Europe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And as for the rest of your reply, my figures clearly demonstrate that it is not the "restrictive sociological model" of traditional family values that causes these social problems, but rather the breakdown of such a model. What sort of argument are you implying here? That kids from single-parent households turn to crime and drop out of school because of the stigma attached to their family situation?

---

Ok lets skip the whole arguing history with each other since that will lead no-where quick and actually hit the nail on the head.

Yes Single parent households are an issue - primarily because one parent has to both provide and raise a child which does not balance out as it should and the child either ends up in Poverty or with too little Parental oversight (or more usuelly both), promoting stable family units is most definitely a positive thing.

We differ on the solution to said problem - you promote returning to the "traditional" Man provider and Women Nurture model - my problem is said model was tried and failed hence the situation we are in - funnily enough Women don't like to be forced into a role and neither do Men - it is much better if we let them chose. My suggestion is we focus more on building stable family units and less on the roles the members of the Unit take - theres no reason a Woman provider Man nurture unit cant succeed or indeed why a family unit cant be two Men or Two Women - the important part is the stability and their parenting skills

Now to return us back-on-topic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/jFIQG0t.jpg

Looks like I wasn't the only one.


As for the European Union being evil and such, I point to the post in the net-neutrality thread.

The Evil European Union, led by Socialists, Leftists and Greens, have ensured free-speech and access on the internet for us all.

Quote:

---

The Evil European Union, led by Socialists, Leftists and Greens, have ensured free-speech and access on the internet for us all.

---

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

Then, presumably, they can either bolster or diminish, defend or destroy, them.

Or are "freedoms" just one more of those causally-inert spiritual entities that are beloved of the ignorant and loud-mouthed?

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

---

Happy enough to allow Virgin Media, BT, Talk-talk and others infringe on your 'existing freedom' whilst being powerless to stop it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

---

Horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Horse shit.

---

Also exists and is not bestowed by governments.

Freedom is only that which the powers that be don't touch as it is perceived to be beyond the point at which people will protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Horse shit.

---

Not really.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Not really.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

---

You underlings of monarchist are surely funny sort: "Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." :wall: lol

Right and liberties are not the gift of governments. They can only take them away.

They are to stand before government as unassailable. What government grants can be taken away by government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

You underlings of monarchist are surely funny sort: "Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." :wall: lol

---

what is wrong?

were you confused by the reference to the sovereign, because it is basically shorthand for; state/government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Right and liberties are not the gift of governments. They can only take them away.

---

This is why the US does both the Anglo- and European- view on the matter, by safeguarding rights as defined by the constitution.