3 New Notifications

New Badge Earned
Get 1K upvotes on your post
Life choices of my cat
Earned 210

Drag Images here or Browse from your computer.

Trending Posts
Sorted by Newest First
d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19 11:04 pm

The law... or legitimizing?

In the past, for quite a long time, constantly hearing about the legality or illegality of anything. Everywhere was to be this separation of what is legal and what is not. In this connection the question arises: And who determines what is legal and what is not? And how? On its own, or what?. He's comfortable, which is beneficial for him that his interests are legitimate, and that he was not comfortable that it is not beneficial that is not in its interests - it is illegal. And not only him, but any group of people, segment of society, the nation he represents, often to the detriment of another person, another group of people, another society, another nation. So what? Well, then it's not a law, and the legitimization of someone's interests at the expense of other interests. That is, we choose only between people of any one person or groups of people, any one group, strata one layer, Nations any one nation, in whose interests the law is to act, and to the detriment of another person, other people, other backgrounds, other Nations. We do not find a compromise: that something would suit all and at the same time something would infringe upon everyone. A person must be all nature - nothing, the Europeans must be all non-Europeans - nothing of the higher strata of society should be all in lower - nothing, the state should be everything, the people nothing. In this respect, the superiority of the Europeans, only that the law is on their side. And so it is no physiological superiority as they declare to myself, I do not see. That is what they measure how much to whom and why. Well, who makes the law, and measures. But this, again, is not a law, and legitimation of the interests of the receiving the law, the parties to the detriment of the interests of other parties. The law is somewhat different. The law is justice, it is considering the interests of others, even if it would be detrimental to their interests, is the recognition of the rights of others to exist. The law is the balance of power. In terms of monetary revenues, for example: the more of it would be to the worker, the less will it be lawful for the employer, and the more it will be to the employer, the less it will be legal for the worker. And where there is a clear bias, there is legalization. There is no law. But still, times said people can't do that, so it is impossible, and that there is: the law or legalization - on the second plan. And anyone, not only those who arrogated to themselves the right to decide not only for themselves but also for others, depriving others of this right to decide for themselves, at least.
That's why I write, because someone has to decide for me what to do and what not. How do you have so some concern about your health is taken somewhere, not to self-medicate - it is imperative to consult specialists, and they have - so you need their own efforts will certainly solve the problems and even die, but in any case not to contact the professionals - to NATO. Alcohol after 21:00 selling was forbidden, no breaks on the box office, from the cashier to hear, and to make the app did not work after 21:00, with the same trick is not working well, to hear from someone, so it is illegal to be. Huawei is not legitimate and to make the program reads the device connected to the computer, and if among them found Huawei, it does not run, so it will be illegal too. Telegram is not legitimate and to make the program read the registry and if found the playground there, then do not run, it will also be illegal. With a hole in your pocket, when you obviously do not work, you should storm some crap (Fritz) and something worthwhile (Bab), despite the fact that you have exactly nothing, with a hole in the pocket to attack you even try don't have to. But with loot in your pocket, when you obviously succeed, you should attack something good (high-tech) and some crap (nature), despite the fact that you have with the loot just as all would have happened, to storm you can't even try must. Who or what determines what you should do and what is not? Depending on what? How much money do you have: not enough - so hopeless to go, a lot of - so and so is well worthwhile. And what he has the right to determine all this for you, your content? Only in respect of itself, its content, he has that right.
13 Comments
Sort by:
l
legusor 11.10.19

well, I guess I must be a fool not to realize that legally that defines the letter of the law, the administrative resource, that is the power of the state. it is a fact.
here, for example, has legalized the administrative resource and idea thieves from the day this law enters into force a life on the concepts of thieves – legally. not by the rules is illegal. you already would like to take the job, you want – don't take it. failure to comply with the law, how would you not consider living conditions within the state with applicable it laws, you are subject to sanctions by the administrative resource, because breaking the law, you're contradicting the will of the ruling class, which is free to dispose of the law enforcement as he pleases. people representing the administrative resource is a political entity, moreover, endowed with full authority in the framework of a managed state. you're atomic and do not represent any subjectivity, not also being an element of social class, as the vast majority of citizens, and therefore you have two choices:
1. open opposition to the administrative resources, the nomination of a particular political demands on the items which you counter with the current government, effective attempts to form protest political force, able to unite social mass inetreg on the subject of class that is automatically guaranteed to be a violation of the law and will result in sanctions for you.
2. full acceptance of the legitimacy of the administrative resource of power and any legitimacy offered to you as a citizen, whether it is though the idea thieves, if they are prescribed in the Constitution or in any other legal acts.

