The United Kingdom is an Entity. Therefore a commerical body

[vanilla]

Earlier within this thread, you used the excuse that God is not proven to exist. You used this in order to combat anothers point in resepct of claimed authority or thereabouts.

Using your reasoning, one could also state the vice versa.
So as simply as claiming God may not exist, it could also be reasoned that God may exist. In which case your pale holds no water.

Since when did saying that something may or may not be true mean that we should automatically behave as if it is true?

I may or may not have murdered someone, therefore I should be punished?

We need to find out if something is true, not if it might be true.

If the one you swear allegiance to stands under her Oath, then others of allegiance stand under it also, otherwise they cannot be true in their allegiance.
Of course I will consider otherwise if you can furnish the proof that this is not so, perhaps a peice of your favourite legislation that you could point to?

Why would someone else's behaviour have any bearing on someone's oath unless explicitly specified in the oath?

When I pledge allegiance to you, and you pledge allegiance to Thomas, that doesn't mean I've pledged allegiance to Thomas. Tomorrow you decide to break your pledge, what difference would that make to the fact that my allegiance was to you?

You stated that some would insist that God and religion are one and the same, or something to that effect.
If this is true then please answer, "What religion was Adam" ?

I don't believe that Adam was a real person, so the question doesn't make any sense. Besides, I said that some people would equate religion and the belief in a higher power; people define religion in different ways.

[Thomas]

It was you who said that you did not understand economics. And it's not a zero sum game, it's a negative sum game for the majority.

That's clearly rubbish. Look at the wealth of the average man 50, or 200, or 2000 years ago and you'll see that it has increased over time. The idea that someone has to lose for someone else to gain is nonsense.

Oh, dear oh dear, Garbel.

That's a solid argument, I'll need some time to figure out the nuances and construct a proper rebuttal.

On average, a man over 200 years ago could feed a whole family with just 3 months work for a whole year. Today it takes both man and wife to work just to keep one paycheck away from the wolves. I did not say someone has to loose, i said the market system masquerading as economics is a negative sum game for the majority, which it is.


You post and write the same as a past poster called Garbal. And a few other nick's used.

[ljtherock]

Earlier within this thread, you used the excuse that God is not proven to exist. You used this in order to combat anothers point in resepct of claimed authority or thereabouts.

Using your reasoning, one could also state the vice versa.
So as simply as claiming God may not exist, it could also be reasoned that God may exist. In which case your pale holds no water.

Since when did saying that something may or may not be true mean that we should automatically behave as if it is true?
It was not about saying, it was as you know the way in which you used it... and where did I state or imply that it we should automatically behave as it were true?
Note, that you used this flawed excuse and I simply passed it back to you and by your very action of turning it around you have made it clear for all to see, that when you use it to combat anothers point it is reasonable but when it is used back at you, you claim it unreasonable.

I may or may not have murdered someone, therefore I should be punished?
Where did I state or imply that?

We need to find out if something is true, not if it might be true.
I agree whole heartedly but that it was you who put it across that God may not exist and used it for your own ends, not me...

If the one you swear allegiance to stands under her Oath, then others of allegiance stand under it also, otherwise they cannot be true in their allegiance.
Of course I will consider otherwise if you can furnish the proof that this is not so, perhaps a peice of your favourite legislation that you could point to?

Why would someone else's behaviour have any bearing on someone's oath unless explicitly specified in the oath?

When I pledge allegiance to you, and you pledge allegiance to Thomas, that doesn't mean I've pledged allegiance to Thomas. Tomorrow you decide to break your pledge, what difference would that make to the fact that my allegiance was to you?
The courts pledge allegiance to Elizabeth, this is done to show that they have the authority delegated from her and in turn she claims her authority from God through her allegiance to God. If you cannot see the foundational evidencial problem with that then so be it.
God is written all over their oaths, crests, coat of arms etc, perhaps you should enquire of them as to the reasoning for this... essentially it is all about the power of authority and allegiance is simply the tunic they wear.

You stated that some would insist that God and religion are one and the same, or something to that effect.
If this is true then please answer, "What religion was Adam" ?

I don't believe that Adam was a real person, so the question doesn't make any sense. Besides, I said that some people would equate religion and the belief in a higher power; people define religion in different ways.

So what religion was Abraham?

[vanilla]

On average, a man over 200 years ago could feed a whole family with just 3 months work for a whole year. Today it takes both man and wife to work just to keep one paycheck away from the wolves.

