HBK
member
Still, a government that disarms its citizens can't be trusted.
UK paper asks: What's wrong with shooting burglars?
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
- Status
Agricola:
Again, you miss the point while making it for me.
Your historical namesake (whom you presumably admire) was an invader laboring for an alien power whose interest in the inhabitants was solely to enrich themselves through taxation via pacification and domestication. Ie:robbery (writ large.) The native inhabits response to this robbery attempt would be of questionable legal virtue under current British law.
Your disagreement with the brief biography of "Agricola" from dictionary.com is not one of fact, but language. The intent was that under Agricola's term, the process of taking control of Britannia was completed, not necessarily that he himself had begun and ended the process. You yourself wrote, "Once Agricola had conquered the remainder of the country following the battle of Mons Graupius..." which would seem to bear out my claim.
As to imaginary lines, and on which side worthiness lies, I am sure that one could have an interesting conversation were one to ask a Scot, a Welshman, an Irishman, and a few others.
As to the jury process, the Simpson trial provided a graphic demonstration between FACT and TRUTH. (TRUTH being subjective, FACT being objective.) TRUTH won out over FACT, in that instance (in fairness, most legal systems do not seem to make a distinction between the two.) Other occassions:
-The British Parliment held TRUE the idea that their colonies on the Atlantic seaboard in the Americas would be taxed to pay part of the cost of the (then) latest of the wars between England and France. In FACT, this was demonstrated to not be correct.
-It was held TRUE that "Britannia Ruled the Waves", and was also FACT for a good number of years. By the early 20th Century, this FACT was conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect, but was nontheless held to be TRUE for a couple more decades.
While Simpsons not guilty plea was found to be TRUE, only a deranged lemming/LA County Jury could find that to be FACT. This was later demonstrated when Simpson was found guilty under civil, not criminal law.
KC
Again, you miss the point while making it for me.
Your historical namesake (whom you presumably admire) was an invader laboring for an alien power whose interest in the inhabitants was solely to enrich themselves through taxation via pacification and domestication. Ie:robbery (writ large.) The native inhabits response to this robbery attempt would be of questionable legal virtue under current British law.
Your disagreement with the brief biography of "Agricola" from dictionary.com is not one of fact, but language. The intent was that under Agricola's term, the process of taking control of Britannia was completed, not necessarily that he himself had begun and ended the process. You yourself wrote, "Once Agricola had conquered the remainder of the country following the battle of Mons Graupius..." which would seem to bear out my claim.
As to imaginary lines, and on which side worthiness lies, I am sure that one could have an interesting conversation were one to ask a Scot, a Welshman, an Irishman, and a few others.
As to the jury process, the Simpson trial provided a graphic demonstration between FACT and TRUTH. (TRUTH being subjective, FACT being objective.) TRUTH won out over FACT, in that instance (in fairness, most legal systems do not seem to make a distinction between the two.) Other occassions:
-The British Parliment held TRUE the idea that their colonies on the Atlantic seaboard in the Americas would be taxed to pay part of the cost of the (then) latest of the wars between England and France. In FACT, this was demonstrated to not be correct.
-It was held TRUE that "Britannia Ruled the Waves", and was also FACT for a good number of years. By the early 20th Century, this FACT was conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect, but was nontheless held to be TRUE for a couple more decades.
While Simpsons not guilty plea was found to be TRUE, only a deranged lemming/LA County Jury could find that to be FACT. This was later demonstrated when Simpson was found guilty under civil, not criminal law.
KC
agricola
Member
KC,
What an odd turn of phrase you have. The dictionary.com definition is neither TRUTH nor FACT because it is in error - the majority of the then British were already under Roman control, and had been prior to P. Cerialis becoming governor.
With regards for your statement against Agricola, do you hold similar resentment against George Washington? Or those who sailed on the Mayflower?
FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost.
Also, civil law requires a lower burden of proof than criminal. OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions. Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
What an odd turn of phrase you have. The dictionary.com definition is neither TRUTH nor FACT because it is in error - the majority of the then British were already under Roman control, and had been prior to P. Cerialis becoming governor.
