FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Graeco-Roman shit
Graeco-Roman shit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off? "This was my first thought  | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off? "My first thought was those very tight pants  | |||
"The part where a titan spaffed a goddess to life over the ocean. " I see that less as spaffing and more as some weird fucking violence that gets covered incredibly fucking awkwardly by Victorians | |||
"Instead of loo roll, the Romans used a sponge on a stick. " Rinse off and pass along... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise." The uniforms. Love a good Centurion outfit at TG. My favourite person is Livia, she must have been quite something! | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)" Pretty amazing how in the space of a few centuries Rome went from a small village to a city in the ancient world that had a population of a million. | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)"
Cute | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off? "Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks. | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus "in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus "You'd have hated the Athenians. Womenfolk were upstairs. Except the crafty ones who wanted to sneak their lovers in to debauch them. | |||
| |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times) Pretty amazing how in the space of a few centuries Rome went from a small village to a city in the ancient world that had a population of a million. " Romulus and Remus were hard workers | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks."Surprised you're not familiar with Plato's 'Rules for Real Men: Beat the Beta'. | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute"Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first. | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves"Sparta thought writing was for pussies | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first."Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh? | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks."Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy. | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves
Sparta thought writing was for pussies"I feel like the Greeks can just go fuck themselves and I'll stick to the shitty pavements of Rome | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
"I was about to refer to the Islamic scholars but this thread is not accessible to me  | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy."Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed. | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves
Sparta thought writing was for pussies
I feel like the Greeks can just go fuck themselves and I'll stick to the shitty pavements of Rome "If Athenians were found to be fucking themselves they would be disenfranchised  | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
"Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'  | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves
Sparta thought writing was for pussies
I feel like the Greeks can just go fuck themselves and I'll stick to the shitty pavements of Rome
If Athenians were found to be fucking themselves they would be disenfranchised "I'm disenfranchised because I can't get up the forum steps. Where's the ramp?!  | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed. "Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway? | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise." The aqueducts. | |||
"I'm going with the bits I DON'T like, just to be annoying. Have you SEEN the fecking pavements? And the raised pedestrian crossings? Wtf were the disabled Romans s'posed to do? I suppose their villas were generally on one level, bungalow-like. That's a bonus in Sparta ,they were turned out to the wolves
Sparta thought writing was for pussies
I feel like the Greeks can just go fuck themselves and I'll stick to the shitty pavements of Rome
If Athenians were found to be fucking themselves they would be disenfranchised
I'm disenfranchised because I can't get up the forum steps. Where's the ramp?! "you'd have your boy toys carrying you in a sedan chair, or whatever they called them | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars' "Fucking hell, your timelines are not of this planet. Have you heard of the libraries of Baghdad? From the 8th century? | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars' "Fall of the Roman empire is a bit reductionist. It merely shifted. In some ways it continues in the Catholic church. But it's certainly true to say that a great deal of documentation was destroyed in the period leading up to the council of Nicea in order to maintain a particular version of the story that the ruling elite needed to maintain. Not too different from the pitiful wank story about the rise of the west. Ignore or destroy what doesn't suit you to pretend you're wonderful. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?"What the absolute fuck | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'
Fucking hell, your timelines are not of this planet.
Have you heard of the libraries of Baghdad? From the 8th century? "the library at Alexandria | |||
| |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'
Fucking hell, your timelines are not of this planet.
Have you heard of the libraries of Baghdad? From the 8th century? "Yeah, this is a bit crackers | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'
Fall of the Roman empire is a bit reductionist. It merely shifted. In some ways it continues in the Catholic church. But it's certainly true to say that a great deal of documentation was destroyed in the period leading up to the council of Nicea in order to maintain a particular version of the story that the ruling elite needed to maintain.
Not too different from the pitiful wank story about the rise of the west. Ignore or destroy what doesn't suit you to pretend you're wonderful."I don't what that has to do with the Ottoman Empire capturing Constantinople but hey eh? | |||
"History is being rewritten here. The baby and bathwater have never even met "Evidently not. Moses Finley is turning in his motherfucking grave | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'
Fucking hell, your timelines are not of this planet.
