User:Shermaneil

Evidently this subject matter, or possibly the application of this subject matter, is much more dangerous than instructions on making nookyool’r weapons. I’ve been writing and talking about it since 1979, and the more I publish and distribute, the less of it becomes available. A recent double-check using Yahoo, Google and Dogpile has led me to make this attempt through Wiki. I don’t hold out any hopes of it resulting in anything different than the past 34 years, but I’d be remiss in avoiding the effort.

The subject matter is Law and the application is how such simple, obvious, known, and inarguable forces “evolve” into “complex” manipulations of such “complexity” that it becomes so overwhelmingly “complicated” by “complications” beyond explanation.

Why such a subject is so dangerous that discussions about it need be censored, sources need be blocked, and materials need be removed is beyond my ability to ascertain; I understand the logistics of it, but I don’t understand what possible difference it makes in the long run – because if, indeed, ‘the common mind’ is as incapable of ‘good judgment’ as the ‘elite’ believe it to be, then the inevitability of such ignorance remains identically the same -With- the knowledge as it does being deprived that knowledge – and if the reverse should be the case, that the ‘common mind’ proves capable of exercising good judgment, the simple absence of it’s own ambitions already proven-out by the gulf that stretches between it and the elite remains safely in effect anyway. So the purpose of denying and disparaging such knowledge utterly and absolutely escapes me.

What is the great purpose in saying “Speeding is Illegal because the legislator says so and cops with guns will stop you” as opposed to saying “Speeding is against the Law because at 60miles per hour, 0.10 seconds reaction time translates into 8.8 feet PAST the dog you ran over before you applied the brakes”? The same exact “volume” of people who believe they’re “smarter than the legislature” so can “speed safely” will still believe they’re just as equally “super-human” in their nerve-impulses and still speed – the treasuries would still be able to collect the same volumes of ticket fines, there’d still be the same number of accidents caused by the same causes of ignoring The Law but the explanation would be directly physical mechanics as opposed to superstitiously tangential beliefs.

My purpose for starting this page at Wiki is to create an encyclopedic entry that explains how Actual Law gets canted into Superstitious Ritualism; to separate the syllogisms of a Plato and a Locke from the governing forces regarded as somehow subject to “the reasonable mind”. I don’t hold out any hopes of it resulting in anything different than the past 34 years, but I’d be remiss in avoiding the effort. What you’re about to read is real. The participants are not ‘actors’. They are actual scrappers engaged in a question at Yahoo!Answers that is being moved here, to our forum, The Hardbard Law Review. Key up Tew’s “The Big One” from the X-RATED Movie “Barbara Broadcast”, 1977, THREE YEARS –BEFORE- “The People’s Court” pilot debuted in 1980. This is a most recent example of one of many "This question has been deleted" from Yahoo!Answers during entry of my response.

"should gay dogs not be covered by animal rights laws :P? (i know animals cant be gay)"

Your Answer:

city boy, huh? Cows happen to be lesbians, and the only reason there's calves is because Gay bulls get invited and straight bulls flat out rape. Bonobos are exclusively Bisexual. Practically All Snails and worms are 100 percent homosexual. And Dogs are entirely Omni-sexual to the point they screw the thin air! What people "know" and what -IS- -RARELY- have -any- similarity; -IS- -AIN'T- -VAIN- Delusion Understood; the 'purpose' of the questioner is ":P" 'humor'. But the "humor" resides in the -BELIEF- expressed by "i know animals cant be gay". How does the questioner "know" such a false idea? It's obviously NOT from personal observation of canine behavior since anyone owning two dogs of the same sex observes with regularity their licking of each other's genitalia as well as their mounting each other in sexual exertions. So what purpose is there in supplanting the common fact of such homosexual behavior with the absolute falsehood "i know animals cant be gay"?

That the question was removed from Yahoo!Answers Law & Ethics section is an annoyance of equal value - The seemingly ludicrous point of the question is one thing; But the question was founded on three ETHICAL presuppositions, that (1)Marriage is a valid matter of law and ethics, (2)"Gay" is a valid matter of law and ethics, and (3)Some valid something denies "gay" as somehow naturally existing in the canine.

NONE of those three presuppositions are supported by any Law of natural mechanics; they're all simply superstitious beliefs shared by narrowly defined select groups of people, and only those selected groups. Each group reaches to "nature" to establish a "groundwork" for bolstering their beliefs, but 'somewhere' between the fact that, in the case at hand, two dogs of the same sex will engage in sexual activity despite it's "un-reproductive" nature and people's ETHICS, something, for some most unnatural reason, gets lost and in losing that natural support to enforce what otherwise would be law, it becomes necessary to manufacture Artifice to Extract Compliance with the preferred false belief.

That "evolutionary process" of supplanting false beliefs for law itself and then deliberately applying human force to extract compliance to such falsehoods pervades everything the Modern Human has ever created. It's a practice that any the least reasonable mind cannot suffer long without questioning and deserves a place in some accessible tome of knowledge.