With regards for your statement against Agricola, do you hold similar resentment against George Washington? Or those who sailed on the Mayflower?
FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost.
Also, civil law requires a lower burden of proof than criminal. OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions. Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
ninenot
Member
Well, then, if the article is accurate, the Brits will have to learn the old Up North saying: "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up"
Agricola:
As far as the life of the historical figure, it would seem that a number of other sources, including the "Columbia Encyclopedia", the "Encyclopedia Britannica", and the "Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography" corroborate the assertations made by dictionary.com and myself.
"FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost."
Ahhh...so Agricola was a Good Guy because he was a kinder, gentler, tyrant, who made the (proverbial) trains run on time?
Re: the Mayflower, Geo. Washington, et al.
This is an inaccruate comparasion. The Romans were interested in expanding their empire in order to draw new revenue from conquered peoples (at least in that point of the empire,) no longer as a means of self-preservation.
The Mayflower colonists were not interested in subjugating the natives, as the Romans were. The Puritans were intent on creating their own religious haven, and were concerned about the natives only when one group sent raiding parties against the other.
Washington & Co. were uninterested in Indians per se. Only when attempting to negotiate heirarchical treaties with non-heirarchial societies, and the attendant frustrations, did the natives become an issue to the colonists, and later the US.
[The British Colonial administration had attempted to deal with the problems between the natives and the colonists by restricting the ability of the Crown colonies to expand past the Applachians or into the Ohio River Valley.
There were no such restrictions on the colonies that would make up Canada, and there was no way for the British government from enforcing such an edict on the French or Spanish colonies had the 1776 revolt been unsucessful.
Yes, it was the end of the various tribes, but prior to the re-introduction of the horse to the Americas by the Spanish, the Plains Indians had been in decline and doing ecological damage similar to that of the late 19th century, just not in as organized a fashion. The Spanish had already expanded into California and the Southwest, spreading their influence via a feudal manorial system. Unorganized, stone-age societies do not last long when matched with industrializing organized ones.]
"OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions."
No. It means that under that particular finding of law, there was an insufficient amount of evidence to determine that he (Simpson) had, beyond a reasonable doubt, comitted the crime. IT DOES NOT mean that he unequivocally did not commit the crime.
"Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant."
Did I have equal access to the evidence as did the jury? Thanks to the media coverage, yes. (Due to media coverage, the general public probably had *better* access to all evidence than did the jury.) Was I a witness? No, 'The Real Killers' (read: Simpson) made sure of that. Are my opinions relevant? As I was not on the jury (and would have very like been rejected by the defence as a possible jury member), and both criminal and civil trials have been concluded, my opinions are not relevant. However, your position questioning them is less so given that you are neither a resident nor citizen of the US. (FWIW, your status as a LEO, active or not, foreign or not, probably would have ensured that you would not have been selected as a juror.)
KC
As far as the life of the historical figure, it would seem that a number of other sources, including the "Columbia Encyclopedia", the "Encyclopedia Britannica", and the "Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography" corroborate the assertations made by dictionary.com and myself.
"FWIW, Agricola ended many of the abuses of the Roman tax system in the UK during his governorship, and few people would argue that the benefits of the Roman administration (of which his tenure was the shining example) were outweighed by the cost."
Ahhh...so Agricola was a Good Guy because he was a kinder, gentler, tyrant, who made the (proverbial) trains run on time?
Re: the Mayflower, Geo. Washington, et al.
This is an inaccruate comparasion. The Romans were interested in expanding their empire in order to draw new revenue from conquered peoples (at least in that point of the empire,) no longer as a means of self-preservation.
The Mayflower colonists were not interested in subjugating the natives, as the Romans were. The Puritans were intent on creating their own religious haven, and were concerned about the natives only when one group sent raiding parties against the other.
Washington & Co. were uninterested in Indians per se. Only when attempting to negotiate heirarchical treaties with non-heirarchial societies, and the attendant frustrations, did the natives become an issue to the colonists, and later the US.
[The British Colonial administration had attempted to deal with the problems between the natives and the colonists by restricting the ability of the Crown colonies to expand past the Applachians or into the Ohio River Valley.