That's true, I found an interesting page about working hours here:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/r ... kweek.html

You're only comparing the number of hours worked, though. By that reasoning a Congan subsistence farmer is better off than a British worker earning £75k

I did not say someone has to loose, i said the market system masquerading as economics is a negative sum game for the majority, which it is.

negative sum game
In decision theory, the 'lose-lose' situation where all participants lose or the sum of winnings (positives) and losses (negatives) is negative. See also positive sum game and zero sum game.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... -game.html

Saying that the system is negative sum is the same thing as saying that someone has to lose.

[Thomas]

You're only comparing the number of hours worked, though. By that reasoning a Congan subsistence farmer is better off than a British worker earning £75k

No, not at all by that reasoning of a Congan subsistence farmer and also if you knew about economics, £75k is only about 188 Pounds Stirling, i.e. the effect of inflation, devaluing the spending power of that money/credit.

Saying that the system is negative sum is the same thing as saying that someone has to lose.

No, it's saying how the system is, but does not have to be, nor should it be that way.

[vanilla]

No, not at all by that reasoning of a Congan subsistence farmer and also if you knew about economics, £75k is only about 188 Pounds Stirling, i.e. the effect of inflation, devaluing the spending power of that money/credit.

I was talking about a British worker today. Someone who does 37 hours a week, this week.

What I was pointing out is that you were comparing how well off someone from 200 years is compared to someone from today, solely on the basis of the number of hours worked. You can make that exact same comparison today, saying that a rural farmer in one of the poorest countries on Earth is better off than your average UK worker because he only does 20 hours a week, even though he has no clean drinking water.

No, it's saying how the system is, but does not have to be, nor should it be that way.

Right, but you're saying that in the current situation, some people who are part of this system have to lose.

[vanilla]

and where did I state or imply that it we should automatically behave as it were true?

You do behave as if it were true. You imply it by your own actions.

that when you use it to combat anothers point it is reasonable but when it is used back at you, you claim it unreasonable.

It would be perfectly reasonable if used on me, but it isn't being used on me because I'm not the one making a claim, you and your religious books are.

You: "God exists"
Me: "There's no evidence that God exists."
You: "Nobody has evidence that He doesn't exist, so my position is as good as yours."

This is known as the argument from ignorance fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I may or may not have murdered someone, therefore I should be punished?

Where did I state or imply that?

I didn't say you did, it's just an analogy. If you can see how stupid it sounds, you realise how your argument looks to me.

The courts pledge allegiance to Elizabeth, this is done to show that they have the authority delegated from her and in turn she claims her authority from God through her allegiance to God. If you cannot see the foundational evidencial problem with that then so be it.

It doesn't matter from where she gets her authority if she is recognised as head of state. If everyone below behaves as though she has authority, then she has authority. The idea that authority always comes from above, ending with God, is clearly a religious one.

So what religion was Abraham?

Given my previous answer, do you think that's a sensible question?

[Thomas]

I was talking about a British worker today. Someone who does 37 hours a week, this week.

What I was pointing out is that you were comparing how well off someone from 200 years is compared to someone from today, solely on the basis of the number of hours worked. You can make that exact same comparison today, saying that a rural farmer in one of the poorest countries on Earth is better off than your average UK worker because he only does 20 hours a week, even though he has no clean drinking water.

And I was pointing out that no, not like that Congan subsistence farmer (emphasis on subsistence) but yes you could make that comparison you have just used and also with free clean water. And also what many people deem as poorer countries are often not poorer (other than social control via others and other nations)

Right, but you're saying that in the current situation, some people who are part of this system have to lose.

Obviously yes (unless the people do something about it) just like Abraham was a descendant of my body and just as most evidence would point to there being intelligent life forms in the universe.

[Thomas]

It doesn't matter from where she gets her authority if she is recognised as head of state. If everyone below behaves as though she has authority, then she has authority. The idea that authority always comes from above, ending with God, is clearly a religious one.

But it is her and the plutocracy that have always claimed divine right (falsely) via God is the point being made. And as for true social justice, it always has been a numbers game on peoples perception of it and what then the people will get when and if they act accordingly (individually; and nationally if enough people do as they should)

[umbongo82]

It doesn't matter from where she gets her authority if she is recognised as head of state. If everyone below behaves as though she has authority, then she has authority. The idea that authority always comes from above, ending with God, is clearly a religious one.

But it is her and the plutocracy that have always claimed divine right (falsely) via God is the point being made. And as for true social justice, it always has been a numbers game on peoples perception of it and what then the people will get when and if they act accordingly (individually; and nationally if enough people do as they should)

Bang wrong. There has been no divine right claimed in the UK since James II.