pull down to refresh
In no other place you comment about where is this law coming from
is natural. like you breathing air.
Please study more. You are too innocent in your lack of knowledge.
Your lack of understanding natural law is really disturbing.
OK, you managed to completely shatter my expectations beyond reason. I applaud you because you have been able to consistently act like a disturbed teenager who read one poems from Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal" and keeps citing it even when random people ask him the time.
Not one single time you said something of value, and you concluded with being disturbed by my lack of understanding of a thing you (very poorly) made up and called natural law. I tried to give you constructive feedback for bettering your definition, and you completely ignored it because you were too disturbed by my lack of understanding. This would be hilarious if I did not spend too much time in this conversation, and if you were someone different from the internet stranger who wrote some very useful and knowledgeable guides.
Well, it seems I found yet another broken clock...
So long.
OK, that's fun. But I have no shovel with me, so I'll simply leave
again you understand nothing... even when I short answer with a meme. Your lack of comprehension is disturbing.
But anyways I lower my expectations... you weren't able to learn more about Bitcoin in 13 years, why I supposed to see you learning from my memes and guides in few minutes? You will need another 20 years to get it.
Explaining the joke is not ideal but I think with you now it's necessary: I have no shovel to dig a hole sufficiently profound to adapt my expectations on you based on the whole conversation we had.
If you are still disturbed, try a cup of tea.
If you are still disturbed, try a cup of tea.
You are wrong again. Is not me that is disturbed, but you and your lack of understanding.
Part of me would really like to ask you the explicit things I am not understanding, but I don't have time for this (please, take it as a hint to make a sardonic comment on my chronic lack of time to learn which is also connected with my 13 years of absolute sin you seem to be incredibly interested in).
Lower your expectations, not lower them, be disturbed, not be disturbed, do whatever you want and have a good life.
I'm starting to think you're what young people call a troll, and I admit I'm not update on how to deal with this type of internet characters.
To my objection regarding how what you call "natural law" is nothing but a label you put on a subjectively chosen set of reasonable predicaments, and that this set of predicaments is too simple to be actually used in the current state of deployment of the society of human beings, your main reply is:
I don't know the type of arguments you're accustomed to have (online or in real life), but your replies do not offer anything at all.
Let me try to see if I can convince you of how poorly stated and thought is your idea of "natural/universal law". Given our past interactions, I already infer you're going to completely misinterpret whatever I say, pick some decontextualized fragment, and comment about it with a sarcastic and juvenile sequence of almost non-informative words, perhaps with a pinch of meme. However, if there's even one chance out of 10 trillion that you may finally agree to have a meaningful debate, than I root for that solitary chance.
In your very own essay, you write:
and then proceed to list the reasonable predicaments I keep referring to.
That's it. That's enough for you to define a natural/universal law.
In no other place you comment about where is this law coming from. Did you come up with it? Did the law already appear somewhere/somewhen else? I assume you think it's some kind of Cartesian truth we human share, but you are not explicit, so who knows? That's already quite disappointing for something introducing a natural/universal law.
Then, what is so natural about this law? And what do you mean by natural? Since your predicaments only talk about man and Honour, for sure this natural law is not natural for anything else beside men who know Honour. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things in nature that are not men knowing honour. This makes the "natural" part of the law quite weak.
Let's pass to the "universal" qualifier. If it's universal it applies to everything, which we already saw it's not true. So universal in which sense? The readers of your essay can not know. If they find this conversation, at best, they can get a LOL, but I doubt this counts as an explanation.
After such a weak introduction of what seems to be the most important foundation of all your essay, you start saying a lot of things (some agreeable, some understandable, some delirious) which I don't comment upon because that's already too much, and because there's no sense in commenting the fruits of shaky foundations.
Having said that, I'm happy to review my beliefs if there are substantial arguments. In the meantime, I ask you to go back to the various questions I posed you, and try to honestly answer at least one in detail. Let's make all this not a complete waste of our time just to fulfill the atavic need for confrontation humans seem to have also digitally.
The Star Wars reference? That I liked and found it well applied (only when looking at things from your point of view, of course).