Have you heard of the libraries of Baghdad? From the 8th century? "My previous interactions have revealed that you're not terribly bright despite being old enough to be my mum, so in the absence of the ability to block you on these forums enjoy this final response to your posts | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck "Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged? Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready."I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God | |||
"The foundations of the greatest civilisations to ever exist. Were it not for them we'd all still be going 'OOK OOK!' and flinging shit at one another (though that is making a comeback in recent times)
Cute
Monkeys are pretty cute, but not the shit flinging part, that bit requires bathing first.
Thank fuck for all the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts so we can pretend there's some great rise from the classical period, eh?
Yes, thank goodness they took Constantinople after the spectacular fall of the Roman Empire, whose Reliquary housed the collective writings of the Ancient Greeks which form the collective breakthroughs (along with 'Al Gebra' and the discovery of the number '0') as attributed to the Koran and 'Persian Scholars'
Fucking hell, your timelines are not of this planet.
Have you heard of the libraries of Baghdad? From the 8th century?
My previous interactions have revealed that you're not terribly bright despite being old enough to be my mum, so in the absence of the ability to block you on these forums enjoy this final response to your posts "You are something else, really you are. Please go and read a book. Those are the things made from paper, often with little black letters and brightly coloured images within. Suggest starting with the basics. Waterstones has an excellent section for children which is probably about the right level. Enjoy! | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God "There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can 'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance' Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual. Respond. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond."Irony is dead. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond."I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts. Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity). What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid? Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was. (Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said) | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)"I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory... I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold? | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?"You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?"You should have googled. It was Confucius. I know you wouldn't want to do the ancient Chinese a disservice after all. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture. "I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you. | |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You should have googled. It was Confucius. I know you wouldn't want to do the ancient Chinese a disservice after all."Of course not, I like my chicken curry and egg fried rice as much as any man | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture.
I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you."I have no idea what a "western civilisational philosophy" is. Sounds like made up bullshit. | |||
"My problem with the romans is that they destroyed as much as created. They went after the druids (SNIP!)" Not nearly as badly as the Saxons, in a peace agreement where they arranged a diplomatic meeting with the druids (spiritual leaders of Britain at the time) whilst hiding knives in their boots, only to reveal them upon the gathering and butcher the old men present. Nasty as such events are though they highlight that diplomacy and letting down of the guard are easily exploited by those who hold no value in such things, well worth remembering in this modern climate of 'refugees welcome' and other such idealistic values untested outside of our small island off the coast of Earth's smallest continent. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture.
I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you.
I have no idea what a "western civilisational philosophy" is. Sounds like made up bullshit."You got me, it's made up bullshit, feel free to inform me why our little island didn't dominate human history for the past 1000 years. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture.
I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you.
I have no idea what a "western civilisational philosophy" is. Sounds like made up bullshit.
You got me, it's made up bullshit, feel free to inform me why our little island didn't dominate human history for the past 1000 years."That doesn't sound like anything that might tell me what "western civilisational philosophy" is. Anyway. One of the most common verbs in Athenian legal records is the word that comes to us as "orgy". | |||
| |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture.
I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you.
I have no idea what a "western civilisational philosophy" is. Sounds like made up bullshit.
You got me, it's made up bullshit, feel free to inform me why our little island didn't dominate human history for the past 1000 years.
That doesn't sound like anything that might tell me what "western civilisational philosophy" is.
Anyway.
One of the most common verbs in Athenian legal records is the word that comes to us as "orgy"."Given the clock starts ticking from the moment our father's seed meets our mother's egg, it's quite hard to create a future without fucking whilst we get the opportunity in between. Yes that's pretty grim I'll admit, but if you really want to get down to the bare bones nitty gritty of life, there it is. | |||
"Is this is like QI where I say "wrestling" and a massive klaxon goes off?
