Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 11:31:27 GMT -6
And this, my fellow Talossans, is precisely why controversial subjects should not be enshrined in Talossan Organic Law. Controversial subjects are fine. Religious are not. False dichotomy, I'd argue. A controversial subject is controversial (creative of controversy, that is, when folk contravert one another) precisely because it's not easy to judge absolutely for one side, either because of the quality of evidence involved or the presuppositions operative on each side. Religion is "controversial" in both those ways.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Jul 18, 2012 11:32:52 GMT -6
And where the hell is the author of the proposal? Shouldn't he be here defending his miéidâ?
Where is the King? He made the abortion comment. Shouldn't he be here to back up his remarks?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 11:52:14 GMT -6
Al is on business in New York City today. The King, I imagine, is in work, with his lunch hour still being maybe an hour away.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 12:45:57 GMT -6
Besides, when did the post become about abortion? When the shock many feel about the idea of putting "All must acknowledge Jesus" into the OrgLaw was compared with the shock many feel seeing that "all citizens must acknowledge the right to take an unborn human life" is in the OrgLaw. The post then became about how NEITHER of these things should be in there. Controversial topics like this have no reason to be enshrined in Organic Law, and the fact that they are can only cause problems in our nation. Correct. A great many non-religious (and non-Christian) people are anti-abortion and share the belief that abortion should not be a right. No one is trying to say that they are the same topic. The point is that they are the same kind of topic -- the kind that our Organic Law should avoid claiming, since it should speak for all our citizens.:-) People are people; always have been, always will be. :-) Hool
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 12:51:05 GMT -6
And where the hell is the author of the proposal? Shouldn't he be here defending his miéidâ? Where is the King? He made the abortion comment. Shouldn't he be here to back up his remarks? I imagine both the CeR leader and the King, were they to see this discussion, would have little to say other than "I agree with person X". The fact is, we can talk til we're blue in the face and no one is going to be convinced one way or the other on either subject, and for this very reason the King (if you ask me) is therefore exactly right that both subjects are not proper Organic subjects. (And this is all the King said, by the way; it seems he is getting a bad rap, when all he said was the extremely neutral "stuff like this, which alienates part of the citizenry from another, should not be in the OrgLaw", and pointed out that there is stuff in there he knows does exactly that to another part of the citizenry.) Hool
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 12:56:47 GMT -6
And where the hell is the author of the proposal? Shouldn't he be here defending his miéidâ? Where is the King? He made the abortion comment. Shouldn't he be here to back up his remarks? I imagine both the CeR leader and the King, were they to see this discussion, would have little to say other than "I agree with person X". The fact is, we can talk til we're blue in the face and no one is going to be convinced one way or the other on either subject, and the King (if you ask me) is therefore right that both subjects are not proper Organic subjects. (And this is all the King said, by the way; it seems he is getting a bad rap, when all he said was the extremely neutral "stuff like this, which alienates part of the citizenry from another, should not be in the OrgLaw", and pointed out that there is stuff in there he knows does exactly that to another part of the citizenry.) Hool With all due respect to the King, there is no real reason to bring abortion into the fray. It is a non-issue and already settled in the Organic Law. I find it hard to dismiss the possibility that there is some ulterior motive going on.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jul 18, 2012 12:59:31 GMT -6
Hey now, monarchy is a controversial topic and it's in the OrgLaw, too. How to decide how controversial a topic must be to be kept out of the constitution? There are high legal barriers to protect the OrgLaw from becoming a piece of wet cloth that can be kicked around at whim, but large majorities have a say in the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Jul 18, 2012 13:02:09 GMT -6
I'd say the King stepped in it. This was about opposition to a proposal. Had nothing to do with abortion until he brought it up.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 13:03:27 GMT -6
