Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Scale of 1 to 10: How much would player rage when she finds out about Public Choice?

LOL... new name for an old game.

The funny thing about people who are in college... you somehow seem to think that everything you are learning now has never existed before. (an illusion often promoted by the same colleges, but anyway...).

I love how you pull stuff from your anus and upload it here. You might be on to something profitable!

Anyway, I'll mark you down for an 8.

Here, smartass, listen to this...http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html? ... egmentID=2

or ignore it and continue as so many others have into the path of humanities' destruction instead of gain.

Stick with Public Choice. Stop going on your tangents to environmentalism for now.

Nope, that's exactly why we are in the trouble we are in now.. pretending you CAN ignore it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem with "Public Choice" (aside from the fact that its nothing new, despite your pretense) is that it is yet one more excuse or "explanation" for why its OK for those at the top to ignore what common people want.

No, it isn't. Please tell me where the founders of public choice say this.

Here, wikki is good enough for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theorypoint

and note the date "1948"... like I said, its hardly a new theory.

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Public choice theorypoint in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Search for "Public choice theorypoint" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.

Seriously, are you making shit up to confirm your own crazy conclusions?


I've never argued that Public Choice is something new...

Do you even know what I'm talking about? Why constantly bullshit me, everyone else, and yourself? I don't get it, PLAYER. It makes no sense.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Public choice theorypoint in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Search for "Public choice theorypoint" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.

Seriously, are you making shit up to confirm your own crazy conclusions?


I've never argued that Public Choice is something new...

Do you even know what I'm talking about? Why constantly bullshit me, everyone else, and yourself? I don't get it, PLAYER. It makes no sense.

As a gentle suggestion, perhaps you could outline the theory, or provide some links BBS. Wiki isn't always the best source for stuff like this.

I thought I posted it...


The Wiki page is generally spot on. PLAYER is referring to some point which no one was discussing earlier....


Gordon Tullock's Calculus of Consent is a good place to start. There's an introductory work with no empirical research called "Government Failure." No research because it's just an analytical framework. If you want the research, search for the public choice professors at George Mason University. Check out their CVs.


For democracy, there's Vincent Ostrum's The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerabilities of Democracies, but this is a more of an institutional approach.


So are you going to read those, or were you just making small talk--and maybe some fine wine, some cheese, yes?

BigBallinStalin wrote:I thought I posted it...


The Wiki page is generally spot on. PLAYER is referring to some point which no one was discussing earlier....


Gordon Tullock's Calculus of Consent is a good place to start. There's an introductory work with no empirical research called "Government Failure." No research because it's just an analytical framework. If you want the research, search for the public choice professors at George Mason University. Check out their CVs.


For democracy, there's Vincent Ostrum's The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerabilities of Democracies, but this is a more of an institutional approach.


So are you going to read those, or were you just making small talk--and maybe some fine wine, some cheese, yes?

Honestly, I read a hell of a lot, and I always take suggestions. I put those titles in my notepad. I probably won't read them if they're not in my university library, but I'll get round to them if they are eventually. Usually if I'm skimming books I'll just read the introduction and conclusion and a sample chapter that seems relevant, so that I get the basic arguments and methodology.

But yeah, I won't be buying them from amazon and doing intense research. Sorry dude, I repect your opinions, and would like to know where your arguments are coming from, but it really depends on how easily I can get hold of a book combined with how interested I am in a topic.

Basically, not just small talk, but it might take me a while to get round to your recommendations (i.e. this topic will be long dead).

Can anyone else say where in Canuckistan player lives?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I thought I posted it...


The Wiki page is generally spot on. PLAYER is referring to some point which no one was discussing earlier....


Gordon Tullock's Calculus of Consent is a good place to start. There's an introductory work with no empirical research called "Government Failure." No research because it's just an analytical framework. If you want the research, search for the public choice professors at George Mason University. Check out their CVs.


For democracy, there's Vincent Ostrum's The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerabilities of Democracies, but this is a more of an institutional approach.


So are you going to read those, or were you just making small talk--and maybe some fine wine, some cheese, yes?

