Alright Augie ... i'll play

Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Off Topic is for fairly serious discussion of things other than politics and current affair.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:rain :yak yak :zzzz :roll :bgrin :bike :purple :yellow :jump :beer :OMG :huh :WTF :Hi :mad :buddy :tweed :? :emb :wub :oops :stop :gsp :stay :rofl :sad :grn :thumb :yahoo :S :hush :B :h :gup :c :giggle :clap :rose :smitten :hot :hlo :meet :nah :read :scare :smack :b :PC :slap
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 18:34

I won't do your homework for you.

What does paedophilia in the catholic church have to with its goal to establish global domination?

I think you're obfuscating, Mothra.

Islam isn't coming to me. Islamism might. Do you support an Islamist state, Mothra? Would you like to be forced to wear a head veil?



So that's a no then, to whether you have been paying attention?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/breaking-the-seal-of-confession-could-pit-church-against-state/8805126[/quote]

Nothing to do with setting up a theocracy in Australia.

Try again, Mothra.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 18:17

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?



The Catholic Church.

The whole "Cannon Law" thing was bit of a giveaway.

Not been paying attention? Like, to what is actually happening?


The Catholic Church has no intention of establishing a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state. Got any evidence that they are actively trying to do so?

By the way, I'm not particularly a fan of the Catholic Church.


Do a google. Paedophilia and Cannon Law.

Oh, and Islam isn't coming to get you. Stop being hysterical.


I won't do your homework for you.

What does paedophilia in the catholic church have to with its goal to establish global domination?

I think you're obfuscating, Mothra.

Islam isn't coming to me. Islamism might. Do you support an Islamist state, Mothra? Would you like to be forced to wear a head veil?



So that's a no then, to whether you have been paying attention?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/breaking-the-seal-of-confession-could-pit-church-against-state/8805126

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 14:28

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?



The Catholic Church.

The whole "Cannon Law" thing was bit of a giveaway.

Not been paying attention? Like, to what is actually happening?


The Catholic Church has no intention of establishing a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state. Got any evidence that they are actively trying to do so?

By the way, I'm not particularly a fan of the Catholic Church.


Do a google. Paedophilia and Cannon Law.

Oh, and Islam isn't coming to get you. Stop being hysterical.


I won't do your homework for you.

What does paedophilia in the catholic church have to with its goal to establish global domination?

I think you're obfuscating, Mothra.

Islam isn't coming to me. Islamism might. Do you support an Islamist state, Mothra? Would you like to be forced to wear a head veil?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 13:03

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?



The Catholic Church.

The whole "Cannon Law" thing was bit of a giveaway.

Not been paying attention? Like, to what is actually happening?


The Catholic Church has no intention of establishing a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state. Got any evidence that they are actively trying to do so?

By the way, I'm not particularly a fan of the Catholic Church.


Do a google. Paedophilia and Cannon Law.

Oh, and Islam isn't coming to get you. Stop being hysterical.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 13:00

mothra wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?



The Catholic Church.

The whole "Cannon Law" thing was bit of a giveaway.

Not been paying attention? Like, to what is actually happening?


The Catholic Church has no intention of establishing a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state. Got any evidence that they are actively trying to do so?

By the way, I'm not particularly a fan of the Catholic Church.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 12:56

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?



The Catholic Church.

The whole "Cannon Law" thing was bit of a giveaway.

Not been paying attention? Like, to what is actually happening?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 18 Feb 2018, 12:54

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:ahh, so now we've moved from being a citizen with an opinion to being in government

and what would you do if the majority of people decided to deport all non whites, and the govt. supported that position augie?

CaesarAugustus wrote:The government's job is the protect the rights and liberties of the people.


until the majority decided that was no longer the governments job :B


That's what makes me principled, John Smith.



we weren't discussing your principles. ... I asked what would you do if the majority of the public voted to ban all non whites, and the govt. supported them?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:51

mothra wrote:No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.


Please tell me the name of an global organization which actively seeks to establish a Christian theocratic and totalitarian state, and that has used violence toward this end?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 12:48

No advance on Cannon Law yet?

