FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on November 20, 2018, 07:36:10 pm

Title: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 20, 2018, 07:36:10 pm
and when you come back home, you see that other people are living in your house.

“Get off my property!” you shout.

And then one of them says “Hey, you cannot oppose us for taking your property. After all, you think it is fine that the monarchs of Britain stole England from it’s true monarchs. You clearly don’t think that property rights matter.”

“You are breaking the law. If you don’t get off I will call the police.”

“We’ve got guns. We ain’t scared of no cops. And the law does not matter because legitimate authority does not matter. After all, the monarchs of Britain usurped the legitimate authority of England’s rightful monarchs and your fine with that. Now we are the authority on this property and we will make you our slave.”

And that is why it is important that you support the cause to put England’s legitimate monarch on the throne if you believe that property rights and legitimate authority matter.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 20, 2018, 08:14:10 pm
As I said before, your "rightful monarchs" stole that land from Rome. Who in turn, stole it from the Celts. Who in turn were no doubt stealing it from each other just as much as later Christian monarchs tended to do. Not to mention, this coming from a white American, who's only there because his ancestors stole it from the various native tribes and societies. It's almost as though all "legitimate authority" boils down to might makes right.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 20, 2018, 08:29:47 pm
As I said before, your "rightful monarchs" stole that land from Rome. Who in turn, stole it from the Celts. Who in turn were no doubt stealing it from each other just as much as later Christian monarchs tended to do. Not to mention, this coming from a white American, who's only there because his ancestors stole it from the various native tribes and societies. It's almost as though all "legitimate authority" boils down to might makes right.

Well the Romans were the first to bring advanced civilization to Britain just like the Europeans brought advanced civilization to the Americas. The Anglo Saxons conquered England after the Romans already withdrew from Britain. And the Roman Empire’s successor the Byzantine Empire recognized the Holy Roman Empire which recognized England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 20, 2018, 08:50:24 pm
"But that's different", part 134862.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 21, 2018, 06:53:36 am
and when you come back home, you see that other people are living in your house.

“Get off my property!” you shout.

And then one of them says “Hey, you cannot oppose us for taking your property. After all, you think it is fine that the monarchs of Britain stole England from it’s true monarchs. You clearly don’t think that property rights matter.”

“You are breaking the law. If you don’t get off I will call the police.”

“We’ve got guns. We ain’t scared of no cops. And the law does not matter because legitimate authority does not matter. After all, the monarchs of Britain usurped the legitimate authority of England’s rightful monarchs and your fine with that. Now we are the authority on this property and we will make you our slave.”

And that is why it is important that you support the cause to put England’s legitimate monarch on the throne if you believe that property rights and legitimate authority matter.
It's not your house, to the people who's house it is you're just some weird yank kid with delusions of grandeur. Your house is the US, a nation that's secular by design.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 08:09:54 am
and when you come back home, you see that other people are living in your house.

“Get off my property!” you shout.

And then one of them says “Hey, you cannot oppose us for taking your property. After all, you think it is fine that the monarchs of Britain stole England from it’s true monarchs. You clearly don’t think that property rights matter.”

“You are breaking the law. If you don’t get off I will call the police.”

“We’ve got guns. We ain’t scared of no cops. And the law does not matter because legitimate authority does not matter. After all, the monarchs of Britain usurped the legitimate authority of England’s rightful monarchs and your fine with that. Now we are the authority on this property and we will make you our slave.”

And that is why it is important that you support the cause to put England’s legitimate monarch on the throne if you believe that property rights and legitimate authority matter.
It's not your house, to the people who's house it is you're just some weird yank kid with delusions of grandeur. Your house is the US, a nation that's secular by design.

It is the House of the true heirs to England. The people who stolen the house are analogous to the House of Windsor.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 21, 2018, 10:14:42 am
The metaphor does not work because there is no owner who went on a vacation. This is more like "I think one of that guy's ancestors lived somewhere near that location. It was just farmland then but now a suburb has been built there so those three houses that are on the approximately right location should all belong to him. ...Even though the ownership has changed several times and the three families that live there now are the legal owners."
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 10:22:07 am
The metaphor does not work because there is no owner who went on a vacation. This is more like "I think one of that guy's ancestors lived somewhere near that location. It was just farmland then but now a suburb has been built there so those three houses that are on the approximately right location should all belong to him. ...Even though the ownership has changed several times and the three families that live there now are the legal owners."

And then that guy could file a lawsuit to claim the property that is rightfully his. Court cases over issues like this happen.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 21, 2018, 12:14:51 pm
And the court would tell you to go pound sand because you can't prove that the land belongs to him while the current owners have all their paperwork done correctly.

The fact is that your idea is stupid and not based on any reality. Also it has zero support outside of your imagination. Go home. Get off your computer. Go talk to your priest about this idea. Maybe he or she will do the right thing and get you help.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 01:38:29 pm
And the court would tell you to go pound sand because you can't prove that the land belongs to him while the current owners have all their paperwork done correctly.

The fact is that your idea is stupid and not based on any reality. Also it has zero support outside of your imagination. Go home. Get off your computer. Go talk to your priest about this idea. Maybe he or she will do the right thing and get you help.

I could prove that the land belongs to him by showing the Court historical documents of the property ownership just like there are historical records of the Kings of England and who their descendants and rightful heirs are.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 21, 2018, 02:09:04 pm
Was his father the king of England? Was either of his grandfathers crowned as the king of England?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 02:17:53 pm
Was his father the king of England? Was either of his grandfathers crowned as the king of England?

The rightful heir’s ancestor was William the Conqueror and he is the heir to William the Conqueror following primogeniture which determines who the rightful King is.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 21, 2018, 03:02:19 pm
Direct question Jacob, do you want the United States to be an absolute monarchy, or just Britain?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 03:36:31 pm
Direct question Jacob, do you want the United States to be an absolute monarchy, or just Britain?

Just Britain, because none of the true legitimate monarchs of England ever ruled over the territory of the United States when it was a British colony.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 21, 2018, 06:51:20 pm
Direct question Jacob, do you want the United States to be an absolute monarchy, or just Britain?