Honestly, I read a hell of a lot, and I always take suggestions. I put those titles in my notepad. I probably won't read them if they're not in my university library, but I'll get round to them if they are eventually. Usually if I'm skimming books I'll just read the introduction and conclusion and a sample chapter that seems relevant, so that I get the basic arguments and methodology.

But yeah, I won't be buying them from amazon and doing intense research. Sorry dude, I repect your opinions, and would like to know where your arguments are coming from, but it really depends on how easily I can get hold of a book combined with how interested I am in a topic.

Basically, not just small talk, but it might take me a while to get round to your recommendations (i.e. this topic will be long dead).

It might be for us, but representative government and all its faults will be around till you die. At least you'll get to know the how and why of government. If anything, it's a useful approach for examining history (of course, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting into).

An American Muslim woman upset at the perceived presentation of Muslims as prone to radicalism in press and political statements has been shot to death by police after lunging at them with a knife and a handgun when they came to her home to investigate a burglar alarm. Jameela Barnette had earlier mailed a severed pig's foot and anti-Semitic poem to Congressman Peter King and a stuffed monkey with a Star of David and a note that read "FINAL DESTINATION: AUSCHWITZ" to Senator Charles Schumer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70860.html

sorry, bad taste I know but I had to chuckle anyway

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Lowe's and Wal Mart also both pulled their advertising from Glenn Beck after being threatened with a boycott. Was that also a nefarious conspiracy or "the outcome of grassroots people power?"?

Neither and not comparable.

Glenn Beck is a vocal idiot, inflammatory to folks across the spectrum depending on the day (though more to some groups than others).

Diversity of everything except diversity of opinion.

In other words, if Player believes a content creator is an "idiot" then Company "A" pulling advertising is an inspired reaction to public pressure brought by community groups and children's letter-writing campaigns. If Player does not believe a content creator is an "idiot" then Company "B" pulling advertising is part of a vast conspiracy involving smoke-filled rooms and monocle-wearing gentlemen in top hats and black overcoats.

In some cases "Company A" and "Company B" may even be the same company!

2dimes wrote:Can anyone else say where in Canuckistan player lives?

A certain hospital on Fort Road in Edmonton whose name shall not be mentioned here ...


edit1: conjugation of children
edit2: answered 2dimes question

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

2dimes wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?

Only the ones not born here.

Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.

So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.

But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?

What's your take on stripping the voting rights of members of Parliament (Sinn Féin) if they refuse to take an oath of loyalty to an elderly billionaire from Bavaria and her heart-attack prone, 200-year old Greek husband?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

Interesting- what's your take on the pledge of allegiance in schools in the US?

What's your take on stripping the voting rights of members of Parliament (Sinn Féin) if they refuse to take an oath of loyalty to an elderly billionaire from Bavaria and her heart-attack prone, 200-year old Greek husband?

It was utterly ridiculous. I'm not sure where you get some of these takes on the Irish situation from, but you have a strange mix of the factual, the propaganda, and the false. There's plenty of weird stuff about it that really doesn't need embellishment. As a kid, for example, Gerry Adams (then the leader of Sinn Fein) would often make public statements- they were shown on BBC news, but according to the law at the time, they had to be read out by an actor. His voice was banned from the airwaves.

But yeah- pledges of allegiance are weird generally. I found the one in US schools weird for a different reason than the parliamentary oath in the UK. The big difference being that the US oath is required of kids, and that there's a lot of peer pressure there. Adults, I would say, are a bit more able to take a stance.

But yeah, the parliamentary one is archaic, and would probably be dumped if anyone really felt bothered by it in the UK. Sinn Fein probably got more political capital out of it than they would have done if they actually turned up to vote for anything. Still, would have been interesting to see a Sinn Fein speech in the House.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

2dimes wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?

Only the ones not born here.

Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.

So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.

But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

So the person who moved to Canada 40 years ago and wishes to become a citizen at the age of 59 has to take the oath, but the 19-year old brat who was born there and broke into a liquor store does not. It's fucked up no matter how you look at it. The amount of time spent on any given nation's territory is at best a weak indicator for how closely someone identifies with the state and how well they can cooperate with it.