Nah. This is me spinning off alpha and beta and wondering wtf Pericles or Plato would have made of this bollocks.
Funnily enough 'Plato' apparently was not his real name, but rather referred to his pectorals (platelets) which he'd flex to intimidate his opponents in the event they'd argue with his views, having been a respected wrestler in his years before turning to philosophy.
Trying to argue against democracy evidently proved more profitable, someone clamped it onto a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the world was forever changed.
Jesus Christ wasn't a Jew silly, he was the first Christian - the name 'Jesus Christ' is a bit of a giveaway?
What the absolute fuck
Mid blowing isn't it, having your views challenged?
Feel free to response with something thoughtful whenever you're ready.
I wish I was this confident with things I didn't know. My God
There's an old saying attributed to the Greek philosophers, it may have been Plato but I don't want to cheat by Googling so I'll just quote is as best I can
'True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance'
Personally I think about this often, yet from your posts, it's loudly apparent that you do not, outside of whatever doctrine dictates the limits of your ability to think as an individual.
Respond.
I didn't Google it, I've read it in the Greek - it sounds like Plato's rendition of Socrates Apologia (apology, or defence speech). "I know that I know nothing, and that makes me the smartest man in Athens". Or thereabouts.
Which is sort of fun, given the equitable nature of Athenian courts. The juror oath says something along the lines of (again, not Googling) that one decides according to what is right. The original equitable system (equity in English law has different origins, and one might argue that the Athenian system is pre legal rather than pure equity).
What happens when you have amateurs who are free of the constraints of substantive law and may vote as they choose - and you call them stupid?
Hemlock. If you're wealthy enough. Which Socrates was.
(Obviously we don't know if that's what Socrates actually said)
I was referring to my refusal to Google to verify the knowledge in my own memory...
I must ask though, just out of sheer curiosity, am I still the Alf Garnett/Little Britain/Daily Mail reading 'alt-right' automaton the media tells you I am from these views I hold?
You're the one making it personal. I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome and its reception in contemporary culture.
I'm not making it personal, I like a bit of a fight because it's fun, if you want to pick apart the fundamentals behind Western philosophy (The GREATEST civilisational philosophy, I might add), I'll gladly play against you.
I have no idea what a "western civilisational philosophy" is. Sounds like made up bullshit.
You got me, it's made up bullshit, feel free to inform me why our little island didn't dominate human history for the past 1000 years.
That doesn't sound like anything that might tell me what "western civilisational philosophy" is.
Anyway.
One of the most common verbs in Athenian legal records is the word that comes to us as "orgy".
Given the clock starts ticking from the moment our father's seed meets our mother's egg, it's quite hard to create a future without fucking whilst we get the opportunity in between.
Yes that's pretty grim I'll admit, but if you really want to get down to the bare bones nitty gritty of life, there it is."I'm pretty sure that biology and philosophy are separate fields of study. And that this "western philosophy" which also seems to be biology is not constrained by civilisation, or indeed the west. Or even humanity. Is something a western philosophy if it's also true of seahorses or kangaroos? The mind boggles. | |||
"I'm pretty sure that biology and philosophy are separate fields of study. And that this "western philosophy" which also seems to be biology is not constrained by civilisation, or indeed the west. Or even humanity. Is something a western philosophy if it's also true of seahorses or kangaroos? The mind boggles." What makes Western philosophy unique across the world is that it recognised those realities - but maybe others developed elsewhere did too, who knows? If they did so, it wasn't as well as our ancestors, who acknowledged nature's law of 'might makes right', realised why and acted upon it, hence why Europeans, Britons especially, influenced so much of what we today deem to be 'being human', and the laws which govern it. I'd argue though that the magnanimous, charitable and and humane nature of the philosophy which ultimately drove our ancestors has expired in it's usefulness in our modern era, and would prefer to talk about Kangaroos and Seahorses, both of which are a far less angry topic? | |||