Just Britain, because none of the true legitimate monarchs of England ever ruled over the territory of the United States when it was a British colony.
Yeah, keep your seppo snout out of other people's countries. The poms have enough problems without you mob 'helping' like you did in Chile and Iraq.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 21, 2018, 07:00:42 pm
Direct question Jacob, do you want the United States to be an absolute monarchy, or just Britain?

Just Britain, because none of the true legitimate monarchs of England ever ruled over the territory of the United States when it was a British colony.
Yeah, keep your seppo snout out of other people's countries. The poms have enough problems without you mob 'helping' like you did in Chile and Iraq.

Never mind Iran.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 21, 2018, 07:06:08 pm
Direct question Jacob, do you want the United States to be an absolute monarchy, or just Britain?

Just Britain, because none of the true legitimate monarchs of England ever ruled over the territory of the United States when it was a British colony.
Yeah, keep your seppo snout out of other people's countries. The poms have enough problems without you mob 'helping' like you did in Chile and Iraq.

But having the rightful heir put on England’s throne is my business becauseI have English ancestry. The US should become involved in invading Britain to restore the true heir of England, because of America’s English heritage.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 21, 2018, 09:05:34 pm
Your ancestry does not make you a citizen, Australians and Canadians have the same head of state and even they aren't citizens. You have no say in another countries internal business if you don't live there. You can critique what they do, you can argue about what they do but you don't get to make their decisions for them. Stay in your lane!
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 12:51:38 am
Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2018, 12:54:06 am
Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.

Well if he's somewhere in the line of Sophia of Hanover...
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 22, 2018, 01:32:24 am
Hey Jacob, following your logic, shouldn't all white people leave the Americas and give the land back to Natives? 
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2018, 01:43:23 am
Hey Jacob, following your logic, shouldn't all white people leave the Americas and give the land back to Natives?

Something something Christendom something something civilisation something something.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 22, 2018, 02:00:20 am
^Just to pre-empt the civilization one: Natives already had two/three of those: In Mesoamerica and the Andes and possibly other areas like the amazon.  So no that one doesn't work.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 02:59:27 am
To tie it back to his analogy. "I redecorated, so that makes it rightfully mine for realsies."
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 08:51:47 am
Your ancestry does not make you a citizen, Australians and Canadians have the same head of state and even they aren't citizens. You have no say in another countries internal business if you don't live there. You can critique what they do, you can argue about what they do but you don't get to make their decisions for them. Stay in your lane!

On normal matters I don’t have a say in another countries internal business however the true heir does have a say in England’s internal matters because he is the rightful heir to it’s throne, so I am helping someone who does have a say.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 08:53:28 am
Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.

As I said, Elizabeth II is not the rightful legitimate monarch because she does not follow the true line of primogeniture from William the Conqueror.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 09:02:55 am
^Just to pre-empt the civilization one: Natives already had two/three of those: In Mesoamerica and the Andes and possibly other areas like the amazon.  So no that one doesn't work.

Well the Mayan Civilization collapsed before the Europeans arrived. The conquest of the Aztecs was justified because the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. And the tribes in the United States did not have advanced civilization compared to the US. Besides the United States legally obtained the land through the Louisiana purchase, the Adams–Onís Treaty, the Texas Annexation, the Treaty of Guadalupe, and the Gadsden purchase.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 09:14:14 am
Do you really wanna go with "more advanced civilization can conquer others" as your answer? Is that your final answer?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 09:22:24 am
Do you really wanna go with "more advanced civilization can conquer others" as your answer? Is that your final answer?

Yes. That is how civilization spread throughout history. The Romans conquered the Barbarian tribes and spread their civilization throughout Europe just European powers such as the Spanish Empire conquered the natives and spread advanced European civilization throughout the Americas.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: rookie on November 22, 2018, 10:48:42 am
In that case Attila had the most advanced civilization of the world until the mid 1700s. By your logic, the United Soviet Socialist Republic had a civilization that rivaled anything the Brits had going on.

By your own logic, Elizabeth is most definitely the rightful heir as her ancestors captured the throne. They were clearly more advanced.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 11:08:10 am
In that case Attila had the most advanced civilization of the world until the mid 1700s. By your logic, the United Soviet Socialist Republic had a civilization that rivaled anything the Brits had going on.

By your own logic, Elizabeth is most definitely the rightful heir as her ancestors captured the throne. They were clearly more advanced.

But Attila was a barbarian who attacked the advanced Roman Empire. And England was a united nation more advanced than the tribal level of civilization so it was advanced enough that it was wrong to overthrow the rightful monarchs.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 11:24:33 am
And the vikings were advanced enough that they had much greater gender equality than the people on the British isles did, for example, harming your wife was a punishable crime. Seems to me that the norse kings that the britons unlawfully drove off should still rule Britain under your rules. Better get to work on finding out whether the Danish or Swedish king should be put on the throne of England (note that those countries are even Christian. You are going to have to convert to another branch of Christianity again.)
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 11:27:26 am
And the vikings were advanced enough that they had much greater gender equality than the people on the British isles did, for example, harming your wife was a punishable crime. Seems to me that the norse kings that the britons unlawfully drove off should still rule Britain under your rules. Better get to work on finding out whether the Danish or Swedish king should be put on the throne of England (note that those countries are even Christian. You are going to have to convert to another branch of Christianity again.)

Women had good status in Anglo Saxon society as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Anglo-Saxon_society
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 11:52:54 am
You didn't read the article, did you?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 12:10:49 pm
You didn't read the article, did you?

I did read the article. It says this.
Quote
A seminal study was published by Christine Fell as Women in Anglo-Saxon England in 1984. According to Fell, women were "near equal companions to the males in their lives, such as husbands and brothers, much more than in any other era before modern time".[1][2] Despite this sense of equality in some strata of society, Anglo Saxon women were still subject to concubinage. Gender was influenced by social status, religion and sexuality.[3][clarification needed] They were not only allowed to have private influence, but also a wide liberty of intervention in public affairs.[2]

The fact that it says “much more than in any other era before modern time” indicates that they had even greater near equality than in Viking culture.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 12:16:44 pm
But you didn't read further than that.