I know how the logic rolls, and that's why I would consider it an insult if I had to swear an oath in order to become a citizen that "natural-born" citizens do not have to swear. Requiring an oath is tantamount to an accusation: "We do not trust you to be as loyal as other people, that's why you'll have to formally swear allegiance to us." That kind of requirement can lead to a fair bit of resentment, which defeats the entire purpose of the oath.

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

2dimes wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:The article mentioned an "oath of citizenship", do all Canadians swear that oath?

Only the ones not born here.

Baron Von PWN wrote:It's part of the citizenship ceremony new canadians take part in.

So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.

But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

So the person who moved to Canada 40 years ago and wishes to become a citizen at the age of 59 has to take the oath, but the 19-year old brat who was born there and broke into a liquor store does not. It's fucked up no matter how you look at it. The amount of time spent on any given nation's territory is at best a weak indicator for how closely someone identifies with the state and how well they can cooperate with it.

I know how the logic rolls, and that's why I would consider it an insult if I had to swear an oath in order to become a citizen that "natural-born" citizens do not have to swear. Requiring an oath is tantamount to an accusation: "We do not trust you to be as loyal as other people, that's why you'll have to formally swear allegiance to us." That kind of requirement can lead to a fair bit of resentment, which defeats the entire purpose of the oath.

You are pretty much the first person I've ever heard of having a problem with the oath part of the citizenship ceremony. Clearly our immigrants don't have much of a problem with it, for example in 2008 145 thousand new Canadians took the oath. Your example of someone living in Canada would have waited an awful long time before getting around to getting citizenship, considering you can become a citizen after 3 years of residence and taking a test which has an 80% pass rate, (those who fail are interviewed by the presiding judge who then oks citizenship for roughly 80% of those who failed). It seems to me we have very generous terms of citizenship. We definitely receive the most immigrants per capita in the world (if not then surely the top ten).

Considering how easy we make immigrating here and becoming a citizen here, I don't think many immigrants are complaining about the oath. I agree the oath is a little silly, and to my mind is mostly there to give the act of acquiring citizenship some ceremony.

Meh- I'm pretty much ok with the general gist of this topic- I don't see many people seriously trying to argue that Lowe's weren't being Islamophobic, or any serious poster trying to justify their actions in support of an extreme Christianist organisation, but still, this isn't the discussion that people will expect when they click on the topic, and it's worthy of another thread in itself.

Basically, if you want to discuss the oath of allegiance in Canada, and would like more input from other posters, then perhaps a thread with that title is in order. If you want to discuss it just between yourselves, there's PM's. A few sidetracks are fine by me, but if the point of the topic hasn't been discussed, or even referred to for so long, it's probably a dead topic, or a conversation worth having elsewhere so that posters who are interested in it can see what the conversation is about.

Or, of course, we could start tying the whole subject back in.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.

But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

So the person who moved to Canada 40 years ago and wishes to become a citizen at the age of 59 has to take the oath, but the 19-year old brat who was born there and broke into a liquor store does not. It's fucked up no matter how you look at it. The amount of time spent on any given nation's territory is at best a weak indicator for how closely someone identifies with the state and how well they can cooperate with it.

I know how the logic rolls, and that's why I would consider it an insult if I had to swear an oath in order to become a citizen that "natural-born" citizens do not have to swear. Requiring an oath is tantamount to an accusation: "We do not trust you to be as loyal as other people, that's why you'll have to formally swear allegiance to us." That kind of requirement can lead to a fair bit of resentment, which defeats the entire purpose of the oath.

You are pretty much the first person I've ever heard of having a problem with the oath part of the citizenship ceremony. Clearly our immigrants don't have much of a problem with it, for example in 2008 145 thousand new Canadians took the oath. Your example of someone living in Canada would have waited an awful long time before getting around to getting citizenship, considering you can become a citizen after 3 years of residence and taking a test which has an 80% pass rate, (those who fail are interviewed by the presiding judge who then oks citizenship for roughly 80% of those who failed). It seems to me we have very generous terms of citizenship. We definitely receive the most immigrants per capita in the world (if not then surely the top ten).

