Author Topic: A Confession and another important thing regarding England and Ireland.  (Read 3885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
What made those monarchs legitimate is that they came to power by legal means. England was legally a monarchy, so they legally inherited their positions of power.

Since you can't seem to get even the most primitive notions of basic political theory through your thick skull, let me make this abundantly clear:

THERE IS ONLY ONE LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY: A CLEAR, UNCOERCED MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE YOU PURPORT TO GOVERN, WHICH CAN BE REVOKED AS THEY SEE FIT.

And Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God and insults King Arthur who some people suspect may have been a British King after the Roman Withdrawal of Britain during the Anglo Saxon invasion. Under the restored legitimate monarchy, that movie will be banned under the blasphemy and insulting legendary national leader laws.

Blasphemy laws can fuck right off. The most basic tenet of a liberal society is the right to challenge any belief or statement, and religion is necessarily the one that must most strongly be challenged because religion makes "such large claims for itself". Nobody can justly declare anything off-limits for criticism or parody.

As for insulting King Arthur, again, as with anything, everything, and everyone else, he or his legend is not immune to criticism or parody.

And banning media (that does not in its production or consumption cause real, demonstrable, and unjustifiable harm, like eight-year-olds, dude) is a sure sign of an autocratic society.

I imagine you also want to ban Life of Brian, even though if you've ever actually watched it you'd know that it depicts Jesus in a pretty positive light.

1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.

2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.

It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
I fail to see how Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God. The worst it does is portray him as being exasperated with people grovelling when he's trying to explain something.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
So, democracy for me but not for thee?

Fuck off!

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.

Holy ever-loving shit. How did they get that property? By fucking conquest. Anything that can be gained by conquest can be taken away by conquest.

2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.

It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISRESPECTED.

And human sacrifice is disgusting and barbaric and anyone with any scrap of morality would have been duty-bound to prevent it were they there.

Also, the US was NOT founded on Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Negotiated under George Washington. Signed under John Adams. Ratified by the US Senate unanimously (with 9 absences--absences, not abstentions), exactly in accordance with the US Constitution (which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty). Contained within:

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

(emphasis mine)

As for what sort of society you want to live in...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Quote
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.

So imagine that you end up being an apistevist atheist antitheist in your "conservative Christian society". You wouldn't like that, would you? So why the FUCK would you want to impose that on anyone, you bigoted asshat?

Also, we should lock this thread, Sigma already won it.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
I fail to see how Monty Python and the Holy Grail blasphemes against God. The worst it does is portray him as being exasperated with people grovelling when he's trying to explain something.

Because it portrays him as being impatient and short tempered rather than being patient and slow to anger.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
1. Yes, Democracy is a great legitimate system of government if it is founded by legitimate means, such as the United States which won independence from the tyrannical illegitimate British government. However in the case of England, it was not founded by legitimate means, because the true heirs to the throne were deprived of what rightfully belonged to them. You do not understand basic property rights. In the medieval times, the monarchs owned and inherited the Kingdom of England. The true heirs were unlawfully barred from inheriting their own property.

Holy ever-loving shit. How did they get that property? By fucking conquest. Anything that can be gained by conquest can be taken away by conquest.

2. It is the basic tenant of a liberal society, not a conservative Christian society. In a conservative Christian society, it is horribly disrespectful to Christians, and it is considered an abomination to insult the loving God who created the universe, and sent his son to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. When the United States was founded, while the First Amendment gave people freedom to practice their own religiou beliefs, blaspheming against the Christian God was illegal in the states, so in context, the First Amendment gives people religious freedom but not freedom to insult the God on which our nation is founded.

It is also disrespectful to historical national heroes, like King Arthur(if he existed) to make fun of them and it is also disrespectful to the nation.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISRESPECTED.

And human sacrifice is disgusting and barbaric and anyone with any scrap of morality would have been duty-bound to prevent it were they there.

Also, the US was NOT founded on Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Negotiated under George Washington. Signed under John Adams. Ratified by the US Senate unanimously (with 9 absences--absences, not abstentions), exactly in accordance with the US Constitution (which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty). Contained within:

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

(emphasis mine)

As for what sort of society you want to live in...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Quote
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.

So imagine that you end up being an apistevist atheist antitheist in your "conservative Christian society". You wouldn't like that, would you? So why the FUCK would you want to impose that on anyone, you bigoted asshat?

Also, we should lock this thread, Sigma already won it.

1. They got it from the natural formation of a unified nation and government where there was previousy not a nation and a bunch of tribes.

2. God certainly has the right to not be disrespected and so do national heroes because of the great things they did for their country.

3. Ok the form of government was not founded on Christianity because Republicanism comes from the Romans, however it’s culture is Christian because it had a majority Christian population at that time and according to the Declaration of Independence, the idea of all men being created equal and having unalienable rights comes from the Christian God.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” There is also references to God in America’s patriotic songs. The Ten Commandments are in the US courts.

4. Atheists will be tolerated as long as they do not promote their atheism. Christianity should be promoted in society because it teaches moral values, helping the poor, and treating people with kindness.

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
You're adorable. Keep this up and you might get yourself a thread on Kiwi Farms. Maybe even a page on the Lolcow Wiki.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
1. Still not legitimate. How do you know that those tribes weren't happy just as they are and were forcibly conquered and annexed into the new nation? Consent of the governed, cuck.

2. NOBODY AND NOTHING has the right not to be disrespected. Get that through your thick skull into your cuckold brain (though at this point I'm doubting you have one).

3. For one, "Creator" in that text is in a purely deistic sense, and in fact was added after Jefferson's initial draft:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Quote
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

Note: no reference to a creator.

As for references to God in patriotic songs, as long as they do not have the official imprimatur of the government, they can say whatever they want. The Ten Commandments, meanwhile, have absolutely no business being in any courtroom (whatever Stephen Breyer might think), and are certainly not the basis for US law, especially when you consider that the only ones actually implemented in law (murder, theft, perjury) were already crimes under older legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and others (like the VERY FIRST ONE) are directly contradicted by the US Constitution.

4. SO DOES SECULAR HUMANISM, and what's more secular humanists can actually make valid arguments for why their positions are correct. As for morality, remember that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and that not one jot or tittle of it would pass away, and so all that stuff about slavery and stoning disobedient children (did you ever talk back to your parents? If so, why are you still alive?) remains in force.

"Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."

Also, if you set up a theocracy, then it lasts only until the next religion comes in and takes over. If you set up a strictly secular state, it can withstand all assaults from religion.

And did you even give a moment's thought to Rawls' Veil of Ignorance? For that matter, are you even capable of thinking as it demands one do?
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3436
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?

We went through that, he claims that Harold's oath to William that William would receive the crown of England while Harold was a captive of William made William the rightful heir, and it didn't matter that it was under duress (ie coerced) and therefore COMPLETELY INVALID because it was made to an imaginary being.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
If you're after the rightful inheritors of the Crown without conquest, surely you have to go back to the line from Alfred the Great of Wessex rather than the lineage of William the Conqueror (a norman) to get the rightful king of England?

We went through that, he claims that Harold's oath to William that William would receive the crown of England while Harold was a captive of William made William the rightful heir, and it didn't matter that it was under duress (ie coerced) and therefore COMPLETELY INVALID because it was made to an imaginary being.
Well shouldn't it go to Boudicca?

Or whoever the weird mob were who liked dragging stones everywhere that had the place before the Celts got to it?

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
Oh, and answer these about your preferred "system" of government:


Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Gender: Male
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27488/27488-h/27488-h.htm

Chapter 2, in particular.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.