There were no such restrictions on the colonies that would make up Canada, and there was no way for the British government from enforcing such an edict on the French or Spanish colonies had the 1776 revolt been unsucessful.
Yes, it was the end of the various tribes, but prior to the re-introduction of the horse to the Americas by the Spanish, the Plains Indians had been in decline and doing ecological damage similar to that of the late 19th century, just not in as organized a fashion. The Spanish had already expanded into California and the Southwest, spreading their influence via a feudal manorial system. Unorganized, stone-age societies do not last long when matched with industrializing organized ones.]
"OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who had access to all the evidence. That means that he did not commit the offence, whatever your opinions."
No. It means that under that particular finding of law, there was an insufficient amount of evidence to determine that he (Simpson) had, beyond a reasonable doubt, comitted the crime. IT DOES NOT mean that he unequivocally did not commit the crime.
"Do you have access to all the evidence? Were you a witness to that crime? If the answer is no, and you are basing your opinions on media reports, then your opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant."
Did I have equal access to the evidence as did the jury? Thanks to the media coverage, yes. (Due to media coverage, the general public probably had *better* access to all evidence than did the jury.) Was I a witness? No, 'The Real Killers' (read: Simpson) made sure of that. Are my opinions relevant? As I was not on the jury (and would have very like been rejected by the defence as a possible jury member), and both criminal and civil trials have been concluded, my opinions are not relevant. However, your position questioning them is less so given that you are neither a resident nor citizen of the US. (FWIW, your status as a LEO, active or not, foreign or not, probably would have ensured that you would not have been selected as a juror.)
KC
agricola
Member
KC,
well, I am sorry but those sources are clearly flawed - it is a question of fact that, by Agricola's governorship, the vast majority in terms of population were already under Roman control. Here is Tacitus' great work, from which almost all opinion on the man is based:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-agricola.html
well, I am sorry but those sources are clearly flawed - it is a question of fact that, by Agricola's governorship, the vast majority in terms of population were already under Roman control. Here is Tacitus' great work, from which almost all opinion on the man is based:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-agricola.html
Orthonym
Member
Where is Boudicca now that we really need her?
Agricola:
First, Tacitus: while he is the primary source for most of Agricola's life, is hardly an unbiased source. He held a virulent grudge against anyone connected to the Julio-Claudians, and himself married Agricolas daughter.
Second, you don't seem to read your own source:
"Never indeed had Britain been more excited, or in a more critical condition. Veteran soldiers had been massacred, colonies burnt, armies cut off. The struggle was then for safety; it was soon to be for victory. And though all this was conducted under the leadership and direction of another, though the final issue and the glory of having won back the province belonged to the general, yet skill, experience, and ambition were acquired by the young officer." (Section 5)
Later:
"Rousing each other by this and like language, under the leadership of Boudicea, a woman of kingly descent (for they admit no distinction of sex in their royal successions), they all rose in arms. They fell upon our troops, which were scattered on garrison duty, stormed the forts, and burst into the colony itself, the head-quarters, as they thought, of tyranny. In their rage and their triumph, they spared no variety of a barbarian's cruelty. Had not Paullinus on hearing of the outbreak in the province rendered prompt succour, Britain would have been lost." (Section 16)
This would seem to suggest unsecured territory. Section 25 indicates that Agricola spent some six years pacifying the territories he occupied. While true, the Britons were not as intractable as the Germans in this regard, a six-year uprising is a troublesome and expensive prospect for a military governor, and seemed to take up much of his term. 'Roman control' would seem to still be a nominal condition, at best.
Since you seem to be so much better versed in details of Roman occupation of Briton than I, tell me, what year was it that the Roman Empire evacuated/abandoned (the allegedly secured and same) Britannia, leaving it to reavers and local barbarian chieftans? Sometime in the 5th century CE, wasn't it? This after years of building and maintaining walls and forts along borders, with standing armies to maintain internal and external security?
"The Britons themselves bear cheerfully the conscription, the taxes, and the other burdens imposed on them by the Empire, if there be no oppression. Of this they are impatient; they are reduced to subjectionn, not as yet to slavery. " (Section 19)
It would seem that some things about the Britons have changed but little, in the centuries since. Others, much.