"...however, Aethelberht's law contradicts this in as much as a man is legally allowed to steal another man's wife as long as he pays him reparation.[1] Once married, a woman was to situate herself as the object of her husband's subjectivity, she was to become the object of his protection and the property, although she still remained the owner of her property.[3] The Church saw that married women had no authority and were to stand under the lordship of men. Therefore, under the church they were not able to teach, witness, take an oath, nor be a judge."
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 12:30:45 pm
But you didn't read further than that.

"...however, Aethelberht's law contradicts this in as much as a man is legally allowed to steal another man's wife as long as he pays him reparation.[1] Once married, a woman was to situate herself as the object of her husband's subjectivity, she was to become the object of his protection and the property, although she still remained the owner of her property.[3] The Church saw that married women had no authority and were to stand under the lordship of men. Therefore, under the church they were not able to teach, witness, take an oath, nor be a judge."
While there was not full gender equality it was still “much more than in any other era before modern time.” The Vikings did not have full gender equality either.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2018, 12:35:10 pm
Viking women were still better off.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 22, 2018, 03:46:23 pm
Do you really wanna go with "more advanced civilization can conquer others" as your answer? Is that your final answer?

Yes. That is how civilization spread throughout history. The Romans conquered the Barbarian tribes and spread their civilization throughout Europe just European powers such as the Spanish Empire conquered the natives and spread advanced European civilization throughout the Americas.
You a big fan of al-Andalus then?

Incoming "reasons."
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: niam2023 on November 22, 2018, 06:01:06 pm
Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.

As I said, Elizabeth II is not the rightful legitimate monarch because she does not follow the true line of primogeniture from William the Conqueror.

And nobody but you cares about that, you manchild. How's your little Manson Family going BTW?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 06:29:12 pm
I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 07:13:52 pm
Viking women were still better off.

The Anglo Saxons were advanced enough in other ways, such as having established Kingdoms instead of tribes, which made it wrong for the Danes to conquer them.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 07:17:36 pm
I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 07:44:53 pm
I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.

What specific degree of advancement is that, and how does that advancement make it wrong to conquer them?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 07:49:23 pm
I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.

What specific degree of advancement is that, and how does that advancement make it wrong to conquer them?

The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 07:52:28 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 08:16:06 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.

It is specific. You can clearly tell when a nation is established.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 08:30:32 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.
It is specific. You can clearly tell when a nation is established.
Well then, you should have no trouble clearly and unambiguously defining it. What specifically is it that qualifies a society as a nation, without which it is merely a tribe?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 08:40:22 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.
It is specific. You can clearly tell when a nation is established.
Well then, you should have no trouble clearly and unambiguously defining it. What specifically is it that qualifies a society as a nation, without which it is merely a tribe?

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a single unified government.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 08:52:13 pm
Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.

As I said, Elizabeth II is not the rightful legitimate monarch because she does not follow the true line of primogeniture from William the Conqueror.

And nobody but you cares about that, you manchild. How's your little Manson Family going BTW?

Well it was called the Jacob Harrison Anglo Catholic Society and since I am Roman Catholic again, I guess I’ll have to change the name of the society.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 08:56:43 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.
It is specific. You can clearly tell when a nation is established.
Well then, you should have no trouble clearly and unambiguously defining it. What specifically is it that qualifies a society as a nation, without which it is merely a tribe?

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a unified government.
Once again, vague. What does "smaller group" even mean? Are we talking population, land area, town/city density, something else entirely or a combination of all of these things? Whichever it is, specifically how small (and I'm talking numbers, not some vague descriptor) defines tribal?

As for blood ties, do I even have to say it? Remind us all, why exactly is your True Heir the True Heir in the first place? It's certainly not merit.

Finally, feudalism is about as far from a unified government as you can possibly get. It's a constantly shifting web of loose hierarchic alliances between ruling clans. If that's what qualifies as a unified government to you, I'd love to see what you think is a fractured mess.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 22, 2018, 09:03:01 pm
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.
I said specific, my little denim diddler. That is vague. Precisely the opposite of specific.
It is specific. You can clearly tell when a nation is established.
Well then, you should have no trouble clearly and unambiguously defining it. What specifically is it that qualifies a society as a nation, without which it is merely a tribe?

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a unified government.
Once again, vague. What does "smaller group" even mean? Are we talking population, land area, town/city density, something else entirely or a combination of all of these things? Whichever it is, specifically how small (and I'm talking numbers, not some vague descriptor) defines tribal?

As for blood ties, do I even have to say it? Remind us all, why exactly is your True Heir the True Heir in the first place? It's certainly not merit.

Finally, feudalism is about as far from a unified government as you can possibly get. It's a constantly shifting web of loose hierarchic alliances between ruling clans. If that's what qualifies as a unified government to you, I'd love to see what you think is a fractured mess.

Well the fact that it is a community indicates town/city density. And Feudalism is a unified government because the lords are under the authority of the King. Tribes are not unified because each tribe has a different chief.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 22, 2018, 09:39:28 pm
Well the fact that it is a community indicates town/city density.
What, can you not read? Give me a fucking number, you little pervert. What specific town/city density defines a nation as opposed to a tribe?
And Feudalism is a unified government because the lords are under the authority of the King. Tribes are not unified because each tribe has a different chief.
It's a collection of completely independent clans with their own internal laws and military who pay a portion of their taxes and soldiers to their liege (not necessarily the king himself) and are kept in their subservient role by force. That's not unified. Unified would be just one lord ruling the entire thing directly, not hundreds of independent fiefs loosely arranged into a highly unstable and ever shifting hierarchy.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2018, 12:32:55 am
Since Knut the Great had a nation and he controlled England (as well as what is now known as Denmark and large parts of Norway and Sweden) and as has been established before, his nation was more advanced than the English one, clearly his descendants own England according to Jacob's silly ideas.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 23, 2018, 01:08:23 am
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a single unified government.

Like the Inca empire.

And the Aztecs.*

And the Iroquois Confederacy.

And tons more.