"I'm pretty sure that biology and philosophy are separate fields of study. And that this "western philosophy" which also seems to be biology is not constrained by civilisation, or indeed the west. Or even humanity. Is something a western philosophy if it's also true of seahorses or kangaroos? The mind boggles. What makes Western philosophy unique across the world is that it recognised those realities - but maybe others developed elsewhere did too, who knows? If they did so, it wasn't as well as our ancestors, who acknowledged nature's law of 'might makes right', realised why and acted upon it, hence why Europeans, Britons especially, influenced so much of what we today deem to be 'being human', and the laws which govern it. I'd argue though that the magnanimous, charitable and and humane nature of the philosophy which ultimately drove our ancestors has expired in it's usefulness in our modern era, and would prefer to talk about Kangaroos and Seahorses, both of which are a far less angry topic?" Well I was talking about the Greeks and Romans, but that's a fascinating word salad you've got there. | |||
| |||
"I'm pretty sure that biology and philosophy are separate fields of study. And that this "western philosophy" which also seems to be biology is not constrained by civilisation, or indeed the west. Or even humanity. Is something a western philosophy if it's also true of seahorses or kangaroos? The mind boggles. What makes Western philosophy unique across the world is that it recognised those realities - but maybe others developed elsewhere did too, who knows? If they did so, it wasn't as well as our ancestors, who acknowledged nature's law of 'might makes right', realised why and acted upon it, hence why Europeans, Britons especially, influenced so much of what we today deem to be 'being human', and the laws which govern it. I'd argue though that the magnanimous, charitable and and humane nature of the philosophy which ultimately drove our ancestors has expired in it's usefulness in our modern era, and would prefer to talk about Kangaroos and Seahorses, both of which are a far less angry topic? Well I was talking about the Greeks and Romans, but that's a fascinating word salad you've got there." Fantastic. Sometimes you might not be in the mood for a salad, but still have time for the peppers and tomatoes. Would you like to talk about Kangaroos and Seahorses? As much as I find the latter beautiful I don't really know why they are the way they are, but hopping doggos I can deal with. | |||
| |||
"One of the ways in which scholars date inscriptions in Athens is by the spelling " It's also a way of lazy folk to ignore arguments in the presence of human typos they understand perfectly well. | |||
"Ancient lesbianism was started in Lesbos, where turkey basters were designed, so the island of women were self sufficient, or something. It pre-dated Mykonos becoming popular with groups of male artists and gaiety, where the sailor from the Village People toured and took prolonged leave from his ship. "
In myth the real self sufficient women were the Amazons. A "not, without" (think "atheist", without god); mazon, breast. They thought the Amazons chopped a tit off to become better at archery.
Archery was a feminine way of fighting because it was done at a distance | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts." Sanitation Education | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education "Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
"That was the Greeks too, much of which the Roman philsopies are derived from. Indeed, Western colonialism feels much the same as the old Monty Python sketch 'what did the Romans ever do for us?!' We'd do well to remember that in the face of the unmitigated disaster which is 'multiculturalism' and the left's beliefs in general, as our country continues to rot beneath such idealistic, but demonstrably stupid belief systems. | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
That was the Greeks too, much of which the Roman philsopies are derived from.
Indeed, Western colonialism feels much the same as the old Monty Python sketch 'what did the Romans ever do for us?!'