KC
First, Tacitus: while he is the primary source for most of Agricola's life, is hardly an unbiased source. He held a virulent grudge against anyone connected to the Julio-Claudians, and himself married Agricolas daughter.
Second, you don't seem to read your own source:
"Never indeed had Britain been more excited, or in a more critical condition. Veteran soldiers had been massacred, colonies burnt, armies cut off. The struggle was then for safety; it was soon to be for victory. And though all this was conducted under the leadership and direction of another, though the final issue and the glory of having won back the province belonged to the general, yet skill, experience, and ambition were acquired by the young officer." (Section 5)
Later:
"Rousing each other by this and like language, under the leadership of Boudicea, a woman of kingly descent (for they admit no distinction of sex in their royal successions), they all rose in arms. They fell upon our troops, which were scattered on garrison duty, stormed the forts, and burst into the colony itself, the head-quarters, as they thought, of tyranny. In their rage and their triumph, they spared no variety of a barbarian's cruelty. Had not Paullinus on hearing of the outbreak in the province rendered prompt succour, Britain would have been lost." (Section 16)
This would seem to suggest unsecured territory. Section 25 indicates that Agricola spent some six years pacifying the territories he occupied. While true, the Britons were not as intractable as the Germans in this regard, a six-year uprising is a troublesome and expensive prospect for a military governor, and seemed to take up much of his term. 'Roman control' would seem to still be a nominal condition, at best.
Since you seem to be so much better versed in details of Roman occupation of Briton than I, tell me, what year was it that the Roman Empire evacuated/abandoned (the allegedly secured and same) Britannia, leaving it to reavers and local barbarian chieftans? Sometime in the 5th century CE, wasn't it? This after years of building and maintaining walls and forts along borders, with standing armies to maintain internal and external security?
"The Britons themselves bear cheerfully the conscription, the taxes, and the other burdens imposed on them by the Empire, if there be no oppression. Of this they are impatient; they are reduced to subjectionn, not as yet to slavery. " (Section 19)
It would seem that some things about the Britons have changed but little, in the centuries since. Others, much.
KC
"How did this happen?"
If you want to know how this happened, go to www.amazon.com and buy the book by Anglo historian Joyce Lee Malcolm titled, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."
Click Here
It's a fun, and exasperating read.
Rick
If you want to know how this happened, go to www.amazon.com and buy the book by Anglo historian Joyce Lee Malcolm titled, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."
Click Here
It's a fun, and exasperating read.
Rick
agricola
Member
KC,
Maybe you should read it. Following the Boudiccan revolt much of England was repacified, the majority of Wales was subjected and forays made into Scotland. Paulinus' victory at or near Mancetter crushed the rebellion in one fell swoop.
Britain was left by the Romans around 410 (the date of an edict by the emperor Honorius asking citizens to look to their own defence), however it remained in a Roman, or semi-Roman state for the next 100 to 150 years (longer than Rome itself which became barbarianized officially in 476), only falling to the Saxon hordes around 550 (and even then areas remained recognizably Romano-British).
Maybe you should read it. Following the Boudiccan revolt much of England was repacified, the majority of Wales was subjected and forays made into Scotland. Paulinus' victory at or near Mancetter crushed the rebellion in one fell swoop.
Britain was left by the Romans around 410 (the date of an edict by the emperor Honorius asking citizens to look to their own defence), however it remained in a Roman, or semi-Roman state for the next 100 to 150 years (longer than Rome itself which became barbarianized officially in 476), only falling to the Saxon hordes around 550 (and even then areas remained recognizably Romano-British).
scbair
Member
Just for the record,
O. J. Simpson is NOT "innocent," BY COURT OF LAW!!
He was found "not guilty" in criminal court, but was later found culpable in civil court. Thus, my earlier post differentiating "not guilty" from "innocent."
Any LEO should readily grasp this difference.
O. J. Simpson is NOT "innocent," BY COURT OF LAW!!
He was found "not guilty" in criminal court, but was later found culpable in civil court. Thus, my earlier post differentiating "not guilty" from "innocent."