I'll pop back later.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:46

johnsmith wrote:ahh, so now we've moved from being a citizen with an opinion to being in government

and what would you do if the majority of people decided to deport all non whites, and the govt. supported that position augie?

CaesarAugustus wrote:The government's job is the protect the rights and liberties of the people.


until the majority decided that was no longer the governments job :B


That's what makes me principled, John Smith.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 18 Feb 2018, 12:42

ahh, so now we've moved from being a citizen with an opinion to being in government

and what would you do if the majority of people decided to deport all non whites, and the govt. supported that position augie?

CaesarAugustus wrote:The government's job is the protect the rights and liberties of the people.


until the majority decided that was no longer the governments job :B

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:37

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:So, if a majority of the people voted in favour of deporting all people of non-white background, you would support this policy even though it infringes on the rights of Australian citizens? According to your logic you should.


you seem to think accepting the decision of the majority mean I support the position. Every day I'm forced to accept the decision of the inept govt. we have in control, the last thing they have is my support.


You said "if the majority have said what they say, what's to say they shouldn't have it?" If the majority voted to deport non-White Australians, should Australians just 'have it' to use your expression?


I'm not conceited enough to think my opinion is more important or influential to how this country should be run than that of another 51% of the population. Whether I liked the decision or not, if the majority decides to 'deport all non whites' than I guess that's what would happen.

surely you understand how democracies work?


as a side note, I've always felt that if you have to take your point to the ridiculous to make it, you never really had a valid point to start with.


Yes, that is how democracy works. But, I'll tell you this, John Smith. If the Australian population ever voted to make such decision and I was in government, I would ignore the will of the people and protect the rights of the lowest among us even at the point of the bayonet.

Sometimes the people don't always make the right decisions, John. The government's job is the protect the rights and liberties of the people.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 18 Feb 2018, 12:34

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:So, if a majority of the people voted in favour of deporting all people of non-white background, you would support this policy even though it infringes on the rights of Australian citizens? According to your logic you should.


you seem to think accepting the decision of the majority mean I support the position. Every day I'm forced to accept the decision of the inept govt. we have in control, the last thing they have is my support.


You said "if the majority have said what they say, what's to say they shouldn't have it?" If the majority voted to deport non-White Australians, should Australians just 'have it' to use your expression?


I'm not conceited enough to think my opinion is more important or influential to how this country should be run than that of another 51% of the population. Whether I liked the decision or not, if the majority decides to 'deport all non whites' than I guess that's what would happen.

surely you understand how democracies work?


as a side note, I've always felt that if you have to take your point to the ridiculous to make it, you never really had a valid point to start with.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:29

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:So, if a majority of the people voted in favour of deporting all people of non-white background, you would support this policy even though it infringes on the rights of Australian citizens? According to your logic you should.


you seem to think accepting the decision of the majority mean I support the position. Every day I'm forced to accept the decision of the inept govt. we have in control, the last thing they have is my support.


You said "if the majority have said what they say, what's to say they shouldn't have it?" If the majority voted to deport non-White Australians, should Australians just 'have it' to use your expression?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 18 Feb 2018, 12:28

CaesarAugustus wrote:So, if a majority of the people voted in favour of deporting all people of non-white background, you would support this policy even though it infringes on the rights of Australian citizens? According to your logic you should.


you seem to think accepting the decision of the majority mean I support the position. Every day I'm forced to accept the decision of the inept govt. we have in control, the last thing they have is my support.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:25

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it


So, if getting left behind means that we adopt an Islamic theocracy, then that would be acceptable to you?



I'm not the one who thinks we're heading to an islamic theocracy.


I'm presenting a hypothetical here: if progress meant that Australia eventually became a Islamic theocracy through organic and progressive means, then by your opinion, this would be acceptable, wouldn't it??


if that was what they majority of aussies wanted, who are you to say they shouldn't have it?

or is democracy only good when it goes in the direction you want it to go?


So, if a majority of the people voted in favour of deporting all people of non-white background, you would support this policy even though it infringes on the rights of Australian citizens? According to your logic you should.

