Criminal Jurisprudence

* The ideal imagination has no room for indemnity.

* The ideal life is livable, not excourigible.

* Was prioritized too much. Qualification with indemnity.

* Takes statements and returns positive somehow.

* Matter of considering the ideal as a separate case.

* Maintains that when there is no indemnity, the good favors the ideal.

* Benefactors are ideal efficiencies through due process, not disservicing.

* Official roles should be minimized, so indemnity is absolutely cut at the root.

EMPEROR LAW TO AMERICAN CITIZENS

* Subjectively I can do what I want, so it's not subjective.

* They're supposed to have enjoyment if they have money. I'm not sure my money goes as far.

* The disregarding of levels, such as thinking high things of the low, and very low things of the high, is thought to be an emperor's attribute. A perfect god would rather think science fiction things about the ordinary. The true god knows that science fiction is exciting and is excited. He must have real knowledge of science fiction or magic to have this property unless there is some risk. If he has insufficient knowledge, the excitement is not really divine. Money makes knowledge easier, since it is a divestment from earlier animals.

* A traditional name for an Emperor is a master of melee. This is thought to not exist as a social function anymore. It has been taken over by generals. Generalists are not known to wield military authority and it does not always confer wealth, although their relative mastery of generalism is similar to using intelligence.

* The point of life is not to be hurt at the very least. Avoiding death does not require exaggeration. It is thought if citizens are as smart as emperors, which they may be sometimes, then they grasp this even if they do not know the word exaggeration. Likely they do know they word exaggeration, and so this all would be conferred on them, except for the idea of social obfuscation which is a bit inconvenient and not much else. Errors are common and avoiding error does not stand on good ground currently.

* Wealth is the best argument for avoiding error unless life is full of practical joys.

* It is argued the worst zombies have practical joys, and immortal Greeks may have been like this.

* The effacement is thought to be higher from the standpoint of zombies, so advanced zombies is a sticking point.

* Zombies may be expensive and impractical except from the standpoint of war. For example, high-level zombies may seek to use zombie soldiers as it follows naturally. It is not an automatic course of action unless culture is full of zombies.

* Basically being an emperor is radical, cheap, and practical. Calling it an emperor is not important.

* Emperors are thought to have the power of effacement as well as military ability and the gift of winter. If Apollo is not pervasive, or if humans fight sci-fi battles, the power of the Emperor may not be pervasive either.

* American emperors called philosophical citizens do not always support games, via virtuism. The goal of not supporting games is not to be sent to the games, to serve a function other than being a ninja. Ninjas are rumored to be stupid, which is a variation of gay.

* Strategy is a better alternative of stupid which may allow one to be a practical citizen. Philosophical citizens may be more practical than criminals. Criminals are not always better than animals.

* Basically, sadism supports ruinous words like 'sleet' (a form of grindy snow) which tend to hurt everyone.

* The rhetoric for sadism tends to be subjective, since if it were objective everyone would be hurt. Sadists aim at pain, so if that is true, they aim to hurt themselves, which is not evolutionarily helpful or not universal. Since it is not universal, they don't really aim to hurt everyone. Though, that implies they are not the ultimate sadist. Most sadists actually aim at education unless they are dull or pointless or if they find sex enjoyable. If sex is not easy, the best road to sadism may be pointlessness.

* In Rome, emperors were known to be dogmatists. Dogmatism was basically a defense against the fires of Apollo, though there were other perspectives not all of them were easy to support publicly.

* The fires of Apollo if impractical were thought to be a joy and an awakening.

* When it wasn't game day, it wasn't a day for gladiators, which suggests times were good when games were not played.

* The fires of Apollo were not thought to be practical for burning, since burning on Planet Earth was supposed to be caused by gasoline, sparks, and various oils that burn. Apollo does not exist on Planet Earth the way people think. Apollo is more likely to exist on Venus or Mercury. The academics that study this tediously include the comparativists. Basically humans are practical enough that they don't need the comparativists to explain. Humans are not always thought to be emperors, and are still thought to be capable of understanding points like the Earth is not a raging inferno. Only fire proves fire is an intuitive point that doesn't need to be tested with fire. If fire is a great gift, the absence of fire means only poverty, and fire means little other than money. Nathan believes money is the most expensive form of fire or something similar. The most expensive form of fire is not the worst kind. What Nathan calls Orsskind is somehow less lucky than poverty, and more lucky usually than being burned, except in philsoophy where it can mean insisting Nathan is an emperor and then deciding to chuck him out a window. A problem plus or minus Jews says no Nathan was not an emperor, but they decided to chuck him out a window anyway.

