“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Doggy Daddy]

When are we going to realize we are being suckered?

Oh, I think that's been realized, but there is more amusement to be wrung out of this.

[dogmush]

I realized it pages ago, but the Munroe's Law states we must try to convince Bosco1, and I find myself unable to act contrary to that law.

[Bosco1]

Now you're accusing me of not understanding what you said. You are clearly angered by others' failure to adore Sartre. It may help you to admit this to yourself, and examine whether your attitude is correct.

Also, you are wrong about the nature of ad hominem.

I am perfectly correct in my description of the argumentum ad hominem:
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.

All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...

When I say I am not angry that you don't appreciate the texts from Sartre upon which I rely, why don't you believe me !? I am not angry about that, just radically disappointed...

[230RN]

Please continue, guys.  I'm probably having as much fun watching you get suckered as Bosco1 is in suckering you.

Carry on.

Terry, "indubitably stupid," 230RN

[Bogie]

I don't know if I would say "clever."
 
Theories, especially the theories of cloistered academics, mean next to nothing next to knowledge gained from practice.

[230RN]

...Double post

[Fly320s]

T h a t  b o t  h a s  a  g r e a t   t h e s a u r u s.

[230RN]

Shhhhh, guys.  Don't tell him, but I'm trying to bait him into spewing more pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Mum's the word.  Let's see if it worked.

Shhhh.... Terry

[Bosco1]

There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not defined by circumstance and situation.  Would you agree?

With the above you demonstrate your complete failure to see the core of my position, which I have incessantly reiterated, i.e., no given/factual state whatsoever is capable of determining a human act, and, law is a given factual state.
It is really so radically simple what I am maintaining. Givens are not determinative of human action, law is a given, hence law is not determinative of human conduct.
Your continual insults are a horrid bore...you call my position silly; while there can be nothing more serious than questioning the viability of law per se.
Get off my case and cease argumentum ad hominem against my person. Overthrow the Sartreian texts upon which I predicate my critique of law, by reasoning; and, quit continually screwing with my person!

[Perd Hapley]

I am perfectly correct in my description of the argumentum ad hominem:
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.

All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...

When I say I am not angry that you don't appreciate the texts from Sartre upon which I rely, why don't you believe me !? I am not angry about that, just radically disappointed...

Well, at least you understand how to execute ad hominem, if not how to recognize it.

But hey, I'm just dense and inept...

[Perd Hapley]

If words cannot be understood, then what does government mean?

[cordex]

With the above you demonstrate your complete failure to see the core of my position, which I have incessantly reiterated, i.e., no given/factual state whatsoever is capable of determining a human act, and, law is a given factual state.

Please reread my statement once again.  I specifically said that circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.

Do you really disagree with that?

It is really so radically simple what I am maintaining. Givens are not determinative of human action, law is a given, hence law is not determinative of human conduct.

A circumstance does not need to absolutely determine a person's action to influence it.  If you don't believe circumstances influence your actions then I'm not sure that you can be said to be conscious.  However, I happen to know for a fact that circumstances have determined your conduct.  When people here didn't receive your haughty pronouncements positively you got snippy.  Is that not your human action slavishly responding to your circumstance and situation?

Your continual insults are a horrid bore...you call my position silly; while there can be nothing more serious than questioning the viability of law per se.

Yes, your position is silly.  As dogmush said, you've taken a minor but valid observation and extrapolated from that to the point that it bears no resemblance to reality.

I agree that people can choose to defy law.
I agree that law can be corrupt or rapacious.
I do not agree that law is universally corrupt and rapacious.  You've provided no support for that assertion.
I do not agree that Bosco1 telling everyone to read Sartre is likely to "raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm" or that it will lead to a "final totalization of what civilization can be."  You've provided no support for that assertion either.

Overthrow the Sartreian texts upon which I predicate my critique of law, by reasoning;

Show me the Sartreian texts you're using to support the items I disagree with (noted above in red) and I'd be happy to address them directly.  The texts you've posted so far do not support the assertions you've made.

and, quit continually screwing with my person!

I'm flattered, but you can rest assured that I will not be screwing with your person, either continually or intermittently.

[Ben]

All of you guys are so dense and inept at comprehending philosophical/logical constructs, while denying that you continually argue against persons, instead of positions, that you make yourselves appear indubitably stupid! All you do is continually argue against my person instead of my position too...

You should try connecting with your audience and try to find commonalities. For instance, what is your daily carry pistol?

[Ben]

Well, at least you understand how to execute ad hominem, if not how to recognize it.

 

[zxcvbob]

[MechAg94]

[Bosco1]

J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”

[MechAg94]

The impressive of this thread is that Bosco1 took a thesis that falls squarely into the "No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock" category (The law does not determine human actions), and managed through heretofore rarely seen levels of obtuse writing to get us to spend 7 odd pages discussing a blindingly obvious premise.

It seems to me that The Law tends to become evil/oppressive when it tries to determine human actions rather than simple providing a loose boundary/limit on those actions.  That change generally indicates a government that no longer sees people as equals.

[Bosco1]

You should try connecting with your audience and try to find commonalities. For instance, what is your daily carry pistol?

I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!

[Bosco1]

It seems to me that The Law tends to become evil/oppressive when it tries to determine human actions rather than simple providing a loose boundary/limit on those actions.  That change generally indicates a government that no longer sees people as equals.

Totally excellent observation 94.

[cordex]

J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”

No ... that does support the initial claim that everyone agrees with to some extent - i.e. that law does not perfectly dictate human action.

It does not address the following assertions:

What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...

First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm.  The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...

Do you disagree with the following statement?
Circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.

[WLJ]

I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!

What part of Ky? I'm in Ky too.

[dogmush]

I live in KY. One can conceal carry here without any sort of permit. I have tons of guns and ammo. However, way out here in the country, where I live, there is no need to carry a gun!

This man has clearly never seen Justified!

[Bosco1]

I specifically said that circumstances and situations do not determine or define human action in response to them, however human action is almost always shaped, impacted, and influenced by circumstances and situations.
No, that is not what you said, here is what you said:
There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not defined by circumstance and situation. 
You:""...not to say determined by..." circumstances...

[MechAg94]

Just a side thought of mine regarding the history of things:  About when was it that it became commonly known just how many people were killed/murdered under Stalin and Communism in general?  When did all that come out?  Was that in the 1950's? 

Similar question in regard to Che Guevara. 

Generally, communists regimes have had plenty of sycophants in the media who have no problem editing news and commentary to leave out the bad/evil acts and make the rest of the world think everyone is happy.  That is apart from the oppressive media censorship communist regimes also enact.  I imagine there were a lot of people who were taken in by the propaganda who did not know the truth or ignored it.