User Tag List

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 411121314
Results 196 to 205 of 205

Thread: An Advocation of Government

  1. #196
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    8,875
    Thanks
    30,722
    Thanked 7,803 Times in 4,936 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147621
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    and i edited my post and added to it
    Reading the second bit now

  2. #197
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Actually yes.

    You seem to think that it would be impossible for the one picked to change his mind, or for him to be convinced to rule.

    Which isn't the case at all.
    Impossible? No, unlikely? Very much so. You have to bear in mind here that what you propose for modern day society is anathema to the vast majority of the population, including Christians. Addressed more in depth further in.

    Yes, I have.
    No, you assert lots of things as you do in this post that I'll address separately as it goes on and you make a habit of it aka doing away with speeding limits etc.

    Someone has no sense of humor.
    Sure ain't me, although something has to be funny first...

    Well, for starters, a male, any age.
    Any age?

    2?

    Straw man.

    Never said you were. I said you were making it your problem. You keep complaining about the idea that someone might disagree with the system they are a part of.
    Let me break it down here. I'm running with the hypothetical of something that couldn't actually happen, but for the sake of argument I'm imagining such a system being enforced on the modern day West. It's not a case that someone might disagree with the system, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of citizenry would. You're a tiny minority of Christianity alone so the odds of randomly picking someone who would empathize with such a system are astronomical.

    Say that the person randomly selected is certainly capable of rule but fundamentally disagrees with what you advocate?


    -Arthur Brain

    So what?

    It doesn't change the fact that he is still king and is expected to rule by those who serve him. And as I said above, it's very easy to change one person's mind.
    "So what?" If you were forced into rule over a country where you fundamentally disagreed with the laws in place could your mind be so easily swayed to surrender your beliefs and cowtow to the status quo? That's just another empty assertion on your part. How is it "very easy to change one person's mind"?

    Peer pressure, judgment of history, it's what's expected of him.

    Stuff we've been over already.
    Eh, if I were forced into "power" then all of my peers would support my railing against such a system and "failing to perform expected duties" as it would be in turn if one of my peers were forced into the very same. Where it comes to the judgement of history then a king who helped dismantle and usurp some oppressive hyper zealot state then he'd be looked favourably upon after sanity has prevailed.

    What's the point of your complaining?

    So the king doesn't want to do his job. SO WHAT!? You act as if he cannot and will not ever be convinced of taking on the responsibilities of leading a nation.
    Who's complaining? I'm just pointing out some of the obvious flaws in your own position.

    If a king who is ostensibly opposed to a system he finds extremist, oppressive, barbaric etc then what exactly do you think is going to convince him otherwise after he's been forced into a role he had no interest in? Bob Enyart pod casts?

    No one can perform the duties of the king but the king himself.

    So how important are these duties and what happens if he steadfastly refuses to carry them out? If they're of high/vital importance to the nation and you can't remove the king until he dies then that bodes well for your "system" doesn't it?



    Yup.

    Appeal to ridicule.

    You should start making rational arguments instead of fallacious arguments.
    Addressed in the previous post and directly above. If you place such importance on having a monarch in power and yet said monarch can decide to perform none of the duties that only he can undertake then that is open to ridicule for reasons that should be downright obvious. Do they still need to be spelled out?




    · Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.

    · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

    · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.

    · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.

    · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.
    Most people would be morally opposed to the very system you envisage that is practically based on OT laws intended for times past. Do you still believe in an "eye for an eye and tooth for tooth"? An evil king is likely one who rules out of greed for power and devoid of compassion or concern for their subjects. That ain't something you can level at one who refuses to serve out of ethical objections to a fanatical religious state.

    Good for you.
    Yes, it would be. I'd make it clear in no uncertain terms that I hold no truck with legalism and bloodthirsty modern day adherents to ancient laws who would stone people to death, do away with basic human rights and turn the modern day West into a medieval nightmare.

    · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

    · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.

    · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.

    · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.
    Repeating the same quote doesn't make your point.

    No, that's just an assumption on your part.

    You seem to think that the person chosen would immediately become king.

    You fail to consider that there would be a bit of time (not too long) between the person being chosen, and the point when he is crowned king.

    And it typically doesn't take much convincing to get someone to accept the power of ruling a nation.
    If it's assumption on mine then it's no less on yours. As it happens, you're a minority amid your own faith, that's not opinion, it's fact. Where is your evidence that it "typically doesn't take much convincing to get someone to accept the power of ruling a nation" from? There are examples of kings abdicating from power and that's not in anything like the zealot state that you would have where they've been forced into it by some random throw of the dice. If this king is fundamentally opposed to your state then how are you going to convince him to change his mind?

    You keep asserting this, yet fail to consider that he could be convinced to rule, even if he doesn't want to at first.
    As above, the chances are he is opposed to your religious state so how do you convince him?

    I don't argue against opinions.

    If you would like to present a logical argument instead of opinion, I would be more than happy to respond accordingly.
    You've been presented with plenty so start responding accordingly.

    A single point of accountability.

    Which, by the way, often rightly motivates.
    So what? Again, you need to take into account that most people consider your ideal of society to be born of religious zealotry ran amok so accountability isn't going to matter to a king who despises those "values". All he has to do is say he was forced into it via some bonkers throw of a dice, has the option of refusing to do anything after having being forced into it to start with and ridicule the people who have nobody in place to perform the duties that only he can perform. Then he can laugh when everything falls apart because it was so ill thought though.