d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19

legusor
legusor wrote:
well, I guess I must be a fool not to realize that legally that defines the letter of the law, the administrative resource, that is the power of the state. it is a fact.
Our state defines the letter of the law only that he gets to define and where to define does not work - it simply changes the law. That is, it is illegal. Do not pass in the parameters - so go down them and go. Rather, unfair. That, in General, illegal.
legusor wrote:
you are subject to sanctions by the administrative resource
If you replace Nazi thieves, just like in Nazi Germany, it turns out, where the laws are, strangely enough, respected, and very strictly. If I understand, that by and large the laws, anywhere, in any country of the world are not violated and not violated. So what's the problem then?
legusor wrote:
because breaking the law, you're contradicting the will of the ruling class, which is free to dispose of the law enforcement as he pleases
Well, it again came down to the right of ownership. Even if we assume, even hypothetically, that the people belong to the ruling class, being his property, it follows that this ruling class has the right to do with them anything? My people, do with them whatever you want. So, whether that turns out? But the problem is that it not mine is it? And I have too, so do with it what you want? Want, say, to impose punishment for the circumvention of its non-business hours after 21:00, checking the time of a computer with time on the Internet, formatting drive D: or E:, or delete the entire contents of the Users folder. Very strictly I have to watch that. Very strictly. Is that legal? I don't. And they have - Yes. Why is that? People, well, it is mine. Do not break the laws after 21:00 I do not get the penalty. Well, here will be the same: not violate the laws after 21:00 I do not get the formatting.
Guided solely by concern for the users. For their sake... So did offer to have a relationship? Anyway, what is this nonsense?
legusor wrote:
open opposition to the administrative resource
No confrontation not me. That's when you're the President, then going on to make laws in relation to society - so I argue. That is, I can not make laws that does not belong to me. But my app belongs to me. Why do I respect what belongs to me, can't pass laws that I want? Or this app is not belongs to me, General? Well then maybe people in red Square do not belong to Putin, have in common? That is he owns as well as every one of us.
But when I was a kid, I asked my parents And these here fields it's all Gorbachev, or what?. What they answered me: No, it States. Think about it, what it means. Not appropriated what does not belong to you. You just decided to answer for it. But the decision to be responsible for something doesn't give you the right to this property. You are responsible for it, but it's not yours. As for the money, for example. Answer - your not the answer - not yours? So it is possible for another program to begin to answer, and for her to stop responding, to the right of ownership is not irrelevant.
legusor wrote:
full acceptance of the legitimacy of the administrative resource of the government and any law
Power can do anything, in terms of what belongs to her. But in terms of what belongs to me, I can do anything. So I do not think it is right to cut trees for matches. I for all 90-e years such never never seen in Ukraine. For the first time is only to see in 1999: whether Putin, this issue came to Russia, whether in Russia before Putin, it already was. Let them do anything - I didn't. And the greater will be my influence, the greater will be so. Just as long as it is limited to that program.

G
Gauguin 11.10.19

Code of laws is usually based either on the timeless sacred texts, or on a dusty secular writings of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Of course, the first is preferable. It is strange that simple things like tell you something frankly.

PS And you know what is a paragraph? Give the first text message in order.

