And, our legal system of law is demanding the selfsame goddamn fucking shit from me, in a stupidly ignorant manner wherein that legal system exhibits a radically destructive lack of understanding of even the most fundamental way  I, via whatever force that made me, tick. Therefore, neither American law, any law, or any of the so-called deities mentioned herein, are, in fact Deity to me !  They are all fucking stuck on stupid regarding their so-called understanding of human beings....I will contemplate your poetically presented questions in an ongoing manner, and hope to interact with you again, robvalue,  Thank you. Negatio.

Jormungandr, Negatio uses a desktop.  Wow, look at the text box now, it appears to be expressing itself in this source code, it does not work as smoothly for me, I just had a hard time trying to respond to you, this is haywire. I do not want non source mode.  I do not know BB code, so why have to look at the weird stuff---perhaps so some of it might rub-off on me ! ??  I, especially at this moment, am being too distracted by the, to me, unfathomable concantenations of code ! Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

If trolls had any integrity, I'd call a technical foul for fluffing page numbers with textwalls of other peoples stuff..but they don't..so I guess it flies. 

Just stop quoting..entirely, and use-
@jorg
@Lucanus
@khem

You can fix your problem..by not pressing the button. Can you manage, can you double nihilate your way into that?

[negatio]

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.

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.

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.

---

---

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks like a solid "no".

[Lucanus]

@ 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.