User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 80

  1. #21
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It's important to remember that institutional slavery was only abolished for the first time in history by the House of Commons in 1833.
    You like repeating this. Too bad for you it's bullshit history:

    "But fighting slavery is nothing new for Christians. After all, Christianity was born into a world where chattel slavery, one person owning another, was the cornerstone of the economy.

    Ironically, many famous historians, including those most critical of Christianity, were indifferent about the role that slavery played in antiquity. Edward Gibbon called the "cruel treatment" of slaves "almost justified by the great law of self-preservation."

    Western Christianity saw matters differently. Its spread through western Europe was accompanied by calls for an end to chattel slavery. Saint Bathilde, the wife of the seventh-century Frankish king Clovis, was canonized, in part, for her efforts to free slaves and end the slave trade.

    The result of hers and similar efforts was that, by the eleventh century, slavery had been effectively abolished in western Europe.
    The lone exceptions were areas under pagan or Muslim control. By the time Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica in the thirteenth century, slavery was a thing of the distant past. That's why Aquinas paid little attention to the subject, devoting himself instead to the issue of serfdom, which he considered "repugnant."

    Christianity and Slavery

  2. #22
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    More proof of Aussie civility:
    Australian PM Kevin Rudd has apologised to the hundreds of thousands of people, some British migrants, who were abused or neglected in state care as children.

    Mr Rudd said he was "deeply sorry" for the pain caused to the children and their extended families.

    He said he hoped the national apology would help to "heal the pain" and be a turning point in Australian history.

    Some 500,000 "forgotten Australians" were abused or neglected in orphanages and children's homes from 1930 to 1970....

    ...Under the Child Migrants Programme - which ended just 40 years ago - the UK sent poor children to a "better life" in Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    Most of the children were already in care after being taken from their families by the state or abandoned by their parents.

    As they were compulsorily shipped out of Britain, many of them were told - wrongly - their parents were dead.

    Many parents did not know their children, aged as young as three, had been sent to Australia.

    Care agencies worked with the government to send disadvantaged children to a rosy future and supply what was deemed "good white stock" to a former colony.

    In many cases they were educated only for farm work, and suffered cruelty and hardship including physical, psychological and sexual abuse.
    BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Australia 'sorry' for child abuse

  3. #23
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    More proof of Aussie civility:

    "Some 500,000 "forgotten Australians" were abused or neglected in orphanages and children's homes from 1930 to 1970...."
    I have promised the moderators not to engage in a personal contretemps with you Peguy. But I would like to correct the record.

    There were a couple of thousand, certainly not 500,000, brought to Australia for a better life.

    Many were properly cared for and did achieve a better life here. And although they could choose to return home by paid passage, most chose to stay.

    However we have recently discovered that some of them were abused in Roman Catholic institutions by priests, brothers, nuns, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals who successfully covered it up until recently.

    This cause considerable anger in Australia and I remember some of the victims publicly pulling down a statue of one of the Catholic perpetrators.

    I understand, Peguy, you wish to defend the Roman Catholic Church. But remember, the Roman Catholic Church covered up these crimes against children to save their institution from scandal and to preserve their assets. They did not consider their victims.

    But today we have discovered the truth, as have the Irish. And we take the side of the victims and bring the perpetrators before our Criminal Courts.

  4. #24
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Those who are strong can fend off blows, but someone who is weak has only their voice. Certainly, shouting at someone will often make matters worse--no one will disagree--but at the same time, a verbal assault can steer the confrontation away from violence and, due to the richness of dialogue, lead to more options for everyone involved. If we make this illegal, we take from victims their weapon of self-defense and risk perpetuating the very thing we want to suppress.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #25
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    guys this is France we are talking about, where murdering a spouse out of jelousy is legal...

    They are WHACKO.....

    I love them, but they are mind blowingly bonkers... as one French girl said about the European Monerary Agreement "of course we are in favour, we are French, we are contratry by nature"

    LOL

    I think banning shouting is bonkers... I think a good shoutting match can just clear hidden tensions. Passive agressivness is infinately more distructive.

  6. #26
    Senior Member syndatha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2
    Socionics
    ENFJ
    Posts
    256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    guys this is France we are talking about, where murdering a spouse out of jelousy is legal...

    They are WHACKO.....
    So shouting = not OK
    Murder = OK

    Very efficient approach there
    I have no sense of humour.

  7. #27
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    I wonder if this ties into French divorce law in some way. It looks like divorce there either has to be by mutual consent or an at fault situation. This law could help establish evidence for fault if the verbally abusive spouse was unwilling to consent to a divorce.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  8. #28
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by syndatha View Post
    So shouting = not OK
    Murder = OK

    Very efficient approach there
    Classy isn't it..... LOL gotta love them

  9. #29
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I wonder if this ties into French divorce law in some way. It looks like divorce there either has to be by mutual consent or an at fault situation. This law could help establish evidence for fault if the verbally abusive spouse was unwilling to consent to a divorce.
    This sound spretty plausable, don't know enough about Frnech law to even go there... now there is a teddy around here who is French, he may be able to tell us

  10. #30
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    In UK law it is not necessary to actually assault someone to be convicted of an assault. There are many cases where an assault was established without a physical assault or even the requirement to prove intent by the perpetrator. We've had it for quite some time.

    Assault - Offences_which_do_not_require_an_assault

Similar Threads

  1. How do you deal with getting proselytized to at your place of employment?
    By SurrealisticSlumbers in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-14-2017, 06:30 PM
  2. Need to get something off your chest?
    By Grayscale in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 11:04 AM
  3. Cellphones to keep track of your purchases -- and you
    By heart in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-01-2008, 07:23 PM
  4. present an argument as to why you are your type
    By Grayscale in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 09:48 PM
  5. What perks do you have (or wish you had) at your job?
    By file cabinet in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO