Zern
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zern
-
-
1 minute ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
If you fancy countering my points then feel free. They remain unanswered.
Cheers.
Sure buddy. And Jesus is magic too.
0 -
2 minutes ago, spongeheid15 said:
Clearly an arch-unionist. The worst sort of unionist.
One that calls for a referendum, in 2023 apparently, and just to show how devoted to the union she is she'll hold one and campaign to win!
Devious.
2 -
52 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Well if you want to counter my arguments then go ahead.
As it stands, my points remain unanswered.
P.S. Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.
You've presented no argument, just blown William Lane Craig's horn.
0 -
9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:
The Floating Nats coming to terms with the true truth that Nippy prefers hobnobbing with the Royals to delivering Indy2 in 2023. Would bring tears to a glass eye:
2023
heh
0 -
30 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
It may be verbatim, but it's still out of context, and as he explains many atheists have even said as much.
Unfortunately for you, your claim of the point of the quote being that there needs to be something more to become a Christian is also incorrect. He actually said it to describe what he thinks is the current cultural milieu and the attitude of most Western intellectuals.
Please forgive me if I don't take your claim about John Lennox seriously, as you've not covered yourself in glory thus far.
You have no idea what you are talking about. .
Lennox is a buffoon and the creationist garbage he was peddling was thoroughly refuted.
William Lane Craig was sensible enough to couch his beliefs in more theosophic terms. He is not a stupid man.
His argument are still shit tho
0 -
24 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
He's being quoted verbatim. It comes from his book Reasonable Faith where he gives his version of the KCA, amongst other arguments then concedes that there needs to be something more to get to the Jesusy religion he prefers. He uses scripture. That's the Faith part of Reasonable Faith, you get it?
Out of context lol. You're too dumb to spot the fallacies and the man's chosen profession of Christian apologist. aka Spin-doctor for Jesus.
Lennox's moment was when he backed a form of Christian Science to be taught in classrooms in the UK, until the various scientific bodies told him in no uncertain terms that this "intelligent design" was unscientific and on a par with astrology. We don't teach that crap in science class.
Christianity gets very silly, very quickly.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Quote"The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." ~ William Lane Craig
0 -
3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
I know quite a few good people who are Christians, Catholics who aren't anti abortion or contraception and Free Presbyterians who will say goodbye to a friend at a Catholic funeral. It's treating religion like science, literal truth that fucks people up. There's nothing wrong with listening to the good stuff and ignoring the medieval.
My grandparents left the free kirk when they lost a child before they were baptised. Doctrine was that unbaptised=damned. The burial on sacred ground was denied.
Very shitty. Doctrinally consistent, but shitty nonetheless.
1 -
4 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:
Good video on youtube of Christopher Hitchens debating William Lane Craig
That's going back a few years. iirc the internet had this debate and the Christians lost.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:
Did they go bust?
No. A few of the extremists did go boom though.
0 -
9 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Well if you didn't think differing scholarly opinion and translation don't change the fundamentals, then why mention them? Not being pedantic, but I just don't see where you're coming from.
The 'pish' seemed to be a separate point, but perhaps it wasn't.
I've never came across (excuse the pun) a law against wanking, but for me the virgin birth and resurrection don't seem ridiculous when you take God's nature into account, which is my starting point.
There are several scientific, philosophical, historical and spiritual reasons as to why I reached the conclusion of God's existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably my favourite.
Ah yes the Kalam the scholastic muslim school of thought that argued for existence of Allah.
Salaam
0 -
If i were a royalist, i would be a tad worried that the Queen is too sick to do the basics like walk, talk and sit still while being adulated and fawned over.
She's a corgi owner and knows that once their back legs go, they're on their way out.
3 -
1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:
I knew the anti-trans people were spouting shit when their arguments mirrored, almost word for word, the same as was used against 'The Gayz™"
2 -
15 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:
My perception is that because there's not much leaking of possible names, it could be someone quite senior....
(Please, please, please
let it be a particularly tall, lanky, bespectacled streak of piss whose name rhymes with peas-hogg)
My money is on the slithy Gove.
The erratic behaviour, the drug-fuelled dancing, and above all his moist lips.
We are spoiled for choice when it comes to Torys and sexual assault.
0 -
16 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Not quite what happened.
Braverman's comments were spot on considering Thornberry's recent vile tweet.
What are you objecting to?
Is it Obama?
0 -
1 hour ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Nice deflection.
Thankyou for conceding that both Brexit and Austerity are fucking awful.
0 -
Any word on who Mr Lickynipples is?
0 -
17 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:
The Growth Commission Under Andrew Wilson reckoned there would need to be austerity in the medium term after independence.
