Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:he just said I was too young to understand.

Actually they're your words not mine.

What I said was that legal philosophy was a complex subject, and that as you've had no formal legal education it would be difficult for you to understand it. Indeed, I'd find it very difficult to explain even the most basic LP concepts over the internet to you in any way that you'd be likely to understand. This is partly because of the difficulty of the subject matter, and partly because of your lack of grounding in basic legal principles.

If you attribute your lack of understanding of legal philosophy, and unreadiness to learn to your age then that's unfortunate. But it's factor which only you brought up.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I mean, I'm not so culturally arrogant as to think there isn't a perfectly good answer to why common law is a viable system with plenty of merits as having a Code Civil does

Congratulations.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm just trying to sucker an answerout of him.or someone less patronizing.

Well I'm afraid that you're not going to get the kind of answer that you're after. Tou really are only ready to understand lay-grade explanations, not full fledged philosophical considerations.
Don't take that as an insult, but Legal Philosophy is an area of human understanding that you're really best off leaving for university or later. If you try to run before you can walk then you'll just end up getting beaten hard by the wrong end of the stick. In simple terms, wait until you've actually learnt some law, then start learning to philosophise about it.

Trust me though, I'd say the same to anybody here. The topic just isn't something that can be properly explained in snappy little internet soundbites, and I don't have the time or inclination to try to run full scale web-based tutorials with you. Sorry, but that's the simple truth of the matter.

If you're really desperate to furnish yourself with knowledge on the matter then go buy yourself a basic textbook on the subject. The topic really isn't something you can bodge your way through by skimming wikipedia, and a professionally published begginers guide is probably your best option at this point in your life. But Nappy, if I were you I'd just hang on a few years and re-kindle your interest after you've actually studied law in an academic setting, what you're trying to do at the moment is the equivalent of trying to learn advanced quantum physics before you've taken your science GCSE.

Au revoir monsieur, we'll chat about this again in a few years time eh?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:he just said I was too young to understand.

Actually they're your words not mine.

What I said was that legal philosophy was a complex subject, and that as you've had no formal legal education it would be difficult for you to understand it. Indeed, I'd find it very difficult to explain even the most basic LP concepts over the internet to you in any way that you'd be likely to understand. This is partly because of the difficulty of the subject matter, and partly because of your lack of grounding in basic legal principles.

If you attribute your lack of understanding of legal philosophy, and unreadiness to learn to your age then that's unfortunate. But it's factor which only you brought up.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I mean, I'm not so culturally arrogant as to think there isn't a perfectly good answer to why common law is a viable system with plenty of merits as having a Code Civil does

Congratulations.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm just trying to sucker an answerout of him.or someone less patronizing.

Well I'm afraid that you're not going to get the kind of answer that you're after. Tou really are only ready to understand lay-grade explanations, not full fledged philosophical considerations.
Don't take that as an insult, but Legal Philosophy is an area of human understanding that you're really best off leaving for university or later. If you try to run before you can walk then you'll just end up getting beaten hard by the wrong end of the stick. In simple terms, wait until you've actually learnt some law, then start learning to philosophise about it.

Trust me though, I'd say the same to anybody here. The topic just isn't something that can be properly explained in snappy little internet soundbites, and I don't have the time or inclination to try to run full scale web-based tutorials with you. Sorry, but that's the simple truth of the matter.

If you're really desperate to furnish yourself with knowledge on the matter then go buy yourself a basic textbook on the subject. The topic really isn't something you can bodge your way through by skimming wikipedia, and a professionally published begginers guide is probably your best option at this point in your life. But Nappy, if I were you I'd just hang on a few years and re-kindle your interest after you've actually studied law in an academic setting, what you're trying to do at the moment is the equivalent of trying to learn advanced quantum physics before you've taken your science GCSE.

Au revoir monsieur, we'll chat about this again in a few years time eh?

I'd equally suggest some basic reading into of Catholicism...lest we have repeat of the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco. I would, however, be willing to explain it to you as best I could.

Napoleon Ier wrote:the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco

This is the name of my punk band, by an amazing coincidence

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco

This is the name of my punk band, by an amazing coincidence

Making it a perverse keynesio-politico-socialo-masonic sub-structural entity.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco

This is the name of my punk band, by an amazing coincidence

Making it a perverse keynesio-politico-socialo-masonic sub-structural entity.

that's what the NME said.

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco

This is the name of my punk band, by an amazing coincidence

Making it a perverse keynesio-politico-socialo-masonic sub-structural entity.

that's what the NME said.

The Who?

Napoleon Ier wrote:
I'd equally suggest some basic reading into of Catholicism...lest we have repeat of the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco. I would, however, be willing to explain it to you as best I could.

I'm still waiting to be enlightened as to my error, Nappy. Please feel free to quote the post you object so whole heartedly to.