We'd do well to remember that in the face of the unmitigated disaster which is 'multiculturalism' and the left's beliefs in general, as our country continues to rot beneath such idealistic, but demonstrably stupid belief systems."Do tell me. What do you know about Greek systems of law? | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
"in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x"It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent. | |||
 | |||
"So much trash thrown about sometimes that these sort of threads soon turn into political garbage or unecessarilly personal. So much has been contributed, good and bad I may add, from ancient civilizations across the globe. Direct comparisons are neither possible or indeed particularly useful. Perhaps I am too sleepy though as trying to have a nap and missed the point of the thread. Quite possibly, so I am out and off to get a large glass of nectar "I was just being a nerd | |||
| |||
"Just read this, very interesting indeed. While the Romans thought it “much more normal” for upper-class women to wear makeup, lots of jewellery, and “very elaborate” hairstyles, Zhirnova said this behaviour was perceived to be in conflict with Christian ideals. She thinks many early Christian male writers seemed to fear that women could excite a man’s lust using makeup and artfulness: “Women who have this power over men can control them and disrupt the male order of the world.” Many “very influential” writers of the early church, such as Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, wrote letters and made speeches denouncing women who wore makeup and fine clothing as akin to “prøstitutes”, while praising “respectable” women who did not. Yet if, as the Bible suggests, God sees beauty in one’s “inner self”, not “outward adornments”, then it should not matter what a Christian woman wears. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar Whoop whoop for the pre-Christian Romans!" sounds like Jordan Peterson | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent."The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case. Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire. Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x"Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions. However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying. | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying."It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law, Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x"If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you. You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much. | |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much."Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x"I didn't, until just then. Why did I do it? Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid. Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants. Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law. Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further?"I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion. I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you. You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'. I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law. You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her. Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong. Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
"I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension. I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me. We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose. I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case). | |||
"Favourite stuff from Roman-Greco period? All the wars mostly. Alexander the Great conquest of the Persian Empire is one example. Imagine being a shepherd from Macedon in his army, spent all your life in the mountains within a few years if you've survived. You're in Babylon. The greatest city on earth at that point. Unbelievable." The descendants of Alexander's army still live in northern Pakistan in the Himalayas, some are fair skinned Pakistanis with blonde hair 
Google it | |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension.
I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me.
We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose.
I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case)."You are doing it again. You say I mentioned the two differences in legal systems to you on several occasions. But I didn't I mentioned it once, just once. I also mentioned why I mentioned this. You go on to say I was condescending by explaining this as it was 'perfectly clear' that you knew this. I'm sorry if you mentioned your knowledge earlier in the thread but from when I replied to your point I had no indication of your legal kbowledge. As for emphasis and the lack of a way to do it here, you could try using descriptive language. Unless I've missed something I've not seen the use of capitalised words to do this in any literature I've read. As for your proposition that Roman law was borrowed by the English legal system a Google search would show you that is not really the case. English law borrows heavily from Anglo Saxon influences. Common law was developed further by Henry II, who created the foundations of the English Court system. I'm sorry if you mistake evidence for condescension, it was not my intention, but if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things. Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension.
I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me.
We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose.
I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case).You are doing it again. You say I mentioned the two differences in legal systems to you on several occasions. But I didn't I mentioned it once, just once. I also mentioned why I mentioned this.
You go on to say I was condescending by explaining this as it was 'perfectly clear' that you knew this. I'm sorry if you mentioned your knowledge earlier in the thread but from when I replied to your point I had no indication of your legal kbowledge.
As for emphasis and the lack of a way to do it here, you could try using descriptive language. Unless I've missed something I've not seen the use of capitalised words to do this in any literature I've read.
As for your proposition that Roman law was borrowed by the English legal system a Google search would show you that is not really the case.
English law borrows heavily from Anglo Saxon influences. Common law was developed further by Henry II, who created the foundations of the English Court system.
I'm sorry if you mistake evidence for condescension, it was not my intention, but if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things.
Mrs x""if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things" well. Isn't that a statement. I'll let that sit there. | |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension.
I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me.
We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose.
I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case).You are doing it again. You say I mentioned the two differences in legal systems to you on several occasions. But I didn't I mentioned it once, just once. I also mentioned why I mentioned this.
You go on to say I was condescending by explaining this as it was 'perfectly clear' that you knew this. I'm sorry if you mentioned your knowledge earlier in the thread but from when I replied to your point I had no indication of your legal kbowledge.
As for emphasis and the lack of a way to do it here, you could try using descriptive language. Unless I've missed something I've not seen the use of capitalised words to do this in any literature I've read.
As for your proposition that Roman law was borrowed by the English legal system a Google search would show you that is not really the case.