d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19

Gauguin
Gauguin wrote:
Code of laws is usually based either on the timeless sacred texts, or on a dusty secular writings of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Of course, the first is preferable. It is strange that simple things like tell you something frankly.
The laws that were used are obsolete. And many of those simple things do not understand how they could be then? The seventeenth century is, of course, you turned down, not to mention the beginning of BC to Take at least 90 years - the time before Putin. Then, if I wrote such program equal to the program from Deep Shadows, that I would be invited then to work in this very Deep Shadows. And here it is: suitcase, train station, Kiev. And so what happens? App equal, and you volunteer? Smacks of Nazism. Imagine what would happen if you stop to look at the nation person and start looking only for his professional qualities? How many talented and nice programmers among Indians, Asians - let's have them all here and make a good game? Well without the game, but with a strong nation. It's all clear. The question, however, is not the case, and why I should continue to do it? Because I want to be with a strong nation and with the game? Not bad so settled, I see. The law is so adopted. But it's all illegal, as are present here only their interests. And the nation and not the state. As the state strengthens the professionalism, but he is ruining the nation. Nazism is the state falling apart, but the nation strengthens. Take for the law to Nazism - you'd be right, but one side of the nation. Take for the law professionalism - you're right, but on the other side of the state. Whatever you took for the law - you will always be right with some sort of hand and wrong on the other. That's why this law is the balance of power. In this case, the balance between nation and state (Nazi-professionalism as I have called this theory).

N
Nevoeiro 11.10.19

What an interesting coincidence https://users.playground.ru/1311223/ https://users.playground.ru/1311223/






Both write GRP Unpacker

d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19

Nevoeiro
How's about you let's talk. You have won the Second World War legal? With regards to funds, not to mention methods? You won illegally. Therefore your victory, in particular, Japan does not recognize.
Now, with regards to prog. It is unclear to me why if I put her watermark, it will be illegal, at the time, as on all other prog the presence of watermark legal?

N
Nevoeiro 11.10.19

darkspacesteel
Let's not let a very interesting match accounts.
Sorry you we were not told about Genghis Khan and his backers from England and the influence on the Slavs.And in consequence of what was not lawful prize in the second world war, and the fact that Japan does not recognize that and to hell with it.

d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19

Nevoeiro
Nevoeiro wrote:
Let's not let a very interesting match accounts.
Well, what is this? I can do the same thresh hold. Come about the legality of the discounts talk? Making allowances, of a person trying to bribe a price and bribery is illegal.
Nevoeiro wrote:
And in consequence of what was not lawful prize in the second world war, and the fact that Japan does not recognize that and to hell with it.
Well, trump is acting by legal means against Erdogan's s-400, Huawei? Of course not. Accordingly, if he will triumph over them, then Yes, it will, but it will be illegal.
Ukraine. Whether it is a legitimate way to win a military confrontation with Russia? Of course not. Therefore, it resorts to illegal methods - the Peacemaker website, which simply write who lives where.
Could the Soviet Union to win a direct military confrontation with Nazi Germany? Of course not. And why the USSR arranged the so-called red herrings, forcing the Wehrmacht to divert energy into what is expected to be a breach of their position, and he was constantly in some other place. Nazi Germany, in turn, never did. Where the Germans concentrated their troops there and blow. In this plan it was all to be honest.

a
antonrogov 11.10.19

Yeah, my comment was removed but here it is left. Right away one feels the great power of the mind moderators.

N
Nevoeiro 11.10.19

darkspacesteel
Well, I say, does not honestly defeated the Soviet Union in world war II.
Stalin was not honestly asked to open a 3rd front,offered an Alliance to the defence of France and Poland in 1937-38 like not honestly held a meeting with Churchill and Roosevelt.
Aha exactly lured Germany into Africa, forced the USA to drop the atomic bomb.

N
Nevoeiro 11.10.19

darkspacesteel wrote:
Well, what is this? I can do the same thresh hold. Come about the legality of the discounts talk? Making allowances, of a person trying to bribe a price and bribery is illegal.
You're not forced to buy, not buy at the discount then you make the legitimate purchase)
Better about the commercials on say.

