AX(e)
Discord ID: 213709065333899264
136 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next
๐ฌ
cringe
the eu can go eat shit
free healthcare for all active workers
Isnt b00t dead?
I think he killed himself
26+6=1
hereditary monarchy is beyond based
imagine supporting anything else than a monarchy, imagine supporting a r*public
hHAha le epic soy
xdd
I don't have time for you tranny kys and don't talk to me
Both are trash, democracy is the sole reason why europe is doomed
relatable
should add the mediterrean area to the poll
Hi
Natural selection
imagine not being an extremist
<:bansign:605968522866327572>
depends how hard you commit yourself to fight drugs, look at Duterte
that and in western europe there are lots of areas where the police is forbidden to intervene
because govs don't want to start a civil war
Philosophy and Law
gn boys
Shut up mortal
Brain burned by hrt
Unlucky
that's what you get when you stop burning sodomites on sight*
fucking trannies
look at his fucking face
and tell me that even you, a tranny, don't want to punch him
techno monarchism
with King A.I
or juche cosmocracy
<:absoluteretardation:591182455885660178>
You should really look into legal definition
and compare the different legal definitions (commowlaw, roman law, etc)
law, philosophy, history
being an intellectual is time consuming
but if you're trying to produce a serious work
that's the way to go
and trust me, it's not that confusing, for a nation/state/nation-state you could start with the westphalia treaties
that's a good starting point
for the state it's a bit more precise than this, something is regarded as a state if it is composed by an independent territory, occupied by a group of people, and where everything is organized according to specific rules, enforced by a sovereign authority
and within the state it is heavily admitted in law schools that everyone outside the national soil is an ennemy
everyone inside is part of the group, and if someone inside doesn't bend the knee, he cannot be regarded as an ennemy (that would compromise national soveignty), he is regarded as a criminal.
that's the founding principle of criminal law
you don't use the army on your subjects, you use law
cuz not an ennemy, it's a criminal
but then again, it's just legal theory
that's politics
not law
it's an ennemy **from the legal pov**
that's the interpretation that was made by jurists after 1658 westphalia treaties
the beginning of "modernity"
kys tranny
are you fcking retarded
every law system is based on some ancient deep foundations
????
why am I arguing with you, your brain is burned by hrt, you will probably kill yourself when you hit 30s because you'll realize that you'll never pass as a women (except with degenerate who only wants to lose their virginity). you're a waste of my time a waste of oxygen, i'll just block you honestly
I never said "old = good" btw, you're just too stupid to understand that I was explaining to the other lad that the concept of nation-state appeared 400 years ago, and it sometimes evolved in welfare-state ; I also stated that in europe state-BASED criminal law takes its root from 1658 and the differenciation between ennemies/criminals (and the criminal law evolved because it wasn't efficient until ~1800 because too 'brutal and random'. You have no law formation, stop trying to argue on things you know nothing about
if you want to learn it stop being a public nuisance and get your ass to a law school
I'm not here to educate a fucking clueless tranny
you're baiting me to defend a point that never existed because you're too fucking stupid to just understand what I was talking about. Now stop humiliating yourself, do something else, something you're good at like larping on tranny servers.
I know
addie is just a nuisance
a particularly pathetic one
if you're interested in law scroll up
but nothing of wht he said is worth
reading
I've seen a really interesting argument on the existence of god/godly figures, but I'd have to translate it and god knows how broken my english is
here's the text if someone's able to correctly translate it :
it is yes
in english :
"Pierre Bรฉgin once told me that the concept of God is one that one accepts or that one refuses. That's all there is. Its existence does not need to be proven. If we accept it, it comes with all the (infinite) possibilities that this notion allows to our mind. If we refuse, then we fall into relativism where everyone has it's own vision, it's own concept of things where everyone is a god from which emanates a very narrowed truth, where each individual is the center of it's own universe. This explanation makes me more inclined to want God to exist rather than to believe in his existence based on proofs. Thus, God could be necessary for his utility and not for his actual existence. And, if it is useful, it exists as an object of thought.
Its actual utility can be demonstrated in the concrete world by the achievements that faith has been able to leave thought History. Though they can however be nuanced because, in the name of God, we built cathedrals but we also made wars. And, moreover, a war can be fair and the construction of the cathedral unjustified.
To accept God as the supreme concept of existence is to open my mind to infinite possibilities. It is accepting to give me in existence an inferior position, perfectible, where I accept that there is always a way for me to improve myself, to know more about it; it is to include in my life the permanent promise of a better tomorrow. Thus, through humility, I will recognize the parcel of God that exists in others and I will seek to approach it. "In every man, you can find your master", by saying that each person has something to teach me and he is, in some way, superior to me. This mindset is ideal for learning and perfecting. Admitting that I will never have the perfection of God, but wanting to reach it, God becomes a sheppard, a lifeguide.
Thus, God is no longer a dominant being, capricious, restrictive and of overwhelming perfection. It is a concept that allows my mind to open up to the world and to know its thousand manifestations. This concept allows the growth of knowledge and never stops it"
yeah notso, he really proved that today
ck2 is better change my mind
good shift
<:Chad:591182354270257170>
tfw
there is no need to prove God
already posted something about that last week
"Pierre Bรฉgin once told me that the concept of God is one that one accepts or that one refuses. That's all there is. Its existence does not need to be proven. If we accept it, it comes with all the (infinite) possibilities that this notion allows to our mind. If we refuse, then we fall into relativism where everyone has it's own vision, it's own concept of things where everyone is a god from which emanates a very narrowed truth, where each individual is the center of it's own universe. This explanation makes me more inclined to want God to exist rather than to believe in his existence based on proofs. Thus, God could be necessary for his utility and not for his actual existence. And, if it is useful, it exists as an object of thought.
Its actual utility can be demonstrated in the concrete world by the achievements that faith has been able to leave thought History. Though they can however be nuanced because, in the name of God, we built cathedrals but we also made wars. And, moreover, a war can be fair and the construction of the cathedral unjustified.
To accept God as the supreme concept of existence is to open my mind to infinite possibilities. It is accepting to give me in existence an inferior position, perfectible, where I accept that there is always a way for me to improve myself, to know more about it; it is to include in my life the permanent promise of a better tomorrow. Thus, through humility, I will recognize the parcel of God that exists in others and I will seek to approach it. "In every man, you can find your master", by saying that each person has something to teach me and he is, in some way, superior to me. This mindset is ideal for learning and perfecting. Admitting that I will never have the perfection of God, but wanting to reach it, God becomes a sheppard, a lifeguide.
Thus, God is no longer a dominant being, capricious, restrictive and of overwhelming perfection. It is a concept that allows my mind to open up to the world and to know its thousand manifestations. This concept allows the growth of knowledge and never stops it"
It is not about christianity but about the existence of an awfully perfect entity
and it is not about freedom.
the answer is in the text
this is a very narrowed way to look at religion
136 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next