English law borrows heavily from Anglo Saxon influences. Common law was developed further by Henry II, who created the foundations of the English Court system.
I'm sorry if you mistake evidence for condescension, it was not my intention, but if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things.
Mrs x
"if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things"
well. Isn't that a statement. I'll let that sit there."You state something and then say someone is wrong when they give a differing opinion. However you don't back up what you say with any evidence. So here's a link from a reputable source that explains the development of the English legal system. https://www.britannica.com › topic Common law | Definition, Origins, Development, & Examples. Hope this helps. Mrs x | |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension.
I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me.
We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose.
I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case).You are doing it again. You say I mentioned the two differences in legal systems to you on several occasions. But I didn't I mentioned it once, just once. I also mentioned why I mentioned this.
You go on to say I was condescending by explaining this as it was 'perfectly clear' that you knew this. I'm sorry if you mentioned your knowledge earlier in the thread but from when I replied to your point I had no indication of your legal kbowledge.
As for emphasis and the lack of a way to do it here, you could try using descriptive language. Unless I've missed something I've not seen the use of capitalised words to do this in any literature I've read.
As for your proposition that Roman law was borrowed by the English legal system a Google search would show you that is not really the case.
English law borrows heavily from Anglo Saxon influences. Common law was developed further by Henry II, who created the foundations of the English Court system.
I'm sorry if you mistake evidence for condescension, it was not my intention, but if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things.
Mrs x
"if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things"
well. Isn't that a statement. I'll let that sit there.You state something and then say someone is wrong when they give a differing opinion.
However you don't back up what you say with any evidence. So here's a link from a reputable source that explains the development of the English legal system.
https://www.britannica.com › topic
Common law | Definition, Origins, Development, & Examples.
Hope this helps.
Mrs x"Not particularly. I flipped through my copy of Baker's An Introduction to English Legal History earlier, which of course only helps if you have a copy. You'll find a PDF online of an article called "The Romanization of English Law" from the Yale Law Journal which makes explicit some of the seemingly obvious connections and influences (Roman settlement, Norman conquest, the relatively international nature of scholarship, and other things besides) that helped to build the early common law. I find examples like Britannica only helpful as the most cursory glance - not great if you actually know anything about the topic. Accurate enough for a child, or to get started on actual research. | |||
| |||
"What's your favourite Graeco-Roman stuff? Nerds welcome. Or otherwise. The aqueducts. Sanitation Education
Many argue that the Romans are the basis for all modern legal systems
in Europe and Scotland but not in England, Mrs x
It's my understanding that common law systems - and not just the hybrid systems such as Scotland - have borrowed extensively from Roman law, even if Roman law was not received as it was on the continent.The UK has an Adversarial system whilst those based on Roman law have an Inquisitorial System. There are lots of other differences as well, involving things relating to the significance of common law, precedent and in the Adversarial system has defence & prosecution, with the judge overseeing the trial, whereas the Inquisitorial, Roman Law, system the judge investigates the case.
Adversarial systems are found here, USA, Australia. Those systems influenced heavily by Roman law are found in the rest of Europe, South America, places not part of the British Empire.
Mrs x
Yes, I know the difference between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions.
However, Roman law has influences on common law jurisdictions as well, is what I was saying.It's just that you said that our system borrowed extensively from Roman law but I didn't think that was the case here, other than maybe in Canon Law,
Mrs x
If you can't distinguish between "a system that borrowed extensively from Roman law" and "a system that derives from Roman law", then I don't know what to tell you.
You're welcome to be wrong. It doesn't really bother me that much.Can I ask were you mention 'derives from'?
Mrs x
I didn't, until just then.
Why did I do it?
Because you keep trying to explain to me the difference between common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial), as though I'm rather stupid.
Common law is predominantly an indigenous phenomenon from England, which has expanded into other countries. However, elements of our system have been BORROWED from other systems, most notably Roman law and its descendants.