Any LEO should readily grasp this difference.
agricola
Member
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [adj] declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless; "he stands acquitted on all charges"; "the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity"
Synonyms: acquitted, clean-handed, guiltless, innocent
not guilty = innocent of that crime
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/not+guilty
scbair
Member
Agricola,
Thank you for correcting your earlier post. I agree that O. J. is "innocent of that crime," but, in accordance with the civil court verdict, definitely not "innocent of those murders," as you stated in your Augus 11 post.
At least, I assume the purpose of your subsequent post was to admit your error and not try to sidestep. I give you credit for that.
Thank you for correcting your earlier post. I agree that O. J. is "innocent of that crime," but, in accordance with the civil court verdict, definitely not "innocent of those murders," as you stated in your Augus 11 post.
At least, I assume the purpose of your subsequent post was to admit your error and not try to sidestep. I give you credit for that.
Keith
Member
How revealing! We'll take away your liberty, your land, your right to choose your own leadership, culture and destiny. And then we'll make you pay for the administration and services that you don't want since after all, you owe us for this...
This is the statist mindset - any earnings and property that the Subject's are allowed him to keep are a boon from the state for which they should be grateful.
All Hail Caesar!
Keith
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" 'Monty Python's Life Of Brian'
What's all this got to do with guns, anyway?
What's all this got to do with guns, anyway?
Agricola, as with most LEO's, has made up his mind, and will not accept any counterarguement, even one using his own sources; churlishly dismissing out of hand anything and anything everything that is not congruent to his beliefs.
Given his responses to the various posts, it may not be so much that he does not agree with the arguement regarding Simpson, but that he does not understand it.
Given his choice of role-models and professions, he clearly believes his position (no matter the issue) to be morally superior, and thus not only beyond reproach, but one that should be a standard to grade others against--We mere mortals are not qualified to make decisions, as we are not in Government, nor are we qualified to defend our lives and property, as protection is the purview of the state through it's Police, and the people only subjects of the state.
Good job agricola. Big Brother is watching and doubtlessly approves.
Given his responses to the various posts, it may not be so much that he does not agree with the arguement regarding Simpson, but that he does not understand it.
Given his choice of role-models and professions, he clearly believes his position (no matter the issue) to be morally superior, and thus not only beyond reproach, but one that should be a standard to grade others against--We mere mortals are not qualified to make decisions, as we are not in Government, nor are we qualified to defend our lives and property, as protection is the purview of the state through it's Police, and the people only subjects of the state.
Good job agricola. Big Brother is watching and doubtlessly approves.
agricola
Member
KC,
Thats ridiculous. Any person who has gone beyond a mere scanning of the facts regarding Agricola knows that he did not conquer the country or bring most of its occupants under control. Its not a "belief", these are facts backed up by the surviving texts and archaeology (the Agricola is fully supported by the extant evidence btw).
I said it before, I will break it down into more managable pieces this time. The Boudiccan revolt was mainly in 60 AD. Agricola became governor in 77 AD. Inbetween successive governors pacified the greater part of the island (Agricola did serve in a junior capacity under Suetonius, and later as the second-in-command to P. Cerialis). By 77 AD all Agricola had to do was complete the subjection of the Ordovicii (NW Wales) and Brigantes (N England / Borders), and attack what is now Scotland. This he did, but he was then recalled and that part of Britain beyond what would become Hadrian's Wall was then abandoned, save for incursions during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Septimus Severus. The majority of Agricola's conquests were let go.
Keith,
You cannot assess people from that distance in time with your own mindset, because you just come across sounding ridiculous. The world beyond the small parts of it which were civilized - the same parts from which you recieve your ability to read, write, comprehend ideas such as freedom, spend money, recieve money and all other abilities that separate us from other animals of higher intelligence - produced little or nothing that has enriched mankind. Of course, if you can identify a part of the world during the Empire where people enjoyed freedom from oppression, I'd like to hear it. Hobbes was correct when he identified the main flaw of the natural state of man.
schbair,
OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of the offence for which he was accused. That dictionary states that "innocent" is a synonym of "not guilty". Its immaterial whether or not he did it, the fact is that OJ Simpson is now innocent of the murders because he has been found not guilty. Unless you all have new evidence that the jury did not see, or have access to all the evidence in its raw form (ie: uncontaminated by the sea of bias which surrounded that case) I'd suggest you are in no position to second guess people that were in possession of those facts.