*Now you say the Aztecs don't count because of human sacrifice, but the problem here is that you call the Romans advanced and they also practiced human sacrifice, that's where the Gladiator games came from.  So if that doesn't stop the Romans from being advanced, then the Aztecs aren't either.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 23, 2018, 01:18:37 am
How about the Mughal Empire, for that matter? Or all of the nations in Southeast Asia that France sorta just ran over?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2018, 03:53:35 am
Something something Christendom.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: rookie on November 23, 2018, 06:27:17 am
Something something Christendom.

Nice to know White Man's Burden is still a thing.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 10:55:11 am
Well the fact that it is a community indicates town/city density.
What, can you not read? Give me a fucking number, you little pervert. What specific town/city density defines a nation as opposed to a tribe?
And Feudalism is a unified government because the lords are under the authority of the King. Tribes are not unified because each tribe has a different chief.
It's a collection of completely independent clans with their own internal laws and military who pay a portion of their taxes and soldiers to their liege (not necessarily the king himself) and are kept in their subservient role by force. That's not unified. Unified would be just one lord ruling the entire thing directly, not hundreds of independent fiefs loosely arranged into a highly unstable and ever shifting hierarchy.

1. A tribe rather than being a specific number is a community which is a group of people living in the same location and are relatively related to each other. The size of the location and how closely related is also ambiguous however what is specific is the level of civilization.
Quote
Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

So a tribal level of society is led by chieftains, while a nation has complex social hierarchies and organized institutional governments.

2. But the laws that the King makes apply to all the fiefs, so it has a unified institutional government. The lords are governors over their specific fief while the King governs the entire Kingdom.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 10:56:39 am
Since Knut the Great had a nation and he controlled England (as well as what is now known as Denmark and large parts of Norway and Sweden) and as has been established before, his nation was more advanced than the English one, clearly his descendants own England according to Jacob's silly ideas.

But as I said, there is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them, and England reached that degree as it was a united nation, so it was wrong for Knut to conquer England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 11:04:54 am
The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.

A tribe is a smaller group, consisting of a community and based on close blood ties. A nation contains multiple communities under a single unified government.

Like the Inca empire.

And the Aztecs.*

And the Iroquois Confederacy.

And tons more.

*Now you say the Aztecs don't count because of human sacrifice, but the problem here is that you call the Romans advanced and they also practiced human sacrifice, that's where the Gladiator games came from.  So if that doesn't stop the Romans from being advanced, then the Aztecs aren't either.

Well the Inca Empire was one of the few examples of an Empire that did not have adaquate levels of civilization to make it wrong to conquer them.
Quote
The Inca Empire was unique in that it lacked many features associated with civilization in the Old World. In the words of one scholar, "The Incas lacked the use of wheeled vehicles. They lacked animals to ride and draft animals that could pull wagons and plows... [They] lacked the knowledge of iron and steel... Above all, they lacked a system of writing
Lacking wheeled vehicles, iron and steel, and writing disqualifies it from having an adaquate level of civilization.

The Iroquois Confederacy was a Confederacy meaning an alliance between different tribes, rather than a unified nation. It lacked the complex hierarchy that made it a nation.

And the gladiator games were different than human sacrifice because,

Quote
A gladiator (Latin: gladiator, "swordsman", from gladius, "sword") was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. Some gladiators were volunteers who risked their lives and their legal and social standing by appearing in the arena. Most were despised as slaves, schooled under harsh conditions, socially marginalized, and segregated even in death.

So the people killed in the gladiator games were either criminals who deserved their death or people who VOLUNTEERED to risk their lives in the gladiator games, and many people risk their lives to do dangerous challenges today.

Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 11:07:57 am
How about the Mughal Empire, for that matter? Or all of the nations in Southeast Asia that France sorta just ran over?

Well the conquest of the Mughal Empire was done by the British East India Company which was chartered by the illegitimate British monarchs, so it was probably for an unjust reason such as corporate greed. The French conquest of Indochina was just because it was to stop the persecution of Christian missionaries there.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2018, 01:47:26 pm
a) Much like this fake inheritance theory, no one in the world believes that this "your society has to meet Jacob's criteria for advancement or anyone is allowed to conquer it" code is how the world works or that such a code even exists.

b) You're going to have to shift the goalposts AGAIN because if you are not allowed to conquer a country then the entire plan to set up another king on the throne of England is also against your own code of honour.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 01:52:51 pm
a) Much like this fake inheritance theory, no one in the world believes that this "your society has to meet Jacob's criteria for advancement or anyone is allowed to conquer it" code is how the world works or that such a code even exists.

b) You're going to have to shift the goalposts AGAIN because if you are not allowed to conquer a country then the entire plan to set up another king on the throne of England is also against your own code of honour.

a) My criteria is based on history. Conquerors justified their conquests based on the primitiveness of the people they conquered. England was considered a legitimate sovereign nation at the time of Knut's conquest.

b) It is not against my code of honor because it is conquest of an illegitimate government to put the true legitimate heir on the throne that is rightfully his.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2018, 02:01:14 pm
a) Why don't you ask some of your schoolteachers or a priest or someone if they think that code of yours is smart or in any way legitimate?

b) I knew it, moving the goalposts again.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 02:08:23 pm
a) Why don't you ask some of your schoolteachers or a priest or someone if they think that code of yours is smart or in any way legitimate?

b) I knew it, moving the goalposts again.

a) The problem is that the teachers and priests today do not have the old fashioned mindset on conquests because the age of colonialism is over.

b) England was a legitimate sovereign nation under the legitimate monarchs so it was the illegitimate monarchs that usurped the throne who violated my code. Having the true heir restored to the throne is retaking what was stolen.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2018, 05:37:30 pm
Every conqueror claims to have been more advanced than whomever they conquered. Doesn't make it true--by your own admission.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 05:39:09 pm
Every conqueror claims to have been more advanced than whomever they conquered. Doesn't make it true--by your own admission.