Civil law is practiced in most countries in mainland Europe (and others besides, including a hybrid system in Scotland). These systems DERIVE from formal reception (or receptions) of Roman law.
Is that clear, or would you like to condescend to me further? I have not been condescending to you, I was just providing evidence to support my opinion.
I certainly haven't made any personal comments about you.
You mentioned the fact that our system of law borrowed 'extensively' from Roman law. I just pointed out that it hasn't im not wrong in this. It will have influenced a part but its not been borrowed 'extensively'.
I even pointed out that there may be one area of English law were this might be the case, Canon law. But English law, in the main, developed separately from Roman law.
You seem to be quite upset by a different opinions, to the point of shouting on her.
Maybe if you were more precise in the words you use, especially in a legal sense, you wouldn't get upset so much. No need to be personal, even if you don't like being wrong.
Mrs x
I didn't make any personal comments about you either. I was talking about the way you were addressing me. You attempted to explain the difference between civil and common law several times to me, when it's perfectly clear that I know the difference. That's condescension.
I apologise if you mistake emphasis for shouting, this format does not allow alternatives such as bold, which would have been more elegant. I used the tools I had in front of me.
We appear to be quibbling over the word "extensively", which seems counterproductive to me. You can, of course, believe as you choose.
I'm not sure if we're having a discussion that demands the same precision of language as a true legal discussion would require, but nonetheless, I stand by the language I've used as being more than adequate for the conversation and venue in which it's taken place. Given conversations of this nature usually focus on the party-like nature of the Romans and their orgies (orgy being a Greek word meaning inflamed passions, the verb often being used to denote anger, and the Romans famously sticking their noses up at apparent Greek debauchery); or the liberated nature of the Greeks about same sex relations (Against Timarchus is a telling counterpoint to that among many, although I doubt most here could even tell you who wrote it, let alone the significance of the case).You are doing it again. You say I mentioned the two differences in legal systems to you on several occasions. But I didn't I mentioned it once, just once. I also mentioned why I mentioned this.
You go on to say I was condescending by explaining this as it was 'perfectly clear' that you knew this. I'm sorry if you mentioned your knowledge earlier in the thread but from when I replied to your point I had no indication of your legal kbowledge.
As for emphasis and the lack of a way to do it here, you could try using descriptive language. Unless I've missed something I've not seen the use of capitalised words to do this in any literature I've read.
As for your proposition that Roman law was borrowed by the English legal system a Google search would show you that is not really the case.
English law borrows heavily from Anglo Saxon influences. Common law was developed further by Henry II, who created the foundations of the English Court system.
I'm sorry if you mistake evidence for condescension, it was not my intention, but if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things.
Mrs x
"if you don't want differing opinions at times then maybe you shouldn't post things"
well. Isn't that a statement. I'll let that sit there.You state something and then say someone is wrong when they give a differing opinion.
However you don't back up what you say with any evidence. So here's a link from a reputable source that explains the development of the English legal system.
https://www.britannica.com › topic
Common law | Definition, Origins, Development, & Examples.
Hope this helps.
Mrs x
Not particularly.
I flipped through my copy of Baker's An Introduction to English Legal History earlier, which of course only helps if you have a copy. You'll find a PDF online of an article called "The Romanization of English Law" from the Yale Law Journal which makes explicit some of the seemingly obvious connections and influences (Roman settlement, Norman conquest, the relatively international nature of scholarship, and other things besides) that helped to build the early common law.
I find examples like Britannica only helpful as the most cursory glance - not great if you actually know anything about the topic. Accurate enough for a child, or to get started on actual research."I bow to your much superior knowledge in this area. Hope this helps
Mrs x | |||
"The Graeco-Roman culture was the progenitor of the fermented Anchovy Tikka Masala, eventually transitioning into the Chicken variety. Fåçt." Sounds disgusting tbh Chicken tikka is dry anyway, it's only the British version with masala remember. | |||
"Anyway, does anyone want a dick pic? " Make it a Roman mosaic and the arty approach might work for some? | |||