Thats ridiculous. Any person who has gone beyond a mere scanning of the facts regarding Agricola knows that he did not conquer the country or bring most of its occupants under control. Its not a "belief", these are facts backed up by the surviving texts and archaeology (the Agricola is fully supported by the extant evidence btw).
I said it before, I will break it down into more managable pieces this time. The Boudiccan revolt was mainly in 60 AD. Agricola became governor in 77 AD. Inbetween successive governors pacified the greater part of the island (Agricola did serve in a junior capacity under Suetonius, and later as the second-in-command to P. Cerialis). By 77 AD all Agricola had to do was complete the subjection of the Ordovicii (NW Wales) and Brigantes (N England / Borders), and attack what is now Scotland. This he did, but he was then recalled and that part of Britain beyond what would become Hadrian's Wall was then abandoned, save for incursions during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Septimus Severus. The majority of Agricola's conquests were let go.
Keith,
You cannot assess people from that distance in time with your own mindset, because you just come across sounding ridiculous. The world beyond the small parts of it which were civilized - the same parts from which you recieve your ability to read, write, comprehend ideas such as freedom, spend money, recieve money and all other abilities that separate us from other animals of higher intelligence - produced little or nothing that has enriched mankind. Of course, if you can identify a part of the world during the Empire where people enjoyed freedom from oppression, I'd like to hear it. Hobbes was correct when he identified the main flaw of the natural state of man.
schbair,
OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of the offence for which he was accused. That dictionary states that "innocent" is a synonym of "not guilty". Its immaterial whether or not he did it, the fact is that OJ Simpson is now innocent of the murders because he has been found not guilty. Unless you all have new evidence that the jury did not see, or have access to all the evidence in its raw form (ie: uncontaminated by the sea of bias which surrounded that case) I'd suggest you are in no position to second guess people that were in possession of those facts.
Keith
Member
Sorry, but I'm not a Hobbesian Man and I don't know anyone who is. Man is not a brute and he doesn't need every aspect of his life controlled by some elite ruler.
I'm a "Lockesian Man" (to coin a phrase) who thrives on independence. I want very little from government. I want its powers firmly limited and I want my civil liberties to be clearly recognized as beyond the boundaries of those powers.
This conversation pretty clearly delineates the difference between "us and them" - you being the "them"... And I don't want to start a fight - truly! You simply come from a very different world, one which (in many ways) is very parochial and limited. You've never been allowed the freedom to even own a handgun (for example - and to keep things on topic). And not having this freedom, you can't imagine why anyone else needs it or should have it. You're the fox who has lost his brush and wants all others to lose theirs.
What happens to people who live under such control? Don't they chafe and act out whenever they get the chance? Isn't that what "yobs" and football hooligans are - people who are rebelling against such control when they think they can get away with it? And why not? A society that exercises such control is intrusive and not worthy of respect from the individual. Self-discipline is learned behavior.
And of course, we have our own examples in this country! Our cities are full of such people.
Yet, you can still escape it here. You can move away from "liberal" states and leave most of those controls behind - and meet a better class of people!. I wish you could meet my twelve year old son. He has a half-dozen firearms. He shot his first deer at the age of six. He says "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir" when asked a question by a stranger and studies hard and tries to do the right thing, always. And it's not entirely due to his upbringing, such behavior is simply the norm here.
Doubtless, you would be appalled at how little the state controls and interferes with life in a place like this. Yet, you would not be able to argue with the results. People want nothing more than to live their own lives and they do pretty well when government keeps their nose out of it.
Keith
I'm a "Lockesian Man" (to coin a phrase) who thrives on independence. I want very little from government. I want its powers firmly limited and I want my civil liberties to be clearly recognized as beyond the boundaries of those powers.