It is true most of the times. The Romans were more advanced than the barbarians they conquered and the Europeans were more advanced than the natives they conquered in the Americas.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 23, 2018, 06:44:42 pm
1. A tribe rather than being a specific number is a community which is a group of people living in the same location and are relatively related to each other. The size of the location and how closely related is also ambiguous however what is specific is the level of civilization.
Quote
Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

So a tribal level of society is led by chieftains, while a nation has complex social hierarchies and organized institutional governments.
Stop shifting the fucking goal posts and give me a straight answer. If it's not about population after all, then at the very least admit you fucked up by bringing it up in the first place. Secondly, as I've said many-a time already, be specific. "Limited instances of social rank and prestige" and "complex social hierarchies" doesn't actually mean anything if you don't define what qualifies as "limited" or "complex" and what doesn't.
2. But the laws that the King makes apply to all the fiefs, so it has a unified institutional government. The lords are governors over their specific fief while the King governs the entire Kingdom.
No, they very much do not. He sets the obligations of his direct vassals (but not his indirect vassals), and that's about as far as is say in his vassal's affairs goes. Internal matters such as taxes on the peasants and merchants, penal system and even succession laws are decided solely by the local lord, whoever he or she may be. In fact, that sort of fragmented governance was kind of the whole point of feudalism in the first place. After Rome and its state bureaucracy fell, managing anything larger than a town and few hundred square kilometers of farmland directly was simply impossible, so a hierarchic alliance of independent micro-states was the best they could do.

Honestly, for someone who wants so badly to go back to such a system, you seem to know fuck all about how it actually works.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 07:12:56 pm
1. A tribe rather than being a specific number is a community which is a group of people living in the same location and are relatively related to each other. The size of the location and how closely related is also ambiguous however what is specific is the level of civilization.
Quote
Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

So a tribal level of society is led by chieftains, while a nation has complex social hierarchies and organized institutional governments.
Stop shifting the fucking goal posts and give me a straight answer. If it's not about population after all, then at the very least admit you fucked up by bringing it up in the first place. Secondly, as I've said many-a time already, be specific. "Limited instances of social rank and prestige" and "complex social hierarchies" doesn't actually mean anything if you don't define what qualifies as "limited" or "complex" and what doesn't.
2. But the laws that the King makes apply to all the fiefs, so it has a unified institutional government. The lords are governors over their specific fief while the King governs the entire Kingdom.
No, they very much do not. He sets the obligations of his direct vassals (but not his indirect vassals), and that's about as far as is say in his vassal's affairs goes. Internal matters such as taxes on the peasants and merchants, penal system and even succession laws are decided solely by the local lord, whoever he or she may be. In fact, that sort of fragmented governance was kind of the whole point of feudalism in the first place. After Rome and its state bureaucracy fell, managing anything larger than a town and few hundred square kilometers of farmland directly was simply impossible, so a hierarchic alliance of independent micro-states was the best they could do.

Honestly, for someone who wants so badly to go back to such a system, you seem to know fuck all about how it actually works.

1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.

2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 23, 2018, 08:04:10 pm
1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.
Once again, because you apparently haven't figured out how this whole reading thing works. Address the fact that you fucked up by bringing up population when by your own admission it's irrelevant, and be fucking SPECIFIC. What specific, objective characteristics defines a chief as opposed to a lord? What does "more complex" actually mean? How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.
2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.
Bull fucking shit. As I said, they can order taxation (as in, taxation of direct vassal lords, not taxation of said lord's subjects) and set obligations for their vassals. Yes, they can also disinherit rebellious vassals, assuming said vassal loses their rebellion (which is far from guaranteed). As for common law, if I may do what you often do in these situations and quote the Wikipeds.
Quote
Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts.

Following Montesquieu's theory of the "separation of powers", only Parliament has the power to legislate; but in the event of a statute being ambiguous, the courts have exclusive power to decide its true meaning, using the principles of statutory interpretation. Since the courts have no authority to legislate, the "legal fiction" is that they "declare" (rather than "create") the common law. The House of Lords took this "declaratory power" a stage further in DPP v Shaw,[50] where, in creating the new crime of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals", Viscount Simonds claimed the court had a "residual power to protect the moral welfare of the state".[51][52] As Parliament became ever more established and influential, Parliamentary legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today's judges are able to innovate only in certain very narrowly defined areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law)

To sum up, it was basically the wild west of legal systems until parliament came along and took control over the whole thing as part of their gradual chipping away of the nobility's power.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 08:51:02 pm
1. Tribal society has chiefs as their leaders. Nations are more complex, because they have multiple levels of government and a bureaucracy.
Once again, because you apparently haven't figured out how this whole reading thing works. Address the fact that you fucked up by bringing up population when by your own admission it's irrelevant, and be fucking SPECIFIC. What specific, objective characteristics defines a chief as opposed to a lord? What does "more complex" actually mean? How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.
2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.
Bull fucking shit. As I said, they can order taxation (as in, taxation of direct vassal lords, not taxation of said lord's subjects) and set obligations for their vassals. Yes, they can also disinherit rebellious vassals, assuming said vassal loses their rebellion (which is far from guaranteed). As for common law, if I may do what you often do in these situations and quote the Wikipeds.
Quote
Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts.

Following Montesquieu's theory of the "separation of powers", only Parliament has the power to legislate; but in the event of a statute being ambiguous, the courts have exclusive power to decide its true meaning, using the principles of statutory interpretation. Since the courts have no authority to legislate, the "legal fiction" is that they "declare" (rather than "create") the common law. The House of Lords took this "declaratory power" a stage further in DPP v Shaw,[50] where, in creating the new crime of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals", Viscount Simonds claimed the court had a "residual power to protect the moral welfare of the state".[51][52] As Parliament became ever more established and influential, Parliamentary legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today's judges are able to innovate only in certain very narrowly defined areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law)

To sum up, it was basically the wild west of legal systems until parliament came along and took control over the whole thing as part of their gradual chipping away of the nobility's power.

1. Any system that has any multiple levels of government counts as a nation. Multiple levels indicates there being local governments under a central government.

2. There are many decrees that Kings made indicating that they did have absolute power to make laws. This is from a history site. http://www.thefinertimes.com/Ancient-History/it-was-good-to-be-king-in-medieval-times.html
Quote
The best term to describe the power that medieval Kings had is "absolute".  It is almost pointless to talk about the wealth that a medieval King had because for all intents and purposes, the entire kingdom was the possession of the King.  Their power was absolute so whatever the King determined was the right thing for the people to do or for him to do became the law of the land instantly. 