The report mentions austerity a total of 3 times:
Quote3.162 Scotland should also learn the lessons of both international examples and recent UK policy history by tending carefully to the impact of any deficit reduction on growth performance. Scotland should explicitly reject the austerity model pursued by the UK in recent years. Scotland needs to focus on both the real economy, and putting finances on a sustainable footing, as dual fiscal goals.
Quote• Scotland should also learn the lessons of both international examples and recent UK policy history by tending carefully to the impact of any deficit reduction on growth performance. Scotland should explicitly reject the austerity model pursued by the UK in recent years. Scotland needs to focus on both the real economy, and putting finances on a sustainable footing, as dual fiscal goal
QuoteB7.5 At the outset, given the analysis in the chapters above, what is clear from the international examples is that Scotland’s position is relatively better in the round than many of the countries that have faced fiscal challenges, especially on debt. Scotland’s fiscal starting point is relatively challenging, but improving Scotland’s fiscal position is a proposition that is fundable, and entirely achievable without continued austerity. It should also be noted that achieving the economic growth objectives set out in Part A would accelerate the process
Every time it recommends rejecting austerity. I could find no indication otherwise.
0 -
17 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
Just ask the Greeks how the EU treats it's member states in terms of inflicting austerity upon them.
Imagine how much worse it would be if they had pursued a Brexit like the UK. They'd be doubly-fucked.
0 -
1 hour ago, Duries Air Freshener said:
In the unlikely event that we were allowed back into the EU, the austerity inflicted upon us would make the Tories look like angels.
Austerity is a Tory policy, one we've been suffering under for quite some time now.
Why would an SNP led government do that to its population when it can, as an independent country, increase borrowing and run a deficit to fund public services? There is also the control of defence spending that will allow re-allocation of funds to other areas of the economy as we no longer have to support spending on trident and much of the navy and air force.
Joining the EU will lead to increases in trade and funding for areas in Scotland.
No longer having to pay for the bloated House of Lords. A welcome saving.
Never understood why austerity would suddenly become SNP/Green policy, they're not in favour of that shite. Never have been. Tory policies are not popular up here.
1 -
Apologies for the late response. I will address your points as they come, but to recap; The International Court of Justice in 2010 passed a majority decision on Kosovo which contain the following declaration:
Quote"General international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"
This prompted a challenge and a decision by the Canadian Supreme court in relation to secession of Quebec and UDI. They decided to affirm the right of secession and claim to independence through constitutional change. Quebec has the rights to a referendum, federal recognition, and in the event of a successful referendum vote; the right the negotiate secession. I think it a good example of a court embracing the principle and intent behind a ruling by a higher court that it pays reference to. They increased and secured a path to secession to such an extent that UDI may only be reconsidered in extreme circumstances.
QuoteUnder international law, there is no right of secession, except in the context of colonies and oppressed peoples.
In the words of Alex Salmond in the 2014 White Paper, "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated".
No, it is only valid in the context of what the Quebec Secession Reference correctly described as a "absolute denial" of self-determination for peoples.
A constitutional prohibition on secession is not regarded as an "absolute denial" of self-determination. The very existence of democratic sub-state government in Scotland is evidence to the contrary.
You might, but even then, only might, just have a point if the Westminster Parliament were actually to legislate to abolish the Scottish Parliament.
If you begin a sentence with "Under International Law..." then you better reference an international law.
The decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which amended their constitution, is a national law that has no jurisdiction or direct application outside Canada.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying "Under international law i can buy a gun because of the 2nd amendment."
In the absence of domestic legislation to the contrary there is no prohibition for UDI, how that applies within signatory states is subject to them.
The decision by Canada was to recognise that their preferred solution was negotiated settlement. This was stated throughout. They agreed that unilateral decisions by either side would be counter-productive to that end and they bound both Quebec and the Canadian government to negotiate. By adopting this change they obviated the need for unilateral declarations as there is now a legal path to negotiated secession within Canadian law.
None of this was adapted to UK law, so it is unclear to me why you see this as binding to Scotland or the UK as a whole.
Also, why do we only receive the limitations of the Canadian decision? You've argued that Scotland has no right to hold a referendum under UK/International law yet the Canadian decision explicitly mentions the ability of Quebec to hold a referendum and have the result recognised. Why is there no vote for us?
QuoteNo, you accepted that Westminster is not bound by international law to enable a referendum to happen or to allow or accept Scottish independence.
I was describing the hierarchy and relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. A Holyrood that exists solely within UK law. I don't need to reference international law to do that. The links you provided showed that Westminster was proceeding with the conceit that it remains absolute at all times, and can reform, reduce and abolish Holyrood on a whim.
