Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

ANOTHER HOPPEIAN MORON BITES THE DUST

—“Special pleading by polylogism and ignoring a question from earlier. The question summarized was: How would it be non-reciprocal to “physically remove” property violators/externals when they have already estopped themselves, and are prohibited from appealing in their own defense, by the fact that they are externals, and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”—David German Hoppe

You clearly use words you don’t understand. It fools fellow useful idiots I’m sure. 😉

—“How would it be non-reciprocal to “physically remove” property violators/externals when they have already estopped themselves, and are prohibited from appealing in their own defense, by the fact that they are externals, and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”—

DEFINITIONS

Polylogism:

The proposition that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways vs the proposition that the logical faculty remains constant across all sentient beings and that different groups use different values not different logics.

Estoppel:

… juridical prohibition on reversing a claim made before the court, or a decision on which the court has already ruled. (one may not change one’s testimony or revisit a decision by the court).

Reciprocity:

… limiting one’s words and deeds to those that affect the demonstrated interest of others to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition on the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

Internal or Ingroup vs external or outgroup:

… Members of a family , clan, tribe, nation, polity reliant on the same institutions of defense: military, and juridical, under the same organization performing the production of commons: government, within the same jurisdiction (monopoly of control).

EXPANDED INTO COMPLETE SENTENCES

WHEREAS

A plaintiff, having been injured by an irreciprocity, has made an appeal to the court in its role as insurer of reciprocity for a judicial decision demanding the court produce restitution, punishment, and prevention of further irreciprocities,

WHERE

The court performed its function as insurer against irreciprocity and rendered a judicial decision.

AND WHERE

The defendant was convicted of engaging in sufficient irreciprocity that he cannot perform restitution, or the judiciary (prosecutor) predicts it cannot prevent from further acts of irreciprocity.

AND WHERE

That decision consisted of issuing orders, compelling enforcers of that judicial decision to physically remove an individual from the polity.

— EITHER —

WHERE (Note: this is unclear)

– the actor (defendant) has already *voluntarily* departed the jurisdiction (Territory),

AND

– the actor is prohibited from juridical defense, by virtue of their absence from the territory,

AND

– ???? NON-SEQUITUR: and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?)

— OR —

??? (Unknown, Please Clarify)

SHALL THEREFORE

– This action cause one or more irreciprocal transfers between any parties involved or uninvolved, whether internal or external.

DECISON

– Undecidable.

EXPLANATION

– Given the phrases:

“… and already do not reciprocate prima facie, why would I be wrong to physically remove them?”

– Expanded into :

“… and WHO? already do not engage in reciprocal words and deeds, under what conditions would I as plaintiff violate reciprocity myself by physically removing him FROM WHERE?

COUNSEL:

The court makes up to six decisions:

1. was an involuntary negative change in demonstrated interest (harm) performed?,

2. was the defendant responsible for the negative change in demonstrated interest?

3. was it by unpredictable accident regardless of due diligence, or because of a failure of rational due diligence, or was it an act of intention, or an act of passion (failure of emotional due diligence)? While restitution is demanded consistently across the spectrum, prevention of repetition is is not, and the imitation of the violation by others is not.

IF SO THEN:

4. What is the restitution? (Compensation)

5. What will prevent the defendant’s repetition? (Punishment)

6. What will prevent others from repeating the defendants actions? (Setting an Example)

TIPS

You’re using polylogism where you mean error (a pretention)

I don’t underseatnd how you’re using estoppel, “Stopping”, as other an analogy to some sort of personal choice. Or do you mean he’s been removed from the polity and that’s defacto stopping him? (a pretention)

How can one defend against an extant judgement?

We conduct prosecutions in absentia all the time.

Most of law is procedure, the institutional structure is presumed (it’s a competitive marketplace in common law, and system of administration in continental).

Jurisprudence consist of the limits upon the judge, usually which consist of a conflict between customary law, empirical evidence of the findings of the court, and the degree of interference in that law by the state.

We study cases and principles by which problems are solved -general rules. Rules increase in complexity by discipline as do findings of the courts.

P constitutes the logic of the jurisprudence of natural law, of reciprocity under individual sovereignty, but is dependent upon testimony, and the capacity of the polity to perform testimony, in the form of testimonial truth: observables.

Empiricism and science are just the application of our ancient law of tort and testimony to claims about that which is an intellectual interests rather than merely a material one.

You are not capable of schooling me.

Nor is Hans.

I would eat him like Pringles and beer in a debate.

He teaches y’all sophisms converted from jewish pilpul to kantian rationalism and you soak it up like marxists below you and neocons above you.

😉