Considering how easy we make immigrating here and becoming a citizen here, I don't think many immigrants are complaining about the oath. I agree the oath is a little silly, and to my mind is mostly there to give the act of acquiring citizenship some ceremony.

Maybe it's because I actually consider promises (and by extension oaths) serious business. Legally binding ones even more so. If everyone has to take the same oath: Fine. That's basically a social contract. However, demanding that some people make certain promises which others don't have to make is discrimination.

And what happens if they break the legally binding oath they took? The promises are to observe the law, to fulfill one's duties as a citizen, and to be faithful and bear allegiance to the English monarch. Let's say someone breaks the law after having taken the oath, that's a valid reason for revoking their citizenship. They want citizenship, they have to make certain promises, they don't keep those promises, citizenship goes poof, that's how it goes. But it's a bit harsh for speeding, don't you think? Even suggesting that Canada finally toss its monarchic traditions could mean breaking the oath. (Incidentally this means that you will only ever be free of royalty if all your legislators, army personnel, civil servants, and judges decide to break the oath since they all have to swear allegiance to those blasted Windsors as well.)

MeDeFe wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:So people who are born in Canada are somehow magically better citizens and don't have to swear the same oath as their less fortunate brethren? That's pretty fucked up imo.

But it makes a lot of sense. Nationalism is the means of fostering self-identity and cooperation with the state. "Natural-born" citizens have lived within the state's sphere of influence for a much longer time, so it's unnecessary for the state to formally reaffirm a sense of cooperation with those who have been informally and formally cooperating for years.

For recent outsiders, it makes sense to formalize this "passage of rights." They haven't been in the self-reinforcing loop of nationalism, so one way of explicitly expressing compliance is through an oath. An oath is a contract, and "only bad people break contracts" is how the logic rolls. "Do you want to be a bad person? Well, align your acts with the oath you took." If there was no oath-taking, then there wouldn't be an explicit means of creating the incentive for people to cooperate.

So the person who moved to Canada 40 years ago and wishes to become a citizen at the age of 59 has to take the oath, but the 19-year old brat who was born there and broke into a liquor store does not. It's fucked up no matter how you look at it. The amount of time spent on any given nation's territory is at best a weak indicator for how closely someone identifies with the state and how well they can cooperate with it.

I know how the logic rolls, and that's why I would consider it an insult if I had to swear an oath in order to become a citizen that "natural-born" citizens do not have to swear. Requiring an oath is tantamount to an accusation: "We do not trust you to be as loyal as other people, that's why you'll have to formally swear allegiance to us." That kind of requirement can lead to a fair bit of resentment, which defeats the entire purpose of the oath.

You are pretty much the first person I've ever heard of having a problem with the oath part of the citizenship ceremony. Clearly our immigrants don't have much of a problem with it, for example in 2008 145 thousand new Canadians took the oath. Your example of someone living in Canada would have waited an awful long time before getting around to getting citizenship, considering you can become a citizen after 3 years of residence and taking a test which has an 80% pass rate, (those who fail are interviewed by the presiding judge who then oks citizenship for roughly 80% of those who failed). It seems to me we have very generous terms of citizenship. We definitely receive the most immigrants per capita in the world (if not then surely the top ten).

Considering how easy we make immigrating here and becoming a citizen here, I don't think many immigrants are complaining about the oath. I agree the oath is a little silly, and to my mind is mostly there to give the act of acquiring citizenship some ceremony.

Maybe it's because I actually consider promises (and by extension oaths) serious business. Legally binding ones even more so. If everyone has to take the same oath: Fine. That's basically a social contract. However, demanding that some people make certain promises which others don't have to make is discrimination.