Well, as I say, we're never going to convince each other about certain things (like whether Jesus is or is not what Christians claim him to be). The King brought abortion in as simply another example of exactly that kind of thing and how putting things like that in the OrgLaw is only asking for trouble and upset citizens. He has no ulterior motive, I am sure. I'd say the King stepped in it. This was about opposition to a proposal. Had nothing to do with abortion until he brought it up. The King didn't step in it at all. He politely tried to say, "okay, let's no one step in this." He said, "You might not like seeing X in the OrgLaw. Please know there are people who don't like seeing Y in the OrgLaw. Things like X and Y should not be in the OrgLaw." That's all he said. Being upset that he chose a specific Y only proves his point, since those people who are upset about Y being brought up as a subject are the exact people who are upset that X was brought up as a subject. The OrgLaw should not make claims about X or Y, because not all Talossans can sign on to them. (This is vastly different from the "monarchy" argument. Every nation needs a system of government, and to not put one into an Organic document is anarchy. We're not an anarchy.) Hool
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 13:07:29 GMT -6
Well, as I say, we're never going to convince each other about certain things (like whether Jesus is or is not what Christians claim him to be). The King brought abortion in as simply another example of exactly that kind of thing and how putting things like that in the OrgLaw is only asking for trouble and upset citizens. He has no ulterior motive, I am sure. I'd say the King stepped in it. This was about opposition to a proposal. Had nothing to do with abortion until he brought it up. The King didn't step in it at all. He politely tried to say, "okay, let's no one step in this." He said, "You might not like seeing X in the OrgLaw. Please know there are people who don't like seeing Y in the OrgLaw. Things like X and Y should not be in the OrgLaw." That's all he said. Being upset that he chose a specific Y only proves his point, since those upset about Y being brought up as a subject are the exact people who are upset that X was brought up as a subject. Hool I have this amazing idea. Hear me out for a moment. Look at me. How about the King comes out and defends his actions?
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 18, 2012 13:09:10 GMT -6
I have this amazing idea. Hear me out for a moment. Look at me. How about the King comes out and defends his actions? Holy crap. What's it been? Two hours? The guy has a job. He can't be on Witt all the time. What in the heck is the big big deal about "I think the OrgLaw should avoid controversial subjects like X (which alienates group 1) and Y (which alienates group 2)"? What, really, about that (which is exactly what he said) do you want him to rush back here to defend? Attack that particular statement, at least, so that he knows what it is he needs to defend. Seems like a very unbiased, apolitical, pro-inclusion, protection-of-all-his-subjects statement to me, and one that therefore is extremely defensible. Hool
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2012 13:14:44 GMT -6
I have this amazing idea. Hear me out for a moment. Look at me. How about the King comes out and defends his actions? Holy crap. What's it been? Two hours? The guy has a job. He can't be on Witt all the time. What in the heck is the big big deal about "I think the OrgLaw should avoid controversial subjects like X and Y?" What, really, about that do you want him to rush back here to defend? Attack that particular statement, at least, so that he knows what it is he needs to defend. Seems like a very unbiased, apolitical, pro-inclusion, protection-of-all-his-subjects statement to me, and one that therefore is extremely defensible. Hool Holy Crap, Hooligan. There is nothing wrong with asking the person who made the post to come on and defend it. I'm not saying it has to be this minute. But let's hear what he has to say. Am I reaching for the stars here? And I do think the statement itself oversteps the boundaries of an apolitical monarch. That has been quite obvious. I also think it is obvious when I say, "I find it hard to dismiss the possibility that there is some ulterior motive going on." But, being as I was being secreative, I'll say it, I take exception and I find his post to be highly politicized and creates an issue where the wasn't one before. How is that for clarity?
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jul 18, 2012 13:24:35 GMT -6
One good thing about a temporarily elected head of the state is that he or she is not expected to talk like a political neutrum for a lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jul 18, 2012 13:27:14 GMT -6
The abortion debate and the elevating in our legal system of Jesus Christ to King of Talossa are separate matters. The 'carpenter' amendment deals with the latter. Let's stay on-topic.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 13:34:14 GMT -6
As far as I can tell, there is no serious debate to be had about the Amendment - very few people are in support of it, those who are are expressing their right to freedom of speech, assembly, exercise of the mandate they campaigned upon - and gained several votes for...is there anything further to debate?
|
|