https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.69160/2015.69160.Jean-paul-Sartre-Being-And-Nothingness_djvu.txt
THIS IS THE MODERATOR Whitefire13 DO NOT DELETE MY EDIT TO ADD:
LAW is ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE
The highlighted link will have all the content he copied here (word for word 
)
BTW dipshit - do it one more time and youâre out!!! This forum is for folks who know how to think 
NOT copy/paste 
Welcome to Atheist Republic ajuris.
Are you a nihilist?
What a long winded way to make a simple point. Duh! Scientific laws are not the same thinga as 'legal laws." Scientific Laws are âdescriptiveâ not âprescriptive.â As descriptors, they have their limitations.
Where did you ever get such an idea? Laws are created by men. Are you playing the equivocation fallacy game and trying to misuse the word âLawâ in as many ways as possible to make a point?
I am a nihilist in the sense that I have comprehended what Sartre dubbed the double nihilation, wherein consciousness transcends its past in pursuit of its future.
True. I often wonder if I will fart when I get on a full elevator.
Of course I know the difference between scientistic law and jurisprudential law, silly! I am simply making the point that jurisprudence employs the self-same Aristotelian cinesiological principle as science, wherein matter is in motion moved by something other than itselfâŚwhile, all the while, human freedom is not in fact moved by given law, but, rather, by desideratum, i.e., by that which it intends to bring to pass.
I am not trying to misuse the term âlawâ, I am overthrowing the notion of law by pointing out that law is ontologically unintelligible, i.e., men do not originate their acts on the basis of what is, like a law, rather, our acts originate ex nihilo, out of the nothing which is the future which we are continually ushering into the world.
I formed the idea that language of law is not determinative of human conduct by studying Sartreâs ontological description of the mode of origin of a human act.
Umm, Cognostic mentions âscientificâ, not scientistic".
Science; scientist; scientific; scientistic, all are birds of the same feather when speaking about the scientistic view of the world, which is the consideration of matter in motion moved by force. We now mistakenly see law as a force which moves the matter which is human beings, which is a misapplication of the scientistic weltanschauung, because free men are not moved by outside forces like law, they are self-movent and originate their actions via the double nihilationâŚ
I did that back in Las Vegas. I was in the elevator with my girlfriend going up at the Luxor. It wasnât just us in the elevator. There were 4 other people. I felt it coming on. I really needed to fart, bad. SO I let it out. It was silent and deadly. As I felt the hot gas fizzing out of my ass. It burned my hole as it came out. I filled the elevator with the smell full of rotten eggs and battery acid. As my girlfriend looked at me, I knew & she knew that it was me. Her eyes turned red and began to water & people began to cough in the elevator.
Found it word for wordâŚ
Hmm, blatant plagiarism.
@ajuris Can you please offer an explanation?
For any observers, plagiarism, especially without proving links and accrediting the source is extremely frowned on. Suddenly nothing is funny.
Damn, I nearly nodded off there.His point here seems to be that he doesnât believe something vague about the nature of laws.
Is he asking us if we agree? An atheist debate forum seems an odd destination for this topic, but Iâll try and keep an open mind.
Yes I wrote that and have been posting it and offshoot versions for years in attempt to interact with other thinkers. I cannot possibly supply all those linksâŚ
I am the author of all posts you will find on the web proposing law as ontologically unintelligible.
My OP constitutes a disproof of the deity of âGodâ by explaining that a God who thinks man can be controlled by law does not in fact understand how we human beings actually tick; and, by mistakenly attempting to control man via His Law, shows Himself not a deity who created man, which deity would know that human action does not, cannot, orginate on the basis of given states of affairs like lawâŚ
My position is grounded upon existentialist thought which is the most difficult in the world to understand. If you have no background in or familiarity with âBeing and Nothingnessâ by J.P. Sartre, the most difficult book in the world, it will appear to you to be gobbly-gook, when, in fact, it is profound scholarship originally written in French during the 1930âs.
YOU should have learnt by now that plagiarism doesnât fly. The link I found also has you removed for it.
Tough shit for backing your claim as the âoriginatorâ 
- itâs just an assertion. Looks like youâre gonna have to start fresh.
Disproof? Hahahahahaha. Iâve âdisprovedâ dragons 
by their weight/wing ratio.
Subjective assessment. Most likely biased as you feel you have an understanding 
Edited to add: hopping in the shower where the various energy elements (myself included) need to interact with dihydrogen oxide.