And what happens if they break the legally binding oath they took? The promises are to observe the law, to fulfill one's duties as a citizen, and to be faithful and bear allegiance to the English monarch. Let's say someone breaks the law after having taken the oath, that's a valid reason for revoking their citizenship. They want citizenship, they have to make certain promises, they don't keep those promises, citizenship goes poof, that's how it goes. But it's a bit harsh for speeding, don't you think? Even suggesting that Canada finally toss its monarchic traditions could mean breaking the oath. (Incidentally this means that you will only ever be free of royalty if all your legislators, army personnel, civil servants, and judges decide to break the oath since they all have to swear allegiance to those blasted Windsors as well.)

As a global moderator, would you say that this is the kind of response people interested in the Lowes story and the accusations of Islamophobia would expect when clicking on the title of this thread, or would you consider it off topic?

Symmetry wrote:As a global moderator, would you say that this is the kind of response people interested in the Lowes story and the accusations of Islamophobia would expect when clicking on the title of this thread, or would you consider it off topic?

As a global moderator I would say that topics sometimes evolve as new facts and viewpoints are introduced and discussed. The question of whether a particular post is on or off topic is something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis after due consideration and discussion.

MeDeFe wrote:

Symmetry wrote:As a global moderator, would you say that this is the kind of response people interested in the Lowes story and the accusations of Islamophobia would expect when clicking on the title of this thread, or would you consider it off topic?

As a global moderator I would say that topics sometimes evolve as new facts and viewpoints are introduced and discussed. The question of whether a particular post is on or off topic is something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis after due consideration and discussion.

I'd say that Symmetry is correct. The thread has gone off topic and the topic it has evolved into needs its own thread - i'll start one.

I wonder... if TLC were to follow extremist, America-hating Muslims around, would those lovely bigots down in Florida get just as riled up? Would catering to their narrow, bigoted definition of how Muslims act make them happy, or would this just result in even more froth?
AND WE'RE BACK.

Symmetry wrote:But yeah- pledges of allegiance are weird generally. I found the one in US schools weird for a different reason than the parliamentary oath in the UK. The big difference being that the US oath is required of kids, and that there's a lot of peer pressure there. Adults, I would say, are a bit more able to take a stance.

But yeah, the parliamentary one is archaic, and would probably be dumped if anyone really felt bothered by it in the UK. Sinn Fein probably got more political capital out of it than they would have done if they actually turned up to vote for anything. Still, would have been interesting to see a Sinn Fein speech in the House.

"If anyone really felt bothered?" There are currently 5 elected Members of Parliament who are not permitted to vote or speak in parliament because they have refused to pledge eternal loyalty to an elderly billionaire from Bavaria and any current or future by-products of ritual sexual intercourse she has (to clarify, in this message I'm discussing the UK government, not the Church of Scientology - the two are often easily confused). They're not "anyone" you say - by inference I assume you mean they're "just Irish", not actually human?

I would say political disenfranchisement of 500,000 people (or however many people are in a parliamentary constituency x 5) for failure to take an oath to an elderly billionaire from Bavaria and the results of her ritual sexcapades is rather more serious than the possibility of receiving some dirty looks from classmates in grade school if one chooses not to take an oath to an abstract concept like republicanism. Who agrees with me?

Let's make this less personal. Faced with one, and only one, of the two options, which country is in more desperate need of reform vis a vis the treatment of its citizens as regards oathtaking?

Circumstance 1 - Country X has violently transitioned from a monarchy to a republic. Every day for several hundred years the new regime now requests schoolchildren publicly pledge their agreement with the revolution and the political philosophy of republicanism. While schoolchildren can choose not to, they may be subject to peer pressure from other school children to participate. This might, in the most serious cases, include dirty looks or name calling. A state-sanctioned cult of personality exists around a powerful general who died in 1799; his portrait is placed in every classroom and schools are closed down on his birthday. Schoolchildren are annually required to stage elaborate pageants in his honour. Even the most mundane moments in his life are declared heroic (e.g. children are required to write reports about a time this deceased general cleared some dead trees from an empty lot when he was 6). The year is 2011.