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
I'd equally suggest some basic reading into of Catholicism...lest we have repeat of the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco. I would, however, be willing to explain it to you as best I could.

I'm still waiting to be enlightened as to my error, Nappy. Please feel free to quote the post you object so whole heartedly to.

Ah Guistard!

How we missd you....

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
I'd equally suggest some basic reading into of Catholicism...lest we have repeat of the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco. I would, however, be willing to explain it to you as best I could.

I'm still waiting to be enlightened as to my error, Nappy. Please feel free to quote the post you object so whole heartedly to.

Ah Guistard!

How we missd you....

Can't say the same to be honest. But please, a quote of this supposed fallacy would be a wonderful welcome home gift.

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
I'd equally suggest some basic reading into of Catholicism...lest we have repeat of the Guiscard Sacramental theology fiasco. I would, however, be willing to explain it to you as best I could.

I'm still waiting to be enlightened as to my error, Nappy. Please feel free to quote the post you object so whole heartedly to.

Ah Guistard!

How we missd you....

Can't say the same to be honest. But please, a quote of this supposed fallacy would be a wonderful welcome home gift.

It was some time ago, when you simply refused to understand the concept of marriage being a Sacrament.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It was some time ago, when you simply refused to understand the concept of marriage being a Sacrament.

Try the search function and give me a nice little quote, else stop trolling.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It was some time ago, when you simply refused to understand the concept of marriage being a Sacrament.

Just one final bump to show, as no quote has emerged, that this claim is groundless and unfounded. It seems Yappy's hormone-ravaged brain is imagining things again (or is it a masonic-neo-marxist-protectionist-illuminati-sub-strata-sectarian conspiracy)...

Guiscard wrote: (or is it a masonic-neo-marxist-protectionist-illuminati-sub-strata-sectarian conspiracy)...

I'm going with that.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Guiscard wrote: (or is it a masonic-neo-marxist-protectionist-illuminati-sub-strata-sectarian conspiracy)...

I'm going with that.

Actually, it is. I can actually prove it is a conspiracy. Cos y'see, OCR and AQA et al. are so evil, they must be crypto-masonic neo-Marxists, and it's cos of them I'm tired and not arsed to search for the quotation. QED.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm tired and not arsed to search for the quotation. QED.

For this, read 'made a baseless accusation which I couldn't support.'

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm tired and not arsed to search for the quotation. QED.

For this, read 'made an accusation which I couldn't be bothered support.'

Hey, this has gotten you into a real state here.

Did I insult your historian-ness or something by suggesting you knew too little about the cultural context of the period you're studying?

No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Guiscard wrote:No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Not really. I've got 2000 posts, I'm not trawling through them all to find one miserable argument which I remember pretty distinctly anyway. You can understand that. So why the sudden bout of aggressivity? Something to hide, perhaps...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Not really. I've got 2000 posts, I'm not trawling through them all to find one miserable argument which I remember pretty distinctly anyway. You can understand that. So why the sudden bout of aggressivity? Something to hide, perhaps...

You think 2000 posts is a lot?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Not really. I've got 2000 posts, I'm not trawling through them all to find one miserable argument which I remember pretty distinctly anyway. You can understand that. So why the sudden bout of aggressivity? Something to hide, perhaps...

You think 2000 posts is a lot?

To have to trawl through for Jizzy's sake, yes.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Not really. I've got 2000 posts, I'm not trawling through them all to find one miserable argument which I remember pretty distinctly anyway. You can understand that. So why the sudden bout of aggressivity? Something to hide, perhaps...

You think 2000 posts is a lot?

To have to trawl through for Jizzy's sake, yes.

Not Guis' sake. This is about you making unsubstantiated claims about what someone said.

Napoleon Ier wrote:To have to trawl through for Jizzy's sake, yes.

It's a simple search function, hardly going through the red sea with a net.

Dancing Mustard wrote:what you're trying to do at the moment is the equivalent of trying to learn advanced quantum physics before you've taken your science GCSE.

This is wrong?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:No, Yappy, I just like calling you out when you just flat out make things up. In this case, you've got egg all over your face so let's let it rest as it is, eh?

Not really. I've got 2000 posts, I'm not trawling through them all to find one miserable argument which I remember pretty distinctly anyway. You can understand that. So why the sudden bout of aggressivity? Something to hide, perhaps...

You think 2000 posts is a lot?

To have to trawl through for Jizzy's sake, yes.

Not Guis' sake. This is about you making unsubstantiated claims about what someone said.

Exactly. A search for posts (not topics) by user 'Guiscard' containing the keyword 'Marriage' yields 41 results. Shouldn't take you too long to find the offending remark, should it? I mean, it annoyed you enough to bring it up numerous times in other threads...

The1exile wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:what you're trying to do at the moment is the equivalent of trying to learn advanced quantum physics before you've taken your science GCSE.

This is wrong?

Psh... Schroedinger has nothing on me...