The Tender For Law

Volume 8

Oct 30, 2014 10:49 PM

David-Paul Sip

So I was engaged in a conversation (I do this from time to time to test my understanding) with a woman on a friend's thread about this article where folks condoned the violent response this actor received because "words cause emotional injury". My response to this woman gave me such a profound understanding of what Scott Duncan means when he says "All belief is evil". I had struggled to fully grasp and comprehend this until now.

This woman commented "I hope we are not teaching anyone that just because you can't prove or show immediate effect of emotional injury that makes it okay" to which I responded"

"Kate I am only pointing to the FACTS here. A fact is not an opinion. An opinion does not require any facts to support it nor need to be proven or verifiable. Whether something is "okay" is an opinion and misses the point. I try sticking to the facts because the facts are all that matter. It is the only thing that is real. If it can't be proven it is not a fact. If it isn't a fact then it is not real and therefore no wrong has occured."

And then the big A-Ha! occured after I wrote

"This is critical thinking and logic. If someone claims there is an "emotional injury" then the burden of proof rests with them to show there is an actual injury; that an ACTUAL wrong has occured. Otherwise it is just conjecture, an opinion and utter nonsense based entirely on belief (which is the end of thought) and emotion. This ultimately only diverts attention away from the facts. The man that threw the punch was not injured/harmed by the actor's words (fact) because the words were not directed at him (fact), but the actor was injured (fact - see bloodied face) by this man's fist because the man who threw the punch was offended by and believed (opinion) this actor's words (or the actor's opinion) were harmful (another opinion) and therefore justified (in his opinion) harming the actor who had caused him no harm. See how that works?"

I realized that everything based on opinion (or belief) was NOT real and resulted in VIOLENCE. No opinion/belief, no violence...this is seriously profound.

Actor punched in face while making Nathan Cirillo-inspired anti-racism video in Hamilton

news.nationalpost.com

It's a sucker-punch that would have drawn a suspension if it was in a rink, but Canadians seem to have few issues with an actor in a "social experiment" being socked for his overt racism against...

Read Comments

Maximus Legis

David-Paul Sip you start off by saying you were talking with the woman then say "And then the big A-Ha! occured after I wrote" I think you may be lying and I think you are not very good at it. You should become a Lawyer :-)

David-Paul Sip

:/ Finally truly realizing what the Admiral really means when he says "All belief is evil" is lying. Is this your opinion? Really you want to offer your opinion aftr what I shared above. Okay...Please offer support your belief Maximus Legis:D

Maximus Legis

Can't you fucking read? You explain in two different contexts. In one instance you are talking then you switch to having written. Does that make sense to you ?nAnd fuck the hell off with your accusation that I BELEIVE ANYFUCKINGTHING YOU TWAT . iT'S NOT EVEN MY OPINION IT'S YOUR OWN FUCKING WRITING ! The way you have explained the alleged event doesn't smell right, Grrrrr.

Maximus Legis

You were either using one medium of communication at the contact or the other. You were using spoken words or written words. Don't fucking blame me for your cock up and accuse me of splitting hairs. The two are so diverse it's hardly haie splitting. Do not deflect your shortcomings on to me !

David-Paul Sip

"So I was engaged in a conversation (I do this from time to time to test my understanding) with a woman on a friend's THREAD about this article "

What do you think a fucking thread is? Seriously...are you an IDIOT. What other context could a "conversation...on a friend's THREAD" mean fucktard. Please explain your interpretation/belief so I can expand my fucking mind.

David-Paul Sip

Is it possible to "talk" on a friend's thread? I can't help but notice the absence of any mention of the word talking. No it says a "conversation...on a friend's thread". You see all these comments above Maximus Legis...this is called a thread here on Facebook and in any chat environment. I hope this helps fucktard!

Maximus Legis

"So I was engaged in a conversation" .......... "And then the big A-Ha! occured after I wrote" do you see any anomaly here? Don't say another word to me or I swear to fuck I'll find a way of sending a surge of Retard killing energy over the net right into you face, now fuck off !

David-Paul Sip

Perhaps you would be satisfied if I replaced the word "conversation" with "chat " after all this is a "chat" forum. Oh shit, wait ...when people "chat" that usually means talking. Yup...You are a fucktard brother! Have fun with that :D

Maximus Legis

That's your opinion of me but at least I'm not a Clown trying to appear a lot more clever than I actually am unlike you. That is a pet hate of mine. Have a lovely weekend deluding yourself regarding your I.Q :-)

David-Paul Sip

I think I've proven sufficiently that you completely choose to ignore the significance of the word THREAD therefore confirming that you are a fucktard for at the very least not acknowledging your MISTAKE. A mistake is acceptable, asking forgiveness is sometimes necessary, but choosing to be a fucktard...not so much. IGNORANCE is a choice. You've clearly made yours and you STILL THINK WRONG :/

Maximus Legis

Look at all this shite you wrote to show how clever you are in that you understand ALL BELIEF IS EVIL, I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to spin simple concepts to look good . here it is it's fucking hilarious

"So I was engaged in a conversation (I do this from time to time to test my understanding) with a woman on a friend's thread about this article where folks condoned the violent response this actor received because "words cause emotional injury". My response to this woman gave me such a profound understanding of what Scott Duncan means when he says "All belief is evil". I had struggled to fully grasp and comprehend this until now. This woman commented "I hope we are not teaching anyone that just because you can't prove or show immediate effect of emotional injury that makes it okay" to which I responded" "Kate I am only pointing to the FACTS here. A fact is not an opinion. An opinion does not require any facts to support it nor need to be proven or verifiable. Whether something is "okay" is an opinion and misses the point. I try sticking to the facts because the facts are all that matter. It is the only thing that is real. If it can't be proven it is not a fact. If it isn't a fact then it is not real and therefore no wrong has occured." And then the big A-Ha! occured after I wrote "This is critical thinking and logic. If someone claims there is an "emotional injury" then the burden of proof rests with them to show there is an actual injury; that an ACTUAL wrong has occured. Otherwise it is just conjecture, an opinion and utter nonsense based entirely on belief (which is the end of thought) and emotion. This ultimately only diverts attention away from the facts. The man that threw the punch was not injured/harmed by the actor's words (fact) because the words were not directed at him (fact), but the actor was injured (fact - see bloodied face) by this man's fist because the man who threw the punch was offended by and believed (opinion) this actor's words (or the actor's opinion) were harmful (another opinion) and therefore justified (in his opinion) harming the actor who had caused him no harm. See how that works?" I realized that everything based on opinion (or belief) was NOT real and resulted in VIOLENCE. No opinion/belief, no violence...this is seriously profound."

David-Paul Sip

What else could a conversation on a THREAD be except writing? Seems like the same fucking context, so unless you don't know what a THREAD is and how folks communicate in an online "chat" then you are a Fucktard. Tell me... is this a conversation we are having now? Nope! Because it's over lol!