* Nathan's mother is in the tradition of emperors perhaps informally through the task of studying analytic theory. Analyzing history could be called philosophy. Philosophers are not always hurt, or by degree they would always die, since degrees of conflict are thought to be extreme. This is what suits them to being an emperor, that they have defense from extremes in order to study history. It is not known if philosophers are Apollo, though they aim at immortality. Probably Hell costs too much gasoline, as many find it unnatural to burn. Sort of like finding fossils, finding fossils is not very natural either. In any case, my Zodiac says I'm a water element. I don't see much butane except in motor vehicles. The people that believe in Hell are usually drug artists on addictive things. There could be a general cloudiness. However, that is post-antiquated by the idea of general ISME.

* The concept of cheap fireproofing is another defense of the idea that philosophers do not have to burn like Apollo. Probably people would not always wear this stuff, just like they do not always wear bulletproofing. The argument of overlapping armors suggests that since few ever wear bulletproofing and many survive on a daily basis, most likely the world is not literally Hell since humans probably do not require fireproofing.

* Apart from the thought that there is wonderful protection to create the lack of fireproofing, which is an ancient sentiment, there is not much need to fear outside of situations like an arena.

* Gods of war might prefer hell is a weakness of some people, and perhaps not all. It is thought ridiculous to make everyone into a frost giant is one reason to not make mandatory service universal.

* It is thought merely burning things does not always turn life into magic, as it would require more and more fire until we all burn up.

* The real fire is unquenched means if it does not proceed to burn everything it is not real magic. Fire in modern traditions is processing and not much more. I have attempted to master it and there is not much more I can do with fire. Either I am Apollo or I am a philosopher. Apollo probably thinks it lives in my computer. Well, I have lost more than four. I have a computer doesn't make me an automatic master of magic.

* My mother may have tried immortality. I wouldn't want to be lost in space merely to prove I'm a woman. If she was lost in space she would be god to survive. I don't envy god much. Perhaps I should though, if it really is god. I think most women assume they're god. Instead of thinking women are planetary overlords, I would rather think they are level 0 witches, with about as much hope as a man.

* The idea of consuming fire in the sense of fire in real life, is thought to be an intellectual protection. The traditional defense for the tainted is dissipations. It is also possible evil does not provide a defense. So, unctuance may be the only protection against real fire. It is thought money is also a good defense, unless one dies. So, immortality and money or unctuance are the best protections against Hell.

* Utopian law allows that wearing Nathan's immortality t-shirt in a system in which people are not easily hurt is perhaps adequate always against hell. Although some sorts of offense and jealousy may still be possible even if one is immortal, unless one achieves a spiritual state such as unattachment or piety. Physical fire is possibly not legal, as it might burn Nathan's shirt when it is part of the only defense against Hell. Flame to flames is a high principle though not much understood in today's time. Possibly flames were not dissipated until sometime in the future. Dissipative flames may be a higher principle than singular flames.

* History could also be studied as military conflict in which case survival is the principle, though if life is Hell the principle would be that fire survives, which is not the principle of surviving in the arena.

* Though some principles survive, they are called immortality not fire. The physical fire is more brilliant but it has no natural law. It is only through nature that humans become immortal. If humans are more than human, they must discover it, either through contradiction, paradox, or subversion of the existing law. Controvertibility and incontrovertibility do not run in parallel. This makes transcendence difficult for those that were considered human.

* This attitude of I do not insist is not considered natural. My life has not be proven unnatural, so there is no known defense to my knowledge against this non-insistence. . If I am supernatural that is the motive to be unnatural, though otherwise it might not be. So, what the unnaturals means by unnatural is supernatural or superhuman. I am legally a human being, and simply changing the law if it were simple which it isn't always does not make me inhuman in itself. So, there is no easy way to be supernatural without claiming that I do not insist.

* There is no if I masturbate a final time and it is not visible.

* The containment of Apollo if that is what it is is not thought to contain restrictions on my ownership of property or in my rights to interract with other thoughts or behaviors. This is close to the general nature Americans call formality in August 2025. Apollo calls this a tailor, a task with no visible properties I would not assign money for.