This conversation pretty clearly delineates the difference between "us and them" - you being the "them"... And I don't want to start a fight - truly! You simply come from a very different world, one which (in many ways) is very parochial and limited. You've never been allowed the freedom to even own a handgun (for example - and to keep things on topic). And not having this freedom, you can't imagine why anyone else needs it or should have it. You're the fox who has lost his brush and wants all others to lose theirs.
What happens to people who live under such control? Don't they chafe and act out whenever they get the chance? Isn't that what "yobs" and football hooligans are - people who are rebelling against such control when they think they can get away with it? And why not? A society that exercises such control is intrusive and not worthy of respect from the individual. Self-discipline is learned behavior.
And of course, we have our own examples in this country! Our cities are full of such people.
Yet, you can still escape it here. You can move away from "liberal" states and leave most of those controls behind - and meet a better class of people!. I wish you could meet my twelve year old son. He has a half-dozen firearms. He shot his first deer at the age of six. He says "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir" when asked a question by a stranger and studies hard and tries to do the right thing, always. And it's not entirely due to his upbringing, such behavior is simply the norm here.
Doubtless, you would be appalled at how little the state controls and interferes with life in a place like this. Yet, you would not be able to argue with the results. People want nothing more than to live their own lives and they do pretty well when government keeps their nose out of it.
Keith
agricola
Member
keith,
That post is a good illustration of how ignorance can make someone think that they or their country stand alone in terms of quality. Its good that youre clearly proud of your son, but there are several hundred million twelve year olds who are probably just as polite and respectful as him spread across the world, and you will as a result find that the standard of governance has no effect on the quality of the people for whom it governs.
Your post raises the old point that it still seems that some Americans seem to be unable to understand why other people dont want to be like them; pride in your country is commendable but it doesnt give you the moral high ground in being able to bash everyone else.
That post is a good illustration of how ignorance can make someone think that they or their country stand alone in terms of quality. Its good that youre clearly proud of your son, but there are several hundred million twelve year olds who are probably just as polite and respectful as him spread across the world, and you will as a result find that the standard of governance has no effect on the quality of the people for whom it governs.
Your post raises the old point that it still seems that some Americans seem to be unable to understand why other people dont want to be like them; pride in your country is commendable but it doesnt give you the moral high ground in being able to bash everyone else.
scbair
Member
Agricola
I stand corrected, in that I now retract the small credit I previously granted you.
A subsequent (civil) court found O. J. anything BUT "innocent" of the murders. He was found liable/culpable, and had a judgment rendered against him. It is irrefutable. You may hem and haw, evade and seek definitions that appear to support yopur position, but this only illustrates your own untenable position.
That you refuse to admit your initial error speaks volumes about your true character. Had tea with Bill Clinton, lately?
I've only recently joined this forum, but have quickly realized you seek an audience, rather than intelligent debate. I will no longer respond to any of your posts. I don't suffer such behavior as patiently as I did in my youth.
I stand corrected, in that I now retract the small credit I previously granted you.
A subsequent (civil) court found O. J. anything BUT "innocent" of the murders. He was found liable/culpable, and had a judgment rendered against him. It is irrefutable. You may hem and haw, evade and seek definitions that appear to support yopur position, but this only illustrates your own untenable position.
That you refuse to admit your initial error speaks volumes about your true character. Had tea with Bill Clinton, lately?
I've only recently joined this forum, but have quickly realized you seek an audience, rather than intelligent debate. I will no longer respond to any of your posts. I don't suffer such behavior as patiently as I did in my youth.
alan
Member
Re court action, jury verdicts and such, in the U.S., in criminal cases, one is either, by virtue of jury verdict, GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. There is no such verdict as INNOCENT, so far as I know. Correct me if I should be wrong.
In Scottish juris prudence, in a criminal case, there are three (3) possible verdicts. GUILTY AS CHARGED, and off you go, to prison or perhaps to the gallows. Do they still hang people in Scotland?
The other possible verdicts, 2 in number are, NOT GUILTY, and CHARGES NOT PROVEN. In either of the latter instances, the accused "walks", however there might be a significant different between a verdict of NOT GUILTY and a verdict of CHARGES NOT PROVEN in the minds of the jurors.
In Scottish juris prudence, in a criminal case, there are three (3) possible verdicts. GUILTY AS CHARGED, and off you go, to prison or perhaps to the gallows. Do they still hang people in Scotland?
