There’s no need to attack DiogenesLamp’s character.
The arguments will stand and fall on their merits.
No, the arguments will not stand or fall on their merits. Because this is not really a legal question with him - it is a psychiatric obsession and delusion. You would have better luck trying to convince a sovereign citizen that the fringe on the courtroom flag is irrelevant, which is to say that you will have no luck whatsoever. You will come to understand this the more that you interact with him. No matter how cogent or rational your arguments, or how germane your legal cites, you will simply be run around in a circle with him. He will deconstruct any language down to the point of absurdity, and he will not budge.
What you are dealing with is a psychiatric problem, and my approach to delusional people has always been to tell them straight to their face that they are crazy and delusional. Just like telling an alcoholic that they are a drunk, or a dope-fiend that they are a drug addict. Most of the time, that approach does not work any more than any other approach, but you have a better chance than you do just playing along with their assorted delusions.
Here is you some literature that you may find useful:
“Germany: The Litigant’s Delusion and Paranoia Querulans
The first recorded reference to excessive involvement with the legal system was found in Aristophanes’ play, The Wasps. Written in 422 BCE, the play depicted the statesman Philocleon who was labeled a “trialophile” because he was addicted to court proceedings. This character would do anything to serve on a jury because he enjoyed passing judgment. In Aristophanes’ original text, Philocleon recognized the power given to him by jury service and proudly exclaimed, “(t)he hand of power is on me.”6 In subsequent translations of this passage from The Wasps, Philocleon declared a desire to “go with you to the law-court and do all the harm I can.”7 The play satirized the political climate of ancient Athens, which Aristophanes believed was responsible for producing trialophiles.8
In 1668, French playwright Racine wrote and produced The Litigants,9 which was based on Aristophanes’ work. Racine specifically acknowledged the pleasure he received in reading The Wasps and how it was the model for his own play. In Racine’s rendition of the story, the main character was overly eager to file lawsuits rather than to serve on juries. Racine depicted his main protagonist’s trialophilia as an individual character flaw rather than a product of the political climate, a portrayal that represents an approximation of how future scholars would conceptualize persistent and pathological litigation.
German psychiatrist Johann Ludwig Casper10 would later refer to trialophilia as Querulantenwahn, which translates as “litigant’s delusion.” Casper asserted that all human beings strongly resent real or imagined threats to their basic rights, leading them to take legal action to protect their rights when necessary. When these individuals are not granted the rights they desire or are otherwise displeased with the outcome of legal proceedings, they become fixated on attaining justice. THIS FIXATION BEGINS A DOWNWARD SPIRAL THAT EVENTUALLY RESULTS IN A FULL-BLOWN DELUSIONAL DISORDER. German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing4 added to Casper’s definition by classifying these delusions as a kind of persecutory delusion. These classifications laid the foundation for subsequent German psychiatrists to study and debate the concept of hyperlitigious behavior for the next half century.
Debates followed about whether litigant’s delusion should be classified as a subtype of paranoid or persecutory delusion, as a freestanding disorder, or as a variant of another psychological illness. When German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin11 wrote Psychiatrie, he departed from previous editions of the text that grouped litigant’s delusion with paranoia and persecutory delusions. In the eighth edition, Kraepelin noted what he considered to be key etiological differences between paranoia and delusional disorders and litigant’s delusion. He asserted that these litigants were driven to act by authentic legal injustices they experienced rather than by delusional beliefs. Therefore, the querulants’ difficulties were psychogenic, suggesting psychological origins. Paranoia, by contrast, involved imagined events and was considered a constitutional disorder, which suggested physical origins.
Attributing hyperlitigious behavior to psychological origins also implied that it could be treated and managed by psychologists and psychiatrists. This change was widely accepted, and scholars began to explore new factors related to these individuals and behaviors. Hyperlitigious behavior still receives some attention in both the legal and psychological literature.12”
There is a lot more at this link, and it is a fascinating topic: https://jaapl.org/content/45/1/62
I have played with two-citizen parent birthers, too, and it can be entertaining, much like watching monkeys as a zoo pick fleas off each other and eat boogers - as long as you realize that you are dealing with somebody whose brain doesn’t work right, and who does not really live in the Real Universe.
Good luck! Let me know when you get the real picture of what is going on.
Well thank you, but I don't mind so much because I usually regard that as a signal that they can't beat back my arguments.
The arguments will stand and fall on their merits.
And this is exactly the rationality we should all have. I admire people who are not afraid to engage in a contest of ideas.