The feudal system was a bureaucracy, and the fiefdoms had a great amount of autonomy, but the King’s rule was supreme. And parliament in England represented both nobility and the common folk because since it had the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 23, 2018, 08:52:17 pm
One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.
You were warned.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 09:17:06 pm
One more vague non-answer out of you and we're done.
You were warned.

I don’t see how my answer was vague. I explained what multiple levels mean and how any society with multiple levels is a nation.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 23, 2018, 09:20:43 pm
Quote
How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

Once again, learn to fucking read. It's not hard.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 09:29:44 pm
Quote
How many "multiple levels" of government and bureaucracy are required, and what are each of these multiple levels composed of and what do they actually do?

Once again, learn to fucking read. It's not hard.

I answered that question and said that any multiple levels of government makes it a nation.
Quote
1. Any system that has any multiple levels of government counts as a nation. Multiple levels indicates there being local governments under a central government.
It is you that needs to learn to fucking read.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 23, 2018, 09:34:02 pm
Once again, vague bullshit. "local governments" does not answer the question. How many of these levels are required, and what does each level need in terms of power, composition and duties. Not that I expect you to actually answer the question at this point.

What the fuck am I even doing? I said I was done two posts ago.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 09:50:19 pm
Once again, vague bullshit. "local governments" does not answer the question. How many of these levels are required, and what does each level need in terms of power, composition and duties. Not that I expect you to actually answer the question at this point.

What the fuck am I even doing? I said I was done two posts ago.

At least two levels and the higher level needs to have supreme authority over the local levels. By the way this is my 1485th post and 1485 was the year of the Battle of Bosworth Field when Richard III England’s last true King was killed in battle and the throne was usurped by the illegitimate false king Henry VII.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 23, 2018, 09:50:54 pm
2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.

I have to point this out specifically because of how laughably wrong it actually is. Kings in the *medieval times* had absolute power?

Just that one statement proves that you know fuck-all about European history and should really just stop now, because absolute monarchy is a *Renaissance* concept that very definitely did not exist in Europe in the fucking 1200s.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 23, 2018, 09:55:28 pm
2. You have it wrong. The kings in the medieval times did have absolute power. There was a concept that they had divine right to rule. Kings had the power to disinherit rebellious vassals, order taxation, and make laws for the entire kingdom. King Henry II established Common Law in England.

I have to point this out specifically because of how laughably wrong it actually is. Kings in the *medieval times* had absolute power?

Just that one statement proves that you know fuck-all about European history and should really just stop now, because absolute monarchy is a *Renaissance* concept that very definitely did not exist in Europe in the fucking 1200s.

Ok it wasn’t absolute but the kings had a considerable amount of power, enough that the kingdoms count as united civilized nations.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 23, 2018, 09:59:31 pm
Sure, if murdering your neighbors over a miniscule territory dispute or a couple of cows counts as "civilized", why the heck not.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2018, 11:58:16 pm
If "Multiple levels of government" is all that is needed then the conquest of North America was illegitimate according to Jacob's everchanging goalposts. Actually, we are back to Cnut the Great's line being the true rulers of England as well according to his latest rules.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 24, 2018, 12:55:24 am
If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 24, 2018, 01:34:38 am
When I was a kid one of my favorite books was HG Wells's The War of the Worlds, the harrowing story of how the British Empire suddenly was attacked by Martians, a far more advanced society that came to conquer them and reduce them to slaves and livestock and kill anyone who fought back or got in the way.

DIRECT QUESTION Jacob:

Do you root for the Martians in this book?  If it were to really happen, the cylinders fall from the sky, the great Fighting Machines are burning the English alive and choking them with the black smoke, would you take the Martians side and be willingly consumed as a snack for your new overlords?  After all they are the far more advanced society, with the British lacking Interplanetary space travel, giant fighting machines, heat rays or an advanced system of government that units the whole planet so they aren't advanced enough for conquest to be wrong.

(http://www.edgarriceburroughs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/War-Of-The-World-Original-Drawings-To-be-Sold-at-an-Auction.jpg)

Who's side are you on here?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 07:53:41 am
If "Multiple levels of government" is all that is needed then the conquest of North America was illegitimate according to Jacob's everchanging goalposts. Actually, we are back to Cnut the Great's line being the true rulers of England as well according to his latest rules.

The tribes usually had one chief as the level of government. And England already had multiple levels of government before Cnut conquered it because it had nobles that had earldoms over the different parts of England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 07:55:52 am
If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?

No because the Catholic Church as a whole has multiple levels of government.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 08:04:08 am
When I was a kid one of my favorite books was HG Wells's The War of the Worlds, the harrowing story of how the British Empire suddenly was attacked by Martians, a far more advanced society that came to conquer them and reduce them to slaves and livestock and kill anyone who fought back or got in the way.

DIRECT QUESTION Jacob:

Do you root for the Martians in this book?  If it were to really happen, the cylinders fall from the sky, the great Fighting Machines are burning the English alive and choking them with the black smoke, would you take the Martians side and be willingly consumed as a snack for your new overlords?  After all they are the far more advanced society, with the British lacking Interplanetary space travel, giant fighting machines, heat rays or an advanced system of government that units the whole planet so they aren't advanced enough for conquest to be wrong.

(http://www.edgarriceburroughs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/War-Of-The-World-Original-Drawings-To-be-Sold-at-an-Auction.jpg)

Who's side are you on here?

I am on the side of the British Because first of all, it is wrong to eat sentient beings that you conquered and second, the British met the adaquate degree of advancement because being a nation with multiple levels of government, a bureaucracy, a system of writing, knowledge of iron and steel, computers, and millitary technology that makes it advanced enough that it is wrong to conquer them, unless it is for the purpose of restoring the true heir to the throne of England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 24, 2018, 08:08:45 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 08:11:07 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?

It would be bad that they ate 5% of the population but good that they restored the true heir.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 24, 2018, 08:12:41 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?

It would be bad that they ate 5% of the population but good that they restored the true heir.

But would it be worth it? That is the question.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 08:15:53 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?

It would be bad that they ate 5% of the population but good that they restored the true heir.

