psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #51 Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: How can it be imaginery when in 1215 magna carta was brought into existence and signed and lawfully sealed by the king? Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #52 Share Posted April 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: You've lost it DS. You're only just picking up on this? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #53 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Golden Duck said: You've lost it DS. The only relevance your rambling about a collective noun goes to your state of mind. What is a noun?? 1 minute ago, Golden Duck said: The Constitution is how Australia was established. I've given you the information how legislation sits with common law. Whatever misguided motivation you have for continuing to blabber your nonsense is baffling. It's better you start your own blog to explain you perceptions. https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953 Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Is the queen still in charge of Australia? 1 minute ago, Golden Duck said: Here's the video of Scotty's last swearing in. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/the-governor-general-swears-in-scott-morrison-as-prime-minister/11159932 And here's Ken Wyatt's. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2019/05/29/ken-wyatt-sworn-australias-first-indigenous-cabinet-minister An oath is a personal affirmation. You need to understand that it's nature of the English language that "oath" now covers promises of secular solemnity. A prime minister is supposed to swear on the bible and to the queen who runs Australia. Why wasn't the queen there give to the prime minister authority to act for her in parliament??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #54 Share Posted April 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, psyche101 said: Easy. Anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #55 Share Posted April 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, psyche101 said: You're only just picking up on this? Do you know anything about constitutionhistory of England where America and Australia gets all their powers from? clearly not. You just believe in what you believe and read nothing about the laws and customs that go back 800+ years. A belief is nice, but it just isn't history. Where do people get their power from to have power over other people??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #56 Share Posted April 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, psyche101 said: No I said Scotty from marketing stabbed someone. Malcolm Turnbull actually. Scotty isn't a god. I don't recognise any god's authority. Nothing to do with who is PM. History. How many cannonballs and sword blades carried gods name for personal benefit? Who put God's name on those weapons? Did they have God's permission? If so, show me the contract with God's signature that gave them permission. Your appealing to emotion, not logic. Violence is pure emotion, not logic. God is pure love, and forgiveness. I'm done thread jacking, with my apologies to the op. I'll continue in another thread if anyone's amendable. Love, and light to all. If my parting sentence stings, ask yourself why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #57 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Just now, Dreamer screamer said: What is a noun?? https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953 Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Is the queen still in charge of Australia? A prime minister is supposed to swear on the bible and to the queen who runs Australia. Why wasn't the queen there give to the prime minister authority to act for her in parliament??? Indeed, you are a bore and a troll. You've been given the source material to answer your questions about Australian law. Your question about grammaticsl element is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #58 Share Posted April 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: A prime minister is supposed to swear on the bible and to the queen who runs Australia. I'd love to discuss this in the religion tab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #59 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 37 minutes ago, psyche101 said: God can bite my ass. Good title for a new thread in the proper tab. Go for it. It would be....interesting. Edited April 30, 2021 by Hankenhunter To insert smiley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #60 Share Posted April 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: Do you know anything about constitutionhistory of England where America and Australia gets all their powers from? clearly not. You just believe in what you believe and read nothing about the laws and customs that go back 800+ years. A belief is nice, but it just isn't history. Where do people get their power from to have power over other people??? Do you know anything about those customs have evolved and what is in effect to today. History is important but it we live in the present. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #61 Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 hours ago, Golden Duck said: @OverSword, If your interested, here is one of Sky News' stars. Micallef for PM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #62 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Do you know anything about those customs have evolved and what is in effect to today. History is important but it we live in the present. But ruled by past precedent. AKA, an excuse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #63 Share Posted April 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said: I'd love to discuss this in the religion tab Why? It's wrong. He's not aware of the full story, or he's ignoring half of it. The truth is just semantic pedantry to draw the distinction between an oath and an affirmation. In practice oath id used when affirmation would be traditionally more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #64 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Why? It's wrong. He's not aware of the full story, or he's ignoring half of it. The