To me, it does not matter how England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland came together. The fact is that the nation of Great Britain has existed in one form or another for more than 400 years, and I do not want the status quo to change more than it already has. And, maybe because I am an American, I tend to think in terms of power dynamics rather than pure nationalism or merely in the name of a particular political movement.Any reason why? Scotland is already a separate country in most senses of the word. The only reason Scotland became joined to England is that James king of Scotland “inherited” England when Bloody Bess queen of England died, being her nearest surviving relative (2nd cousin).
Also puzzling how someone who describes himself as an “old fashioned Catholic” subscribes to Cartesian philosophy and has as one of his “heroes” one of history’s most vicious and murderous wholesale persecutors of Catholics, who ransacked Rome and stole everything he could get his hands on, overrun and “abolished” the Papal States and made his brother “King of Rome”, kidnapped and imprisoned two popes one of whom died in prison, etc.etc.
What a very odd reason. Just because something has been the status quo for a long time does not make it right to continue it, or even mean that it was EVER right. Do you similarly oppose the breakup of the USSR (formerly the Russian Empire) which had similarly lasted MORE than 400 years in one form or another, into 15 independent countries which occurred in 1991?To me, it does not matter how England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland came together. The fact is that the nation of Great Britain has existed in one form or another for more than 400 years, and I do not want the status quo to change more than it already has. And, maybe because I am an American, I tend to think in terms of power dynamics rather than pure nationalism or merely in the name of a particular political movement.
As it is contrary to Catholic theology and the conclusions of science , it cannot be common sense. It is the type of nonsense that enables professed Catholics to justify contraception to themselves, and enables people to claim that if a man THINKS he is a woman, then he IS a woman. People are living bodies, not merely living brains.Also, I wanted to let you know that I do not ascribe to the philosophy of any one thinker, so no, I am not a Cartesian. And to me, Descartes’ famous line is basically common sense.
Then I suggest you say that on your profile, instead of saying that he is your “hero”.As for Napoleon, just because I admire him in some respects does not mean that I agree with everything that he did or even that I would have been on his side if we were contemporaries.
Tory or SNP it won’t change the vileness of the Scottish Presbyterian.
Don’t you think that’s a bit strong - I have friends and family who are Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) and I would never consider them vile! (Sometimes I could see them far enough, though - especially the in-laws LOL)Tory or SNP it won’t change the vileness of the Scottish Presbyterian.
I know this may be kind of off hand, but Descartes did not mean just because he thinks he is something, then he is that, when he said ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’, the actual meaning of that statement is that because we contemplate our existence, we must exist to question it. While I do not ascribe to that thought myself, what you have said about Descartes shows a blatant misunderstanding of the statement, as it does not apply to any situation like a man thinking he is a woman, and therefore he is a woman, that would have been unthinkable to descartes.Do you similarly oppose Irish independence? England had ruled Ireland for centuries before it began to rule Scotland.
As it is contrary to Catholic theology and the conclusions of science , it cannot be common sense. It is the type of nonsense that enables professed Catholics to justify contraception to themselves, and enables people to claim that if a man THINKS he is a woman, then he IS a woman. People are living bodies, not merely living brains.
Hey, I know Presbyterians personally. There are many fine people in that community. But there isb a strain of vileness and sheer evilness in the Scottish Protestant culture.Don’t you think that’s a bit strong - I have friends and family who are Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) and I would never consider them vile! (Sometimes I could see them far enough, though - especially the in-laws LOL)
Sorry I expressed that badly. Descartes himself did not believe that, but the prevailing system of philosophy known as Cartesianism which has grown up around his theories, does support such things.I know this may be kind of off hand, but Descartes did not mean just because he thinks he is something, then he is that, when he said ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’, the actual meaning of that statement is that because we contemplate our existence, we must exist to question it. While I do not ascribe to that thought myself, what you have said about Descartes shows a blatant misunderstanding of the statement, as it does not apply to any situation like a man thinking he is a woman, and therefore he is a woman, that would have been unthinkable to descartes.
Forgive me for replying so late, Mr. Gee. No, a status quo is not always a good thing, though in the case of Great Britain, I think that a truly united kingdom (not the mish-mash they have now, with a parliament for each country). But, as for Russia, I honestly am a little disappointed that she is no longer a union of many peoples like it once was. I obviously do not like Communism (and so would be opposed to the U.S.S.R. in itself), but I think that a restoration of the Romanov empire would be nice, though some sort of constitution would obviously be needed.What a very odd reason. Just because something has been the status quo for a long time does not make it right to continue it, or even mean that it was EVER right. Do you similarly oppose the breakup of the USSR (formerly the Russian Empire) which had similarly lasted MORE than 400 years in one form or another, into 15 independent countries which occurred in 1991?
Do you similarly oppose Irish independence? England had ruled Ireland for centuries before it began to rule Scotland.
No problem, I often am away for a while.Forgive me for replying so late, Mr. Gee.
Interesting. Would you like to see the Romanovs rule again over staunchly Catholic Poland and Lithuania as they did for centuries? Or Alaska?No, a status quo is not always a good thing, though in the case of Great Britain, I think that a truly united kingdom (not the mish-mash they have now, with a parliament for each country). But, as for Russia, I honestly am a little disappointed that she is no longer a union of many peoples like it once was. I obviously do not like Communism (and so would be opposed to the U.S.S.R. in itself), but I think that a restoration of the Romanov empire would be nice, though some sort of constitution would obviously be needed.
Hello again. The political histories Poland, Lithuania, and Ireland are a bit complex, so I do not think that I could give a concise answer about any of those countries. But the fact that the U.S. bought Alaska, at the time a barely inhabited land, 144 years ago should tell that I am fine with it being a part of the U.S. I do not think that the Russians could have done better with Alaska, and if they had kept her, it probably would have caused a lot of problems once the Bolsheviks had taken over Russia. As for imperialism, as odd it may sound to you, I do not think that colonial empires were all bad. As for strong state governments in America, they have their pros and cons; I tend to be more of a centralist. But I feel that they are a bit different from highly devoluted countries, since the latter tends to be based on ethnonationalistic feeling rather than sole efficiency. And we have seen recently in the U.K., giving such places more political autonomy seems to only lead to them demanding more and more separation from the actual nation in question. As for the idea of subsidiary, I’d rather not discuss it right now. I am sure that it would lead to a fairly lengthy debate.No problem, I often am away for a while.
Interesting. Would you like to see the Romanovs rule again over staunchly Catholic Poland and Lithuania as they did for centuries? Or Alaska?
And you didn’t answer my question about Ireland.
For that matter would you like to see the British Empire restored? Or the French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese Empires? All with some sort of constitution of cpourse. Because these European countries built up their empires by conquering across the seas at exacly the same time that Russia built up her empire by conquering across the great Eurasian landmass.
And your homeland has a parliament for each of its 50 States. Is your homeland a “mishmash”? Should the State governments be abolished?
Catholic doctrine speaks of the principle of subsidiarity. That is, that any particular function of governance should preferably be devolved to the smallest entity which can carry it out reasonably efficiently and justly. Smaller entities are naturally closer to the individual men who make them up than are large entities.