Nihil Obstat Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) I'm all in favour of scrapping the monarchy, by the way. I think it's a useless part of our society that's only there for nostalgia's sake. EDIT: I mean the Canadian monarchy. I'm saying nothing about monarchies in any other country. Edited June 9, 2009 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandragirl Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885386' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:56 AM']I was going to mention Canada as well, but I realized that doing so would not advance my argument that it would be good for the United States to belong to the Commonwealth. [/quote] Whatever benefit there was from the commonwealth seems to be missed today. On my visit to Oz and Kiwiland - they felt they got nothing for it - they pay for the upkeep of the royals nd get to put her picture on their moneyand that is about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885421' date='Jun 7 2009, 02:59 AM']I do not really see how forbidding trade with non-British traders constitutes a "grave violation of fundamental rights."[/quote] Um...it was more than that, as many have posted already here. Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Don't tread on me! (I think we should all also note our own government now violates more rights than King George's did back in the day. Secession I say!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niccolò Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1885379' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:51 AM']Prolly not. Although I'm glad it happened.[/quote] I tend to agree. [quote name='picchick' post='1887156' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:42 PM']Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. [/quote] Is freedom of speech that criticizes the government a "fundamental right"? Obviously we're looking at this from an American viewpoint, but in many other societies now and in the past this is not a "fundamental right." I don't know if I'd classify quartering troops and the kind of speech suppression going on in the colonies as "grave." Also I don't think the American Revolution passes the other requirements (#4 I'm a bit iffy on; we DID win, but at the time I don't think an objective observer would say there was well-founded hope for victory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1886732' date='Jun 8 2009, 08:56 PM']I'm all in favour of scrapping the monarchy, by the way. I think it's a useless part of our society that's only there for nostalgia's sake. EDIT: I mean the Canadian monarchy. I'm saying nothing about monarchies in any other country.[/quote] Like Queen Icey-Ice-Landy, TTM, and Princess Gianna? Edited June 9, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) i voted undecided I think I probably would have been a royalist. Edited June 9, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1887336' date='Jun 9 2009, 05:30 PM']Like Queen Icey-Ice-Landy, TTM, and Princess Gianna? [/quote] Precisely. Also the High Lord Sovereign Duke Joseph of the West, Marshal of the Western Assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='picchick' post='1887156' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:42 PM']Um...it was more than that, as many have posted already here. Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. [/quote] I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution. Edited June 10, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1887469' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:14 PM']I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution. [/quote] If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887501' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:09 PM']If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887501' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:09 PM']If the freedom of speech is the right to speak truth, it does exist I believe. If the freedom of speech is the 'right' to speak lies and errors it does not exist.[/quote] And who decides what constitutes "lies" and "errors"? By the standards of modern biology, anthropology, and history the Bible is quite full of errors. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Bible banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1887515' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:25 PM']And who decides what constitutes "lies" and "errors"? By the standards of modern biology, anthropology, and history the Bible is quite full of errors. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Bible banned.[/quote] The Holy Catholic Church would. And no the bible is not full of errors, that is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1887518' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:30 PM']The Holy Catholic Church would.[/quote] Do you have any objective, rational basis for that judgement that the non Catholic portion of the human population, a large majority of that population btw, could accept? [quote]And no the bible is not full of errors, that is a lie.[/quote] I didn't say it was. I said by the standards of various modern fields of knowledge it contained quite a few errors. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it is correct. Unless you can find a anthropologist who believes that the human population began with s single pair of humans. For example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Yes, but I don't have time to waste with you tonight Mr. Hassan. The Bible is without error. But thanks for taking us off topic. Edited June 10, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now