The other possible verdicts, 2 in number are, NOT GUILTY, and CHARGES NOT PROVEN. In either of the latter instances, the accused "walks", however there might be a significant different between a verdict of NOT GUILTY and a verdict of CHARGES NOT PROVEN in the minds of the jurors.
Keith
Member
No, it raises the old point that foreigners are often unable to understand that there is no such thing as "being like an American".
You live under a centralized authoritarian system where a Londoner lives under the same rules, tax base, laws and system as someone in a small village in Yorkshire. And the people who live in those two places will be much more unanimous in their opinions and outlook since their behavior is dictated by that same centralized framework of control.
That's not true here. A person in say, Massachusetts, lives under the same onerous laws and pays the same heavy taxes as you do in GB (or nearly so). And the average man in Boston will quite likely share your world-view. He can't imagine living in a place with lower taxes (and lack of gubmint "services") or allowing citizens to carry weapons for self-defense.
Yet, you can go west or south (or north, to Alaska) and find an entirely different way of life under different laws, different styles of government. And this results in people with an entirely different outlook!
Most people miss this point - even most Americans miss the point! We do not have less government controls because we are smarter or braver or more "freedom loving" than Brits or Aussie's (or what have you). We have more civil liberties because the US consists of 50 semi-autonomous states. The federal government simply can not easily impose such draconian controls because the framework to allow that does not exist under our system. Each new control must incremental in nature and will face a host of enemies opposed to it.
Keith
agricola
Member
scbair,
point 1: Simpson was found liable in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower. Do you believe in the "double jeopardy" rule or not? Over here (as an aside) if one is found not guilty of a common assault the magistrate can issue a certificate prohibiting any subsequent civil action; IMHO this should be extended. Civil Courts are not places to try criminal matters, least of all a double murder, and it was an abuse of the system to allow that trial into that Court.
point 2: In almost every civilized country (indeed one has heard several people here lambast a suggested scheme from the British Home Secretary to abolish double jeopardy) your guilt or innocence is determined before a tribunal, either composed of your peers and a judge, or several judges. If that tribunal determines that you did not commit that crime, then you did not commit it. This is at the base of all trial law, and the reasons why trials exist. The fact that someone from a supposedly oppressed state has trouble explaining this to the self-appointed enlightened ones is worrying.
I say this again to you and Keith: are you in the possession of special knowledge that those members of the jury werent? If the answer is no, then you have no legs to stand on when you second-guess the decision of the jury - you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
KC,
Its funny that someone clearly wrong about something can then claim superiority, but I guess I must have slept in the day Dr. Shotter opened his seminar on the the Gracchi with "Now listen, everything I have told you is correct, but if ever some Yank comes along and says something else, he or she is automatically right and the rest of world history is wrong".
point 1: Simpson was found liable in a civil court where the burden of proof is lower. Do you believe in the "double jeopardy" rule or not? Over here (as an aside) if one is found not guilty of a common assault the magistrate can issue a certificate prohibiting any subsequent civil action; IMHO this should be extended. Civil Courts are not places to try criminal matters, least of all a double murder, and it was an abuse of the system to allow that trial into that Court.
point 2: In almost every civilized country (indeed one has heard several people here lambast a suggested scheme from the British Home Secretary to abolish double jeopardy) your guilt or innocence is determined before a tribunal, either composed of your peers and a judge, or several judges. If that tribunal determines that you did not commit that crime, then you did not commit it. This is at the base of all trial law, and the reasons why trials exist. The fact that someone from a supposedly oppressed state has trouble explaining this to the self-appointed enlightened ones is worrying.
I say this again to you and Keith: are you in the possession of special knowledge that those members of the jury werent? If the answer is no, then you have no legs to stand on when you second-guess the decision of the jury - you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
KC,
Its funny that someone clearly wrong about something can then claim superiority, but I guess I must have slept in the day Dr. Shotter opened his seminar on the the Gracchi with "Now listen, everything I have told you is correct, but if ever some Yank comes along and says something else, he or she is automatically right and the rest of world history is wrong".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