Circumstance 2 - Country Y has violently transitioned from a republic to a monarchy. For several hundred years the new regime demands members of the parliament pledge personal loyalty to the King - a billionaire industrialist. If they fail to do so they will be ejected from parliament and their voting rights stripped. Residents of the neighborhoods from where those members of parliament live will be collectively punished by being denied the opportunity to elect replacements, thereby suffering complete political disenfranchisement. The King's son, an alleged homosexual rapist who has lifetime immunity from prosecution for any crime, is given the authority to veto laws passed by the remaining members of the parliament who haven't been expelled for failing to pledge loyalty to his father. In school, children are required to learn the correct methods to grovel before the King if they happen to see her one day. They are required to learn the lyrics to a song calling on God to use magic tricks to transform the King into an immortal being. The year is 2011.

Number 1 is weird, bizarre and a little loopy. Number 2 is a shocking horror that demands intervention of United Nations troops under an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. IMO.

saxitoxin wrote:Let's make this less personal. Faced with one, and only one, of the two options, which country is in more desperate need of reform vis a vis the treatment of its citizens as regards oathtaking?

Circumstance 1 - Country X has violently transitioned from a monarchy to a republic. Every day for several hundred years the new regime now requests schoolchildren publicly pledge their agreement with the revolution and the political philosophy of republicanism. While schoolchildren can choose not to, they may be subject to peer pressure from other school children to participate. This might, in the most serious cases, include dirty looks or name calling. A state-sanctioned cult of personality exists around a powerful general who died in 1799; his portrait is placed in every classroom and schools are closed down on his birthday. Schoolchildren are annually required to stage elaborate pageants in his honour. Every action in his life is declared heroic (e.g. children are required to write reports about a time this deceased general cleared some dead trees from an empty lot when he was 6). The year is 2011.

Circumstance 2 - Country Y has violently transitioned from a republic to a monarchy. For several hundred years the new regime demands members of the parliament pledge personal loyalty to the King - a billionaire industrialist. If they fail to do so they will be ejected from parliament and their voting rights stripped. Residents of the neighborhoods from where those members of parliament live will be collectively punished by being denied the opportunity to elect replacements, thereby suffering complete political disenfranchisement. The King's son, an alleged homosexual rapist who has lifetime immunity from prosecution for any crime, is given the authority to veto laws passed by the remaining members of the parliament who haven't been expelled for failing to pledge loyalty to his father. In school, children are required to learn the correct methods to grovel before the King if they happen to see her one day. They are required to learn the lyrics to a song calling on God to use magic tricks to transform the King into an immortal being. The year is 2011.

There's universal room for improvement, however, Number 2 is a horrific aberration in this day-in-age, IMO.

Circumstance 1 - 18 years ago when my son was 12 he told me that they made him say the pledge of allegiance at school. I told him he didn't have to do so, but that he should stand as a token of respect for the men who died for that flag. Then i called the principal and raised 7 kinds of hell. My son did not say the pledge from that day forth and never got persecuted in any way from his teachers or the other students.

Circumstance 2 - Obviously the Brits don't care much for their freedom or lack thereof, which is basically why we left Mother England.

When i enlisted in the army in '68 (yeah i know, not a real bright idea) i took an oath to protect the Constitution of this country. Seeing that Abe Lincoln raped it a while back and they've been chipping at it ever since this seems to me to be a supreme irony. I have a nephew in Special Forces and the oath is still the same. Seems to me that any soldier who takes that oath seriously would use his military training and weaponry to assassinate any leaders who violate our Constitution and cripple it with things like the "Patriot Act". Yeah i know - go ahead and call Homeland Security on me.

saxitoxin wrote:Let's make this less personal. Faced with one, and only one, of the two options, which country is in more desperate need of reform vis a vis the treatment of its citizens as regards oathtaking?

Circumstance 1 - Country X has violently transitioned from a monarchy to a republic. Every day for several hundred years the new regime now requests schoolchildren publicly pledge their agreement with the revolution and the political philosophy of republicanism. While schoolchildren can choose not to, they may be subject to peer pressure from other school children to participate. This might, in the most serious cases, include dirty looks or name calling. A state-sanctioned cult of personality exists around a powerful general who died in 1799; his portrait is placed in every classroom and schools are closed down on his birthday. Schoolchildren are annually required to stage elaborate pageants in his honour. Even the most mundane moments in his life are declared heroic (e.g. children are required to write reports about a time this deceased general cleared some dead trees from an empty lot when he was 6). The year is 2011.