But would it be worth it? That is the question.

No because they could have restored the true heir without eating 5% of the population.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 24, 2018, 08:22:41 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 08:25:54 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.

How hard is it to understand? As I said, Cnut conquered England which was advanced enough because it had multiple levels of government so his conquest of England was wrong and he deposed the rightful King.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2018, 08:38:42 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.

How hard is it to understand? As I said, Cnut conquered England which was advanced enough because it had multiple levels of government so his conquest of England was wrong and he deposed the rightful King.
It's not hard to understand.

If you like them, it's ok. If you don't it's not. Which is why you never answered my question about al-Andalus.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 24, 2018, 08:56:03 am
Knut's government had multiple levels as well, but as always you disregard things that don't work and if I'll ask for a number you'll pick one that suits you best and then ignore it when I prove that the British conquered nations with complex and multilevel governments.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 09:04:07 am
Knut's government had multiple levels as well, but as always you disregard things that don't work and if I'll ask for a number you'll pick one that suits you best and then ignore it when I prove that the British conquered nations with complex and multilevel governments.

I know that Knuts government had multiple levels, but it was illegitimate because he conquered the previous legitimate government of England. And yes the British conquered nations around the world but the British government that did so was illegitimate because it did not have the rightful heir on the throne.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 09:05:48 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.

How hard is it to understand? As I said, Cnut conquered England which was advanced enough because it had multiple levels of government so his conquest of England was wrong and he deposed the rightful King.
It's not hard to understand.

If you like them, it's ok. If you don't it's not. Which is why you never answered my question about al-Andalus.

I am not a fan of al-Andalus because they conquered the Christian kingdoms of Spain that were advanced enough that they counted as nations.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: rookie on November 24, 2018, 09:33:59 am
Let me ask you a question. Why the obsession over who is basically a figurehead of a foriegn (to you) government?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 09:36:08 am
Let me ask you a question. Why the obsession over who is basically a figurehead of a foriegn (to you) government?

Because I have English ancestry so I have a strong attachment to England.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2018, 10:14:15 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.

How hard is it to understand? As I said, Cnut conquered England which was advanced enough because it had multiple levels of government so his conquest of England was wrong and he deposed the rightful King.
It's not hard to understand.

If you like them, it's ok. If you don't it's not. Which is why you never answered my question about al-Andalus.

I am not a fan of al-Andalus because they conquered the Christian kingdoms of Spain that were advanced enough that they counted as nations.
I know, Christian royals in Spain were big fans of burning Jewish people and various others they regarded as heretics while the Caphilate tolerated Jewish and Christian communities-they also had lots of that art, science and culture stuff going on. Very suspicious.
Let me ask you a question. Why the obsession over who is basically a figurehead of a foriegn (to you) government?

Because I have English ancestry so I have a strong attachment to England.
Your ancestry means nothing, you don't live there, you've probably never set foot there. The England you're in love with is a psuedohistorical fantasy that nobody living in Britain cares for or wants.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 24, 2018, 10:16:23 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?

It would be bad that they ate 5% of the population but good that they restored the true heir.

But would it be worth it? That is the question.

If the true heir is a cannibal, would it be worth it if he eats 5% of the population?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 10:20:08 am
Is there any question that you can answer without moving the goalposts? Cnut's kingdom had multiple levels of government but suddenly it's not enough for you. The Vatican government is really simplistic and has no more levels than they did but somehow that's still "civilized" according to you.

As it appears that you do not debate fairly I see no reason to continue to talk with you.

How hard is it to understand? As I said, Cnut conquered England which was advanced enough because it had multiple levels of government so his conquest of England was wrong and he deposed the rightful King.
It's not hard to understand.

If you like them, it's ok. If you don't it's not. Which is why you never answered my question about al-Andalus.

I am not a fan of al-Andalus because they conquered the Christian kingdoms of Spain that were advanced enough that they counted as nations.
I know, Christian royals in Spain were big fans of burning Jewish people and various others they regarded as heretics while the Caphilate tolerated Jewish and Christian communities-they also had lots of that art, science and culture stuff going on. Very suspicious.

The inquisition was in response to the Muslim conquests of Spain. Jews were targeted in the inquisition because they were seen as collaborators with the Muslim invaders, but they were given mercy because they could leave Spain if they didn’t want to convert to Christianity. And my ancestry means something because it makes me obligated to help the true heir who deserves to be on the throne of England. I only have a say in English affairs because the true heir does.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 10:23:02 am
What if the aliens restored the True Heir (of the week), but ate 5% of the population in exchange? Would that be okay?

It would be bad that they ate 5% of the population but good that they restored the true heir.

But would it be worth it? That is the question.

If the true heir is a cannibal, would it be worth it if he eats 5% of the population?

Then I would kidnap the son of the true heir and raise him to not be a cannibal and put him on the throne instead of his cannibal father.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 24, 2018, 11:11:41 am
HAH!

a) You couldn't kidnap a small dog.

b) That's moving the goalpost again. You just can't help it.

Anyway, final chance:

Direct question: Let's define some things. WHEN is a nation so advanced (according to your bullshit rules) that no one is allowed to conquer it?

Is it about the level of bureaucracy in the government? Can you give any definition RIGHT NOW that you will not change once pointed out that there is another nation that fits the bill better?

If such a "sufficiently advanced" nation is conquered or the leader dethroned, do you still think that the heirs/descendants of the last "legitimate" ruler should get their land back? If so, how much of the old nation do they deserve to regain? The old borders of the time or the current ones?

Consider your reply carefully before posting it because I am not going to allow you to move the goalposts again.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 11:27:09 am
HAH!

a) You couldn't kidnap a small dog.

b) That's moving the goalpost again. You just can't help it.

Anyway, final chance:

Direct question: Let's define some things. WHEN is a nation so advanced (according to your bullshit rules) that no one is allowed to conquer it?

Is it about the level of bureaucracy in the government? Can you give any definition RIGHT NOW that you will not change once pointed out that there is another nation that fits the bill better?

If such a "sufficiently advanced" nation is conquered or the leader dethroned, do you still think that the heirs/descendants of the last "legitimate" ruler should get their land back? If so, how much of the old nation do they deserve to regain? The old borders of the time or the current ones?