d
darkspacesteel 11.10.19

Nevoeiro
Nevoeiro wrote:
Well, I say, does not honestly defeated the Soviet Union in world war II.
Well, that all got? Winners Rambo-dastroganov, which no one had any desire to have a relationship and all had a relationship with them only because I have to. Then the war will be gone. Imagine if some drysch will fill Valuev. Of course, illegally. As legitimate he had no chance to fill up.Then Boxing will be gone. And programmers if Butakov to recruit? Then the games will be gone. Well, don't worry, because it's all there... Until you are not there.
Nevoeiro wrote:
Stalin is not fair
As they said then? All means are good if only the methods were legitimate. Accordingly, only tested on the legality of the methods revealed that the methods were illegal, but legality means no one checked. But now they began to check on the legality of the funds and found that funds were illegal. That is, if all request methods are legal, it does not mean that it is legal. For example, sex with a minor is optional. This is equal to violence. Although this equality is only conditionally. I, when worked according to the system of signs, for me, the COP was equal to the fly. Prevents fly - COP, too, to commit crimes, for example, or what he considers a crime. It's his profession - to interfere. But it is clear that the COP is not a fly. This equality is only conditionally. But here, for some reason, this equality is not conditional. Nonsense.
Well. During the great Patriotic War in the USSR, not only the methods were illegal - it was not by choice, but was forced, but also money with bare hands fought against the technology. Here in the Battle of Kursk the German Tigers and Panthers pierced the armor of T-34 through. But they were lured into the trenches and after the passage of a Tiger or a Panther tank of the trench from the rear threw grenades. And unlike the assault rifles a German bunker with a machine gun on top, let's here it was all optional but it was illegal.
Another thing is what the woman wants to have a relationship with you at will, if you're a janitor? No. But if you're the President? Any. That is, you shouldn't steam this. What would you do if you were an ACE, if you're a janitor, then you have with women somehow can't make it work, but if you're the President, what would you do if you were a log, you women somehow all turn out to be. That is, all of this art, the maneuvers - it's all unnecessary. Everything has already been decided. But even if you're in this plan is strong, then you will receive your turns some prog to conquer, while women won't even qualify. That's why I said that with a hole in your pocket you to the women will not even suffer, what would you do if you were an ACE in a relationship, because you do not meet certain parameters, but the storm of Krauts with machine guns you with a rifle in hand, the road is open - there is the discrepancy between certain parameters no one is watching.
Nevoeiro wrote:
You're not forced to buy, not buy at the discount then you make the legitimate purchase)
Any mismatch in the parameters is illegal. And if it is, then to win, of course illegal, trying to compensate for this human resources as it was during the second world war, bribe characteristics, as does AMD with their jalopy, which put 12 cores of 7 nm and PCI-E 4.0, and that makes all the parameters of Intel-ovsky top, relationship, as does Thailand with its davalok. It's illegal. And so what? To receive the salary in Poland, buy in Ukraine? It is illegal. And any European can feel himself a millionaire, getting paid in Europe and to buy to it in Asia. In Thailand such are Europeans and there are only the most common. Any discrepancy level is illegal. Starting from a system of caste - status in society, and ending with pedophilia and old women. Whatever methods nor acted as if there was no voluntary and optional: there is a discrepancy level is illegal. All. Even a mismatch of human occupied position in society illegal. And then a foreigner arrives to Russia, and he define the position of a janitor. Come on, like, a chick who will choose? It is illegal. A foreigner coming to Russia should take what position in society he occupied himself, where he came from. I mean, it must correspond to its position in society. And then let's see who chick choose. Here then is all legal. And so it is possible the developers from 4A GAMES to determine in volunteers, harness rivet DLC and put them on PG. Would this pleases Putin, he would have done so. After all, his word is law. But is it legal to be?

antonrogov
antonrogov wrote:
Yeah, my comment was removed but here it is left. Right away one feels the great power of the mind moderators.
Yes, all of you have long forgotten. And you're still here.

N
Nevoeiro 11.10.19

darkspacesteel
darkspacesteel wrote:
Well, that all got? Winners Rambo-dastroganov, which no one had any desire to have a relationship and all had a relationship with them only because I have to. Then the war will be gone. Imagine if some drysch will fill Valuev. Of course, illegally. As legitimate he had no chance to fill up.Then Boxing will be gone. And programmers if Butakov to recruit? Then the games will be gone. Well, don't worry, because it's all there... Until you are not there.
Aha straight to the point, just like David and Goliath.The main fact is the law)
darkspacesteel wrote:
on the discrepancy of certain parameters no one is watching.
Ah right, especially women and tigers. After all, it should be legal, tigers against tigers. Germany against Austria, and England V Ireland) And the fact that this war is this not legal, came with an army and a bunch of allies and pop got in the head with a shovel.
darkspacesteel wrote:
Any mismatch in the parameters is illegal
Exactly.
Here you have two accounts on the PG is legally or not legally?