Circumstance 2 - Country Y has violently transitioned from a republic to a monarchy. For several hundred years the new regime demands members of the parliament pledge personal loyalty to the King - a billionaire industrialist. If they fail to do so they will be ejected from parliament and their voting rights stripped. Residents of the neighborhoods from where those members of parliament live will be collectively punished by being denied the opportunity to elect replacements, thereby suffering complete political disenfranchisement. The King's son, an alleged homosexual rapist who has lifetime immunity from prosecution for any crime, is given the authority to veto laws passed by the remaining members of the parliament who haven't been expelled for failing to pledge loyalty to his father. In school, children are required to learn the correct methods to grovel before the King if they happen to see her one day. They are required to learn the lyrics to a song calling on God to use magic tricks to transform the King into an immortal being. The year is 2011.

Number 1 is weird, bizarre and a little loopy. Number 2 is a shocking horror that demands intervention of United Nations troops under an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. IMO.

Ah well, as it seems like this topic is well off, and that Saxi is unwilling to invite criticism of his points by actually discussing them in a relevant thread where people can view them under the auspice of a relevant conversation.

Tie this back in to the thread, or start a new one, basically.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Let's make this less personal. Faced with one, and only one, of the two options, which country is in more desperate need of reform vis a vis the treatment of its citizens as regards oathtaking?

Circumstance 1 - Country X has violently transitioned from a monarchy to a republic. Every day for several hundred years the new regime now requests schoolchildren publicly pledge their agreement with the revolution and the political philosophy of republicanism. While schoolchildren can choose not to, they may be subject to peer pressure from other school children to participate. This might, in the most serious cases, include dirty looks or name calling. A state-sanctioned cult of personality exists around a powerful general who died in 1799; his portrait is placed in every classroom and schools are closed down on his birthday. Schoolchildren are annually required to stage elaborate pageants in his honour. Even the most mundane moments in his life are declared heroic (e.g. children are required to write reports about a time this deceased general cleared some dead trees from an empty lot when he was 6). The year is 2011.

Circumstance 2 - Country Y has violently transitioned from a republic to a monarchy. For several hundred years the new regime demands members of the parliament pledge personal loyalty to the King - a billionaire industrialist. If they fail to do so they will be ejected from parliament and their voting rights stripped. Residents of the neighborhoods from where those members of parliament live will be collectively punished by being denied the opportunity to elect replacements, thereby suffering complete political disenfranchisement. The King's son, an alleged homosexual rapist who has lifetime immunity from prosecution for any crime, is given the authority to veto laws passed by the remaining members of the parliament who haven't been expelled for failing to pledge loyalty to his father. In school, children are required to learn the correct methods to grovel before the King if they happen to see her one day. They are required to learn the lyrics to a song calling on God to use magic tricks to transform the King into an immortal being. The year is 2011.

Number 1 is weird, bizarre and a little loopy. Number 2 is a shocking horror that demands intervention of United Nations troops under an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. IMO.

Ah well, as it seems like this topic is well off, and that Saxi is unwilling to invite criticism of his points by actually discussing them in a relevant thread where people can view them under the auspice of a relevant conversation.

Tie this back in to the thread, or start a new one, basically.

Obviously the US Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with Lowe's Home Improvement stores but you decided to introduce it into the thread, at which point you transitioned the topic of the thread from Lowe's Home Improvement to oathmaking.

Clearly it's unreasonable for a person to change the topic of their thread mid-stream and then - when someone presents a contrary opinion to the new topic - demand that discussion abruptly cease and all talk immediately revert to the original topic. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Now if you'd like to clarify what you mean by "no one really feels bothered" by the disenfranchisement of ethnically Irish people in the UK it would be appreciated.