Does that mean you don't have any principles?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 18 Feb 2018, 12:23

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it


So, if getting left behind means that we adopt an Islamic theocracy, then that would be acceptable to you?



I'm not the one who thinks we're heading to an islamic theocracy.


I'm presenting a hypothetical here: if progress meant that Australia eventually became a Islamic theocracy through organic and progressive means, then by your opinion, this would be acceptable, wouldn't it??


if that was what they majority of aussies wanted, who are you to say they shouldn't have it?

or is democracy only good when it goes in the direction you want it to go?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 12:21

CaesarAugustus wrote:
mothra wrote:Augie, no comment from you on Cannon Law. Bit more topical than shadow boxing with Sharia, don't you think?


Mothra, that is a false equivalence. There is no global organization that advocates the establishment of a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state, which I don't support either. Islamism is real and whilst most Muslims don't subscribe to the Islamist project, and significant minority do, particularly conservative Muslims.

If the Islamists had their way, Mothra, you wouldn't enjoy the freedoms you have today.




Oh? You've not been paying attention to the news.

Want to do a google and get back to me?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:11

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it


So, if getting left behind means that we adopt an Islamic theocracy, then that would be acceptable to you?



I'm not the one who thinks we're heading to an islamic theocracy.


I'm presenting a hypothetical here: if progress meant that Australia eventually became a Islamic theocracy through organic and progressive means, then by your opinion, this would be acceptable, wouldn't it??

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 18 Feb 2018, 12:09

mothra wrote:Augie, no comment from you on Cannon Law. Bit more topical than shadow boxing with Sharia, don't you think?


Mothra, that is a false equivalence. There is no global organization that advocates the establishment of a Christian theocracy and totalitarian state, which I don't support either. Islamism is real and whilst most Muslims don't subscribe to the Islamist project, and significant minority do, particularly conservative Muslims.

If the Islamists had their way, Mothra, you wouldn't enjoy the freedoms you have today.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by mothra » 18 Feb 2018, 00:22

Augie, no comment from you on Cannon Law. Bit more topical than shadow boxing with Sharia, don't you think?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 17 Feb 2018, 18:19

CaesarAugustus wrote:
johnsmith wrote:by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it


So, if getting left behind means that we adopt an Islamic theocracy, then that would be acceptable to you?



I'm not the one who thinks we're heading to an islamic theocracy.

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 17 Feb 2018, 11:23

johnsmith wrote:by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it


So, if getting left behind means that we adopt an Islamic theocracy, then that would be acceptable to you?

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by johnsmith » 16 Feb 2018, 21:04

by the time that happens, and I'm being generous in assuming it will happen, you and I will both be long dead of old age. Societies never remain stagnant. There are lots of things you grandparent would complain about in todays society that was better 'in their day' ... that's life. The alternative is a moribund society that gets left behind.

I don't lose any sleep over it

Re: Alright Augie ... i'll play

Post by Auggie » 16 Feb 2018, 18:27

johnsmith wrote:
CaesarAugustus wrote:
I believe in democracy .... as it stands, Australia will never be an islamic state.


How do you know?


educated guess.


But If at some point I'm wrong, you can come back and tell me.


Ok, let's assume that at some point in the future, Australia has a Muslim population of 15%. If at least half of those 15% don't integrate into society and support the Islamist project, and assuming that Australia's population is about 40 million, that is about 3 million people. If those 3 million people are organized, and make up some important political constituencies, they could have some influence over the political process. Whilst it won't result in sharia law, it could result in changing attitudes toward ideas such as freedom of speech, etc.

In Canada recently, there was a Muslim-Canadian MP who introduced a Bill to criminalize criticism of Islam. Why did she do it? Because she had a large Muslim constituency who pressured her to pass the law. Now, it didn't become law, and instead a resolution was passed in the Parliament; but it shows that MPs are being subject to their demands of their constituencies, particularly if those constituents are migrants.

It is not unreasonable to predict that politicians will be politicians and attempt to appease their constituents. If a large constituency consisted of Islamists, then more MPs would be compelled (although they may not personally agree with it) to support erosions of existing institutions.

Top