Comments for MandM

Comment on Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part I by Troll

Troll — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:59:33 +0000

“should the government be able to confiscate your grass on your yard? “….

personally I don’t think the government should be confiscating anything. My initial comment said that UNDER THIS SYSTEM the best way to facilitate collective ownership is through the government. But, as may be becoming clear, I don’t think we live in an ideal system.

Comment on Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part I by Troll

Troll — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:56:45 +0000

“Um, no. The builders do not own the house. Their labour has been contracted by the buyer.”

Glenn: I repeat: We have very different philosophies of ownership. I realize that builders DONT own the house under our present system. I was talking about whether they SHOULD.

Comment on Should we Have Faith in the System? The Judge, the Bully & the Bus-Driver by Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:53:09 +0000

After watching the item on Sunday about the forced sham marriages of underage Muslim girls I wonder if the police are totally incompetent or are being influenced by senior politicians.

http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news

It is outrageous that the police fail to use common sense and discretion to charge the bus driver yet turn a blind eye to underage Moslem girls being raped. I wonder if they are taking notice of the Minister of Justice, Simon Power’s statement that he does not believe it is a significant issue.

Comment on Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part I by Dimmocrazy

Dimmocrazy — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:26:21 +0000

Matt: I hate to disappoint you, but things are not correct or incorrect because you say so, or because you mix theological points with legal ones to suit your argument . Here’s the meanings of inferos:

inferos

infer.os N 2 1 ACC P M
inferus, inferi N (2nd) M [XXXDX] lesser
those below (pl.), the dead;
infer.os ADJ 1 1 ACC P M POS
inferus, infera -um, inferior -or -us, infimus -a -um ADJ [XXXAX]
infer.os ADJ 1 2 ACC P M POS
infer, infera -um, inferior -or -us, infumus -a -um ADJ [XXXDX] lesser
below, beneath, underneath; of hell; vile; lower, further down; lowest, last;

There’s no need at all to refer to latin theology, we’re talking legal principles here.

Secondly, Madeleine doesn’t make that alleged point at all, she simply assumes that what is meant by ‘inferos’ is ‘centre’, or (if I were to give her that credit) she is referring to a 19th century english case: Corbet v Hill, that has been quoted for that extension on the factual translation. Note that Black’s (authoritative for the translation of latin into english in the legal context, translates ‘inferos’ as ‘depths’)

Comment on Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part I by Matt

Matt — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:03:10 +0000

Dimmocrazy

Actually , Madeliene’s use is correct. The word “inferos” was common in latin Theology. It means “hell”. What you fail to note and which Madeliene does, is that in the middle ages people believed in a spherical earth and hell was in the centre of the earth. Hence, if a person stated you owned everything down to hell they were refering to the centre of the earth.
My last blog-post ..“Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast

Comment on “Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast by Mads

Mads — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:28:14 +0000

Really? Admittedly I did just steal Thinking Matters’ link and paste it but when I right click and save I get an MP3 file.

What browser are you using? I’m using FireFox
My last blog-post ..“Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast

Comment on “Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast by Simon

Simon — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:09:17 +0000

MP3 file not found? :)

Comment on Has Science Disproved God? @ Auckland University by “Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast « Theology Geek NZ

“Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast « Theology Geek NZ — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:43:26 +0000

[...] you missed the “Has Science Disproved God?” panel discussion at Auckland University last week and you just cannot wait for the video to be edited, formatted and uploaded to You Tube then simply [...]

Comment on Maverick Philosopher on the Historical Atrocities Argument by Thulla

Thulla — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:53:24 +0000

Recent Sri Lankan war on terror was not officially fought in the name of Buddhism, it’s merely a sovereign nation defending its integrity. But sadly some Sinhala Buddhist fanatics tried to interpret that cause as a holy war to defend Buddhism, which eventually convinced some ppl, that violence is caused in the name of Buddhism too. However in Sri Lankan history, I can give 2 examples where Buddhists caused violence in the name of religion. King Valagamba once destroyed a Jaina temple and built the Buddhist temple ‘Abayagiriya’ , and during the time of king Mahasen there was an insurgency between the Mahayana & Theravadhi factions of Buddhism.

Comment on Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part I by Dimmocrazy

Dimmocrazy — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:52:26 +0000

Glenn: Time to brush up on your Latin. Madeleine’s translation of “centre ” was incorrect. (As was her assertion about the origin of legal context of the term, but that’s irrelevant for the argument here.)