Do you feel superior to young-earth creationists?

General Burnside said:
It is safe to say that none of us will ever succeed in persuading PMP of the validity of evolution. He must reach these conclusions himself, just as I did. As some of you will recall, I, too, was once a fundamentalist wacko who believed 99.9% of biologists are in league with the devil, but eventually I set aside my pride and embraced reality. Hell, I was leaps and bounds more insane than PMP. There is definitely hope for him.
Click to expand...

I probably would've gone down the same path had my father not held a somewhat more liberal theology than my church. I ate up the creationist things my preacher told me, but then my dad contradicted me one day and argued that evolution wasn't inconsistent with the bible. I suppose that opened up the possibility in my mind. If that hadn't been the case, I don't know what would've happened. When I embrace a system, I tend to jump into it and go to the most extreme conclusions.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
noble patricians?........those were the guys we beheaded during the French Revolution, weren't they?........
Click to expand...

The terror of the French revolution was kind of random. For the first two years, France actually had a constitutional monarchy. And they didn't behead the King just because he was King even after the radicals got into power. The King conspired with foreigners to invade the country and overthrow the government. He was obviously guilty of treason. The only reason there was any debate over whether or not he should be executed at all is because so many people in the revolution opposed capital punishment.

After that, however, things got out of hand. It wasn't even all nobles - although they did execute even radical liberal nobles like the Duke of Orleans (who was the cousin of the King, but actually voted for his execution). It was mostly the moderates who had established the constitutional monarchy. They also targeted foreigners - for instance, one German was elected to the parliament, and he wasn't going to live. Thomas Paine was actually elected to parliament as well, and he was imprisoned. He's very lucky to have escaped the revolution with his life.

Pro-tip: if you are ever a foreigner in a country undergoing a revolution built on the internationalistic pretenses of universal brotherhood, I would advise you to get out of the place and not try to participate. Somebody is going to find it politically convenient to execute you at some point.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually that's not quite correct 3D. The Roman Republic lasted from 509 BC to 44BC or 27BC depending on whether you consider Ceasar's dictatorship in 44 BC or the beginning of Augustus Principiate in 27 BC as the end of the Republic. In 287 BC, during the conflict of the orders, wealthy Pleabians achieved political equality with the Patrician order. That means the Patricians ran the Roman Republic for less than 250 years of it's 482 year history.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it's kind of confusing things to label Rome a "republic" in the way the term is often used today. Here's a flow-chart describing their system of government:

800px-Roman_constitution.svg.png


Yeah, I can't figure out how it works either.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually that's not quite correct 3D. The Roman Republic lasted from 509 BC to 44BC or 27BC depending on whether you consider Ceasar's dictatorship in 44 BC or the beginning of Augustus Principiate in 27 BC as the end of the Republic. In 287 BC, during the conflict of the orders, wealthy Pleabians achieved political equality with the Patrician order. That means the Patricians ran the Roman Republic for less than 250 years of it's 482 year history.
Click to expand...

Giving plebes political equality is not the same thing as giving up control for running the show. Its just a noble gesture. However, if the bourgeoisie had followed their example, they could have saved the French Monarchy, as well as their own heads. Ironically, the patricians were against monarchy. While I detest the French Revolution and the evil men who ran the show, I do think much of the bourgeoisie got what they deserved for the childish way they handled things in the Estates General.
 
Really, the radicalism of the French revolution was mostly something caused by the fact that so many foreign countries declared war on France in an attempt to destroy the republic. The fact that the King of France was still alive, and always attempting to collaborate with these foreigners, was a huge liability. However, the extremism of the Jacobins soon burnt itself out.

Because of republican fervor, though, the French were able to amass an army the size of which Europe had not seen since the days of Rome. Most countries maintained armies of a few tens of thousands of soldiers back then. The French had hundreds of thousands in their army. The royalists picked a fight they couldn't win, and swiftly got crushed.
 
General Sherman said:
I probably would've gone down the same path had my father not held a somewhat more liberal theology than my church. I ate up the creationist things my preacher told me, but then my dad contradicted me one day and argued that evolution wasn't inconsistent with the bible. I suppose that opened up the possibility in my mind. If that hadn't been the case, I don't know what would've happened. When I embrace a system, I tend to jump into it and go to the most extreme conclusions.
Click to expand...

In my case, it was a method of receiving attention. Being a fascist fundamentalist theocrat made me feel as though I had some degree of power. The root of the problem was that I loathed myself.

Getting laid changed everything. I gained confidence, started dressing better, got a decent job, etc. I realized that nobody likes a controlling asshole...or at least not the sort of people with whom I wish to associate. I learned that I actually like people who think for themselves, even when I passionately disagree. It makes life interesting.

Yes, pussy taught me all that.
 
General Sherman said:
I honestly think it's kind of confusing things to label Rome a "republic" in the way the term is often used today. Here's a flow-chart describing their system of government:

800px-Roman_constitution.svg.png


Yeah, I can't figure out how it works either.
Click to expand...
That's because it was really an oligarchy. By the way, this chart doesn't identify which magistrate are curule magistrates. That is, which magistrates have imperium and which do not. I should also point out that the title of this chart is a misnomer. This is an organizational chart of the government of the Res Publica. This is not the Roman constitution. That was a major weakness of the Res Publica. There was no writen constitution but rather it was vaguely defined by the mos maiorum.
 
Last edited:
General Burnside said:
In my case, it was a method of receiving attention. Being a fascist fundamentalist theocrat made me feel as though I had some degree of power. The root of the problem was that I loathed myself.

Getting laid changed everything. I gained confidence, started dressing better, got a decent job, etc. I realized that nobody likes a controlling asshole...or at least not the sort of people with whom I wish to associate. I learned that I actually like people who think for themselves, even when I passionately disagree. It makes life interesting.

Yes, pussy taught me all that.
Click to expand...
Uhhhm....don't you mean the love of a woman taught you that? Congratulations Brent. You've evolved.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because it was really an oligarchy. By the way, this chart doesn't identify which magistrate are curule magistrates. That is, which magistrates have imperium and which do not. I should also point out that the title of this chart is a misnomer. This is an organizational chart of the government of the Res Publica. This is not the Roman constitution. That was a major weakness of the Res Publica. There was no writen constitution but rather it was vaguely defined by the mos maiorum.
Click to expand...

I think people tend to romanticize ancient Republics in a way that's not really justified. The only way you could really call them republics is if you use the modern weak definition of "republic", which basically just means a government without a monarchy. Aristotle defined republic in as "mixed government", meaning a mixture of monarchy, ogliarchy, and democracy. However, clearly no one really uses this definition, as by it the UK would be a republic and America wouldn't.

A few founders claimed inspiration from these early republics, but you really do not really see that in the constitution. The true source of the governmental system found in the constitution seems to have clearly been the British. The president was the King, you had two houses for the legislature, and one classical feature of the British system has always been a high degree of judicial independence. However, the federalists couldn't very well just go out and say they were basing it off of Britian (that was, indeed, one of the biggest Anti-Federalist charges against the constitution). So they made references to ancient republics, and claimed new discoveries in "the science of politics", in order to cover their asses. In truth, all they were really doing was ripping off the British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top