yes
Gary Kasparov Arrested
Sort:
No
Wow. Ok. Why not?
Because if you swear alligence to a community you have to stand by your commitment.You can't break a marriage unilaterally.That's being a traitor.
In my example there is no mention of any sworn allelegiance. It simply says that Harry was part of organizing a club, was at the clubhouse, and wanted to leave the club.
Now, do you believe Harry has a right to leave the club?
Who would ever voluntarily join any group if they were told up front that they would never be allowed to leave ? I certainly wouldnt .
I would. People get married, and form a family all the time. You are then bound together forever.
chester6 wrote:
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
The referendum was invalid. Citizens in Kiev didn't get to vote.If Texas wanted to leave the Union,I would have the right to vote.I live in illinois.
Well, there's some yankee logic for ya right there.
Imagine there were three men. Tom, Dick, and Harry. They organised a club. They're all hanging at the clubhouse one day, and Harry says, "I don't really like this club anymore. I'm leaving." Then Tom and Dick say, "Well, wait a second. You can't leave without a vote. We both vote that you have to stay." Harry says, "No, I really want to leave and I'm leaving." Then Tom and Dick physically restrain Harry, not letting him leave.
The example I've just given describes a case of kidnappping. Harry is well within his right to defend himself, try to fight off Tom and Dick, and get the heck out of there. Tom and Dick don't have the right to tell Harry what he can and can not do just because they call it a "vote". This would also be true if Tom, Dick and Harry were names given to groups of people.
Yes, but Sr_L is correct that Texas or any other US state does not have the right of secession under the constitution (Texas vs White 1869.) This does not however preclude the right of revolution or revocation with the concent of all other states.
Federations of states are slightly more complicated than a treehouse club kidnapping.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
I would. People get married, and form a family all the time. You are then bound together forever.
Ever hear of something called divorce ?
Divorce is a sin.abandoning your family would make you a traitor.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Divorce is a sin.abandoning your family would make you a traitor.
Sin exists , so does divorce . Even the Bible allows divorce in certain cases so obviously divorce isnt always a sin . If a man and woman marry , have no kids and then they get a divorce due to infidelity who is the sinner ? The mate that was unfaithful is certainly a sinner ( adultery ) but if the other mate initiates a divorce over the infidelity are they sinning in doing so ?
They can get an anullment. Obviously the adulteror was lying when he pledged fidelity,so there was no marriage in the first place,but if the marriage is not judged to be invalid and if the person gets remarried it is a sin.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Yes,but the Rabbinical council has a proceedure for granting anullments.I'm sure Muslims have a proceedure too,but I don't know what it is.
If I thought there was something wrong with being Catholic I wouldnt have married a Catholic . I was raised Protestant .
_Number_6 wrote:
Yes, but Sr_L is correct that Texas or any other US state does not have the right of secession under the constitution (Texas vs White 1869.) This does not however preclude the right of revolution or revocation with the concent of all other states.
Federations of states are slightly more complicated than a treehouse club kidnapping.
First of all I was imagining the clubhouse in a tree also. That's funny.
More seriously, I don't think federations of states are, fundamentally, any more complicated than a three man club. Those three men could make their arrangements infinetely complicated if they were so inclined to do so. Harry could agree that he was bound to the club, by punishment of death. Would we not still prosecute Tom and Dick for murder?
If Tom, Dick and Harry stayed true to the club until they all died of natural causes, and raised their sons in the club. Would the sons be bound by the agreements of their fathers?
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Yes,but the Rabbinical council has a proceedure for granting anullments.I'm sure Muslims have a proceedure too,but I don't know what it is.
Senior-Lazarus_Long, I agree that people should fulfill their commitments. However, it is necessary and inevitable for people to change their minds. If that change of mind results in a betrayal of that commitment it is not your or my place to judge it as a sin, and certainly not to punish it with violence.
trysts wrote:
There are no satellite pictures of an invasion. No video evidence. Where are the videos from USA-Ukraine Today? Satellites can take pictures clear enough to see a license plate number anywhere on earth but they can't take a picture of a Russian invasion? Why? That's because there was/is no invasion.
The Novaya Gazeta link I showed WT2008 tells the story of a Russian soldier (a member of the Russian military) who was wounded in Ukraine. I regret that it's all in Russian, and the only translation I've seen was a Finnish one. WT2008 still hasn't helped us with a translation, but from what I understood from the Finnish version is that a Russian soldier gave an interview to NG (the only independent Russian news source) about the involvement of the Russian military. Apparently, on February 8th, the Russian troops that had amassed on the border for "military exercises" were given the order to cross over to the Ukraine and into Donetsk.
Here's the link to the Finnish article, as if that helps. The last sentence means, "I have nothing against him [Putin]. Of course he is a very interesting person. And cunning: he says to the whole world that there are no troops, and then he tells us to 'Go! Go!'"
chester6 wrote:
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
The referendum was invalid. Citizens in Kiev didn't get to vote.If Texas wanted to leave the Union,I would have the right to vote.I live in illinois.
Well, there's some yankee logic for ya right there.
Imagine there were three men. Tom, Dick, and Harry. They organised a club. They're all hanging at the clubhouse one day, and Harry says, "I don't really like this club anymore. I'm leaving." Then Tom and Dick say, "Well, wait a second. You can't leave without a vote. We both vote that you have to stay." Harry says, "No, I really want to leave and I'm leaving." Then Tom and Dick physically restrain Harry, not letting him leave.
The example I've just given describes a case of kidnappping. Harry is well within his right to defend himself, try to fight off Tom and Dick, and get the heck out of there. Tom and Dick don't have the right to tell Harry what he can and can not do just because they call it a "vote". This would also be true if Tom, Dick and Harry were names given to groups of people.
Nope, it's like if you take an oath to join the Army,and your company is ordered to war. One member decides to desert, but the other members won't let him,and he is forced to live up to his commitment to the other members of his company. This is good and correct.
Do you agree that, in my example, Harry has the right to leave the club if he wants to? Yes, or no.