truth is just semantic pedantry to draw the distinction between an oath and an affirmation. In practice oath id used when affirmation would be traditionally more accurate. Yes it's wrong, but not for the reasons you're stating. Think more obvious. The elephant in the room. The Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #65 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said: But ruled by past precedent. AKA, an excuse. Uhhh...like I said earlier, right up until that precedent is superceded - The Nandruku Defence being a famous and contemporary example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #66 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) Just now, Hankenhunter said: Yes it's wrong, but not for the reasons you're stating. Think more obvious. The elephant in the room. The Bible. No it's exactly for the reasons I'm stating. Quote The option of taking an affirmation was imported to Australia out of English law, where it has existed since the Act of Toleration of 1689. The 1689 provision formalised what was in any case becoming common practice in at least some areas. However, it was introduced out of respect for the consciences not of atheists, but of Quakers … It was not until 1888 that English law unequivocally extended the same choice to atheists … By Federation, the affirmation’s applicability to atheists had gained a measure of acceptance.[4] https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1314/oathsaffirmations Edited April 30, 2021 by Golden Duck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #67 Share Posted April 30, 2021 26 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: Anything else? What do you want? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #68 Share Posted April 30, 2021 25 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: Do you know anything about constitutionhistory of England where America and Australia gets all their powers from? clearly not. You just believe in what you believe and read nothing about the laws and customs that go back 800+ years. A belief is nice, but it just isn't history. Where do people get their power from to have power over other people??? From people. There's this thing down under called voting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #69 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Uhhh...like I said earlier, right up until that precedent is superceded - The Nandruku Defence being a famous and contemporary example. Was it for convenience sake? Was it altruistic in nature? Also what does a rape and indecent assault trial have to do with this. Or a soccer player. That's all that showed up on a quick Google search. My top two sentences is assuming some historical significance. Could you link to it please. I'm genuinely interested. Edited to add; Just saw the link. Off for some serious reading. Thanks Ducky. Edited April 30, 2021 by Hankenhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 30, 2021 #70 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, psyche101 said: What do you want? A packet of tim-tams that never runs out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 30, 2021 #71 Share Posted April 30, 2021 49 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: Trustees for GOD? who speaks for God? the Lorax. Wait ... no, that was the trees. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #72 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Just now, Hankenhunter said: Was it for convenience sake? Was it altruistic in nature? Also what does a rape and indecent assault trial have to do with this. Or a soccer player. That's all that showed up on a quick Google search. My top two sentences is assuming some historical significance. Could you link to it please. I'm genuinely interested. The aftermath. The defence that Nadruku, a RUGBY player, wss too drunk to be culpable was subsequently outlawed. The precedent was prohibited from being used again. It should be unnecessary to say superseded laws aren't in effect - the current body of law is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #73 Share Posted April 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: No it's exactly for the reasons I'm stating. https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1314/oathsaffirmations I'd love to debate this in another thread. You pick the tab. It could be under Morality, philosophy, or comparative religion. Or all combined under politics.So many choices. It'd be a long thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #74 Share Posted April 30, 2021 19 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said: Who put God's name on those weapons? Did they have God's permission? If so, show me the contract with God's signature that gave them permission. Your appealing to emotion, not logic. Violence is pure emotion, not logic. God is pure love, and forgiveness. I'm done thread jacking, with my apologies to the op. I'll continue in another thread if anyone's amendable. Love, and light to all. If my parting sentence stings, ask yourself why. Who put gods name on them? The people who made up the gods that carried those names. God is emotional personification. Remember that the god of the Bible had been recorded as violent and cruel. That's got human written all over it. How is that not reinforcing everything I have previously posted in this thread? God can be counted anytime. Just show up big G. There's over a thousand gods in written history alone. Every belief thinks theirs is the true one. God belongs to man. Not the other way around. Gods history is finite and younger than man's history. That's why the only claims of gods are in books and tales of humans. What makes you certain it's your god that's the true belief, not Allah or Ganesha? And god has nothing to do with who gets voted in PM. Still. Seriously, can you imagine god appointing Scotty from marketing as PM? He would be laughed out of heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 30, 2021 #75 Share Posted April 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: A packet of tim-tams that never runs out. That's been done. Choose another. And don't plagerise this time. Messing around with genies is nothing to trifle with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now