Consider your reply carefully before posting it because I am not going to allow you to move the goalposts again.

It has to have towns and cities and have at least two levels of government, with local governments for towns and cities, and a central government ruling over the local governments. It has to have writing, and knowledge of iron and steel making. And the heirs of the last legitimate ruler deserve to regain the old borders. England’s border has mostly stayed the same.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Askold on November 24, 2018, 11:35:50 am
So you're not counting Scotland and Wales then, just England? Because Britain's borders have changed a lot over the centuries...

Anyway, according to your rules no English king has ever been legitimate. Rome rules over Britain and they certainly had a more than enough development in their empire. Heck, after the borders of Rome changed and retreated to East the level of bureaucracy in Europe collapsed and it took centuries until another nation had a bureaucracy that could control an area bigger than a city.

And as I've said before, the Byzantine empire was a direct continuation of Rome (despite your bullshit claims otherwise) and therefore the inheritance of England went to Byzantine (whom the English and other European nations attacked unlawfully) and then the Tsar and finally Finland after the collapse of Tsarist Russia. The first and only king of Finland still has descendants in Germany if you want to find them and put them on the throne of England.

(And if you're going to go for some other bullshit excuse again I'll remind you that if a nation collapsing means that the new ownership goes to some other country rather than the heir then the current queen of England is the rightful ruler because her family got the throne and therefore the previous line ceased to be the rightful rulers.)
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 11:42:04 am
So you're not counting Scotland and Wales then, just England? Because Britain's borders have changed a lot over the centuries...

Anyway, according to your rules no English king has ever been legitimate. Rome rules over Britain and they certainly had a more than enough development in their empire. Heck, after the borders of Rome changed and retreated to East the level of bureaucracy in Europe collapsed and it took centuries until another nation had a bureaucracy that could control an area bigger than a city.

And as I've said before, the Byzantine empire was a direct continuation of Rome (despite your bullshit claims otherwise) and therefore the inheritance of England went to Byzantine (whom the English and other European nations attacked unlawfully) and then the Tsar and finally Finland after the collapse of Tsarist Russia. The first and only king of Finland still has descendants in Germany if you want to find them and put them on the throne of England.

(And if you're going to go for some other bullshit excuse again I'll remind you that if a nation collapsing means that the new ownership goes to some other country rather than the heir then the current queen of England is the rightful ruler because her family got the throne and therefore the previous line ceased to be the rightful rulers.)
The Principality of Wales was a puppet state of England at the time when the last true king, Richard III was killed in battle. Scotland was a separate Kingdom at the time.

Ok I accept that the Byzantine Empire was a continuation of Rome. However England is still legitimate because in treaties, they recognized Charlamagne and Holy Roman Emperors as the Emperors in the West and the Holy Roman Empire recognized other European Kingdoms such as England as legitimate.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 24, 2018, 01:31:39 pm
It has to have towns and cities and have at least two levels of government, with local governments for towns and cities, and a central government ruling over the local governments.

Why?  Why is it okay to murder, rape and enslave someone who doesn't have those things?

Quote
It has to have writing, and knowledge of iron and steel making.


Why?  Why is it okay to murder, rape and enslave someone from a society that doesn't have those things yet?

Jesus said you must love your neighbor as yourself.  You seem to spend a lot of time trying to find excuses not to love your neighbors that have no basis in the bible (ie "The refugees aren't here legally"  "They're technology isn't advanced enough").  Jesus never says that makes it okay to kill someone or leave them to die.

If Christianity is true Jacob, you are going to hell unless you repent and change your ways.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: dpareja on November 24, 2018, 02:39:18 pm
If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?

No because the Catholic Church as a whole has multiple levels of government.

The Catholic Church doesn't govern Vatican City. That is governed solely and absolutely by (at present) Jorge Bergoglio.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 03:14:54 pm
If a nation needs multiple levels of government, can we seize the Vatican?

No because the Catholic Church as a whole has multiple levels of government.

The Catholic Church doesn't govern Vatican City. That is governed solely and absolutely by (at present) Jorge Bergoglio.

And he is the Pope of the Catholic Church so the Catholic Church does govern Vatican City. Besides, it is advanced enough since it is a city and so it counts as a micronatiom which is a level between tribe and nation. It therefore has the same status as Monaco.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2018, 03:37:26 pm
Right now Jacob is describing the more advanced nation as the one that burned alive minorities that were tolerated and had the protection of the law from the nation that preceded it. That should tell everybody what he means by "advanced."
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 24, 2018, 03:56:54 pm
Right now Jacob is describing the more advanced nation as the one that burned alive minorities that were tolerated and had the protection of the law from the nation that preceded it. That should tell everybody what he means by "advanced."

Because the Kingdom of Spain was established after regaining Christian Land that was stolen by the Muslims. There were previous Christian Kingdoms on the Iberian Penninsula that were conquered by the Muslims. As I said, the Inquisition was a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian Land and Jews were targeted because they collaborated with the Muslims, but were given mercy because they could leave Spain if they didn’t want to convert to Catholicism.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Skybison on November 25, 2018, 01:11:10 am
Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 25, 2018, 06:12:12 am
Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?

It justifies conquering them because they are primitive and civilization must be brought to them. It is for the greater good of spreading civilization.
Title: Re: You go on a vacation...
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 25, 2018, 06:27:03 am
Jacob DIRECT QUESTION

Why does not having the wheel, metal, or writing make it okay for someone to be robbed, enslaved or killed?

It justifies conquering them because they are primitive and civilization must be brought to them. It is for the greater good of spreading civilization.
A guy saying the "for the greater good" in that context is...well, the same guy who thought the obscene horrors of the Spanish Inquisition could be justified because Jewish people were just trying to get by and live normal lives when Muslims ran the place.

And still a guy who insists he's gonna convert anybody to his deeply authoritarian, anti democratic pro genocide way of thinking. You're scum Jacob, thankfully you're the sort of scum that lacks the charisma and organisational skills to bring your horrific, primitive and regressive vision of how the world should be to fruition so I guess we'll just tolerate your mad barking here. It's all you got!