Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

1

Ennui wrote

Yeah. OP could have summarized the first point as, "I am going to critique the use of linguistic interpretations of law because it results in injustice. I will do that with concepts from the existentialists Heidegger and Satre. [Insert definition of absolute absolutism here.]" minus the weird nod to U.S. constitutionalism.

2

nega OP wrote

I am not whatsoever dealing with the interpretation of law, I am point-blank doing a theoretical destruction of the idea of law. It is radically unclear writing to use 'it' and 'that', instead of taking the extra time and space to re-mention precisely what one is referring to. To me your suggested construction is clumsy. However, what the hell, you are entitled to completely misinterpret what I said, and botch the job to boot. I told a member earlier that all is misinterpreted....Thanks a million anyway sir.

2

Ennui wrote

You are correct. In point 4, you explain that you are deconstructing the philosophy behind law by showing its incompatibility with "human determination to action." Though in points 7-18 the regular use of "language of law" led me to think your argument was linguistic traditions of law cannot account for human action/rationale because it is (and can be) based on a philosophically inferior line of reasoning, which would explain why you think we should ditch the published law and move to deeper reflection.

I was wrong to not elaborate on my phrasing of "linguistic interpretations of law"; however, using 'it' and 'that' is a lesser sin than word-barfing. Is the above better?

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

"How are the police zealots? A zealot is someone who militantly advances a cause motivated intrinsically by their own deeply-held beliefs." Police are fervent maniacs who murderously deem law to be an absolute unquestionable structure efficient to determine themselves and all others to do, or not do, acts. Persons willing to murder other human beings are not merely doing their job, they are zealously forcing their god, law, down the throats of others, for personal gain, and, because they deem themselves to be grandiose American heroic, guardian angel types, who are, in fact, criminally insane homicidal maniacs. You do well to conjecture and proffer multiple possible intensions intended by my wording and phrasing, feel free to take a term in all its senses...good work...commendable, that is the way to read, ponder all the possible senses entailed...

−1

nega OP wrote

Indeed, it is seriously nauseating to encounter defeasement of law purely via bizzare thought/language. I will not now possibly be able to do the rest of my life absent your rapt attention...you are a tremendous loss impossible to recoup...

1

[deleted] wrote

5

nega OP wrote

Surely, we rich old white men must stick together as birds of a feather.

2