QuoteWhat I have pointed out to you is that any "rights" that Scotland might have under international law have to come with corresponding "duties", on the part of the UK, to accept, respect and honour those rights. Without those duties there are no rights.
Ideally yes. Trouble is that Westminster and the current government appear to not agree, and see themselves are absolute with regards to international agreements at this time. This is not condusive to negotiated settlement, which is something of a throughline in international treaties. Far too often we are seeing a government of the UK that resents its obligation under international law.
QuoteIf international law says that I have the right not to be tortured, that comes with corresponding duties on (at least) contracting sovereign states (a) to not torture me and (b) to secure in domestic law and practice arrangements that ensure I am not tortured.
If those corresponding duties do not exist, then I do not have a meaningful right not to be tortured.
Similarly, neither the Scottish Government nor the Scottish people has any rights in international law that do not impose corresponding duties on the UK as an international actor to honour and give effect to those rights.
That's what international law is.
I understand international law well enough thanks. Glad you seem to recognise its importance.
When i brought up the GFA earlier you dismissed it. Due, in part, to it being international law.
The GFA does double double duty here though. It is both UK and international law.
As such it contains within it some key principles and provisions that may be applied to Scotland's situation directly. Like the trigger for a constitutional border poll for the citizens of Northern Ireland. The conditions for which have been clarified recently. It appears that the thresholds for holding a border poll would be the legislative ability by Stormont to pass a motion to that effect which then goes to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland requesting a referendum. The role of the NI Secretary is purely functional, a Mike Pence sort of deal.
Scotland appears to meet that threshold in international law. Thus if the UK government is committed to the principle of negotiated settlement it should be granted.
Refusal could be regarded as a unilateral denial of the rights to self-determination for the people of Scotland.
QuoteOtherwise you just sound like Sean Clerkin going into his local police station saying "I'd like to report a crime! An international war crime".
I don't know who that is.
QuoteThe point is that it plays no meaningful or legitimate role in this constitutional dispute.
Civil disobedience in secession disputes only advances anything if there is clear evidence of oppression of those being absolutely denied self-determination.
Your real-world examples are those where sub-state nations have actually been oppressed.
Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated.
Your knee-jerk reaction to civil disobedience ignores the history of the GFA and Scotland and really is nothing more than an expressed desire to see no unpleasant consequences arise from political actions. We are seeing a whole slew of potential crises pending. We have increasing inflation. Direct interference by the UK in Irish affairs, which has something of a history of misplaced confidence in its ability to govern well or even competently in this regard. I was around during the poll tax riots in Scotland and the mass non-payment. The riots the following year were the ones that triggered change. In a way, a lot of Scottish politics is rooted in civil disobedience and non-compliance.
We didn't get the GFA by being dismissive or complacent. I like peace, i also like that people can use their power of assembly to influence, strike or protest.
I don't like that the UK government has the power to f**k with my human rights. Has stripped me of my European rights already and continues to act unilaterally.
I think it would be better if you understood that a UDI would be more akin to an appeal to a higher court on a particular issue. In Scotland's case a refusal to acknowledge the desire to express their political will through a referendum. When all avenues of negotiation have been purposely curtailed.
It would not arise without support of the international community, but i do not think your "method" of counting support is something they are looking to. They will negotiate with the First Minister in her role as representative of Scotland.
I will get to your voting schtick in another post.
1 -
SNP supporters get to celebrate gains at the council elections, at Scottish general elections and UK general elections that increased their share of the vote, share of representatives and increased their overwhelming majority in the legislative bodies across Scotland. They also get to see the two 'mainstream' UK political parties compete for 3rd place and the privilege of opposing an SNP/Green government They don't even pretend anymore, just pledge to 'hold the SNP to account'.
Unionists get to celebrate a meaningless poll that will be superseded within weeks.
Its a fair exchange
0 -
6 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:
I’m not in any position to criticise as myself and my family broke every rule in the book as we all thought it was nonsense.
Not a good look in retrospect. We had a guy would refused to wear a mask when they came into our place of work, all through the pandemic he did this.
Always wore his David Icke T-shirt though. He was at least considerate enough to come with his own warning label.
0 -
43 minutes ago, Eednud said:
Scotty from Marketing has called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat. ALP rule for the next 3 years. Supposed big swing to independents and minor parties though but looks as though ALP will have a majority without need of the support of others. The Senate might be a different story although it was only a half Senate election this time.
Not surprised Morrison lost, if his footballing skills are anything to go by; he lacks awareness and has a tendency to play the man not the ball.
Automatic red card imo. This ain't rugby.
0
God Save The Queen
in The Politics Forum
Posted
as a Christian you should be used to that. Jesus has popped out for some cigarettes and will be back any day now...