    This assumes that the person could not be convinced to rule.
    All addressed above and prior else explain how a guy who detests a state that oppresses people is going to be inclined to support it after having been forced into the position.

    A coward who didn't want to rule for his own selfish reasons.
    Or one who was morally opposed to the state that forced him into a role.

    Careful now, this "draconian system" comes from the Bible.

    Casting lots was how kings were chosen in the Bible when there were no heirs to the throne.
    Yeh, because how things were done thousands of years ago in ancient times were meant for the modern day...





    See above.
    That smiley fits you to a tee.

    "stupid lottery"

    Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

    So, not stupid at all.
    As addressed above. We don't live in ancient times and tribes anymore.

    A single point of accountability.
    All addressed prior. If a king can refuse to perform only the duties he's ascribed then who's fault is it for setting up a system where none of those things can get done?

    The likelihood of picking a king who could not be convinced to rule is incredibly small.
    Total assertion without substance. Unless you hit the lottery against the odds then the chances of the king being a radical zealot of like mind is incredibly small.

    The likelihood of picking a king who initially cannot be convinced, but as time goes on, he accepts his role, is more likely than the above, but still not very likely.
    Only if he could be convinced to be of the same zealous persuasion as yourself or had a selfish lust for power.

    The likelihood of picking a king who can be convinced in a short period of time to rule is adequately likely, and would account for the second largest portion of potential rulers.
    Hardly, again, most people would think that the system is nuts and oppressive and short of someone who just wants power they wouldn't be interested. But you don't want a greedy king either, right?

    And the final and largest portion is those who would accept being chosen as king, and who would begin their rule as soon as possible.
    You're a tiny minority among Christendom alone and you assert about the largest portion who would oppose your state? That's some irony right there. What was that you were saying about opinion again?

    Stop bringing up my age, or I'm going to have you removed from my thread.

    Do not bring this up again.
    What, are you a mod now? I asked you to please start acting your age as you're a grown man aren't you? In other words how about quitting with the juvenile smileys as response? If that still offends your sensibilities then go ahead and report me.

    Already addressed.
    Hardly. Under your system, women are back to being second class citizens and the freedoms and liberties that are valued in the West are done away with.

    I would expect that those who serve him would commit civil disobedience, and even try to convince him that what he's doing is illegal, and even wrong.
    Unless his "servers" are all hardcore, religious zealots then most would agree with him.

    Then why make a fuss about it?
    You confuse an opposing position in a debate with "making a fuss"?

    No one. And it would be the king's fault.
    Hardly, it would be the fault of zealots who think electing a king through chance in a modern day age is a good idea.

  3. #198
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Btw, I fixed my formatting issue. Forgot the end quote tag on the first part of my post.
    Oh wow, I see doser's still following me about and even dredging the archives...

    Still, at least I only get to see his obsessive, bonkers shtick when he's quoted now.


  4. #199
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Under the Hill and Over the Hedge
    Posts
    889
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 450 Times in 322 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151675
    I would think the first thing most people would do once they got crowned king in this scenario would be to call a constitutional convention and vote to dissolve and replace the government.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Kit the Coyote For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (December 21st, 2018)

  6. #200
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I would think the first thing most people would do once they got crowned king in this scenario would be to call a constitutional convention and vote to dissolve and replace the government.
    Ah, but they're not allowed to do that. They're subject to the "code of law" etc. The king doesn't really have that much power...

  7. #201
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Under the Hill and Over the Hedge
    Posts
    889
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 450 Times in 322 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151675
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Ah, but they're not allowed to do that. They're subject to the "code of law" etc. The king doesn't really have that much power...
    But what he does have is the bully pulpit. No government can stand if the will of the people is not behind it and if the King is laying out daily on national television why the system harms those people and should fall....

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Kit the Coyote For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (December 22nd, 2018)

  9. #202
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    But what he does have is the bully pulpit. No government can stand if the will of the people is not behind it and if the King is laying out daily on national television why the system harms those people and should fall....
    Exactly. If the ruler slates the system and has the free speech to do so and can't be removed from rule over it then who wouldn't if they were opposed to such a state, as the vast majority are?

  10. #203
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    I would expect that those who serve him would commit civil disobedience, and even try to convince him that what he's doing is illegal, and even wrong.
    Just to pick up on this bit again. How can a king who refuses to perform such duties that only he has authority to do so be accused of doing anything illegal? He's not breaking any law as you've clarified already. He can't be removed for it and any accusations of wrongdoing are just hot air. You've got a "king" who can't be gotten rid of except through nefarious means.

    How important are the king's duties again?

  11. #204
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Just to pick up on this bit again. How can a king who refuses to perform such duties that only he has authority to do so be accused of doing anything illegal? He's not breaking any law as you've clarified already. He can't be removed for it and any accusations of wrongdoing are just hot air. You've got a "king" who can't be gotten rid of except through nefarious means.

    How important are the king's duties again?
    @JudgeRightly,

    Any answer on this? How can a king who refuses to "perform his duties" be doing anything illegal as you've already stated he's within his rights to do so?

  12. #205
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    15,519
    Thanks
    9,378
    Thanked 7,381 Times in 4,957 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    So, effectively, this "advocation of government" comprises of drawing lots and an ensuing "king" who isn't legally obliged to do a darned thing and can sit back and undermine the whole process if he so chooses...

    Makes sense in a kinda Monty Python way I suppose...

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Kit the Coyote (December 30th, 2018),Town Heretic (December 30th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us