Sharia Law at Wal Mart [Trigger Warning: People Arguing With Ben]

[Ben Kenobi]

all these lies you are telling are about things written on this page. it's not as if your stock here could get any lower, but still...

What lies? You condemned Christianity for forced conversions but not Islam. Why is that?

[C0ckney]

So occupation is the same as ownership? Interesting thesis.

it seems you're unaware of how even the western concept, quite apart from any moral considerations, of land ownership works.

I am aware of it - and you said nothing about the Byzantines.

i'm glad that i was able to make you aware of it and dispel the silly notion you had that the papal states were somehow acquired through purchase.

[C0ckney]

What lies? You condemned Christianity for forced conversions

did i? please quote the post.

(i didn't but i would of course condemn forced conversions)

[Ben Kenobi]

the compensation accepted by the pope in 1929 was around 1/3 of that offered to, and rejected by, his predecessor in 1871

What deal was offered in 1871?

it subjected the papacy to a law that the Italian parliament could modify or abrogate at any time.

In effect, it was an offer of nothing. The Lateran treaty offered the Holy See perpetual sovereignty.

[Ben Kenobi]

it seems you're unaware of how even the western concept, quite apart from any moral considerations, of land ownership works.

You said it, not me. You said they had possession which equated with ownership. Ergo, losing possession would mean loss of ownership.

They had no title to determine who owned what.

i'm glad that i was able to make you aware of it and dispel the silly notion you had that the papal states were somehow acquired through purchase.

You claimed parts were acquired in wars of conquest. I'm still waiting for evidence of those purported 'wars of conquest'.

[C0ckney]

What deal was offered in 1871?

it offered around three times as much in monetary terms as the 1929 offer did, which funnily enough is what i said. and proves that the pope was offered compensation, contrary to your claim that he was expropriated (if only!), but decided to reject the offer.

[C0ckney]

You said it, not me. You said they had possession which equated with ownership. Ergo, losing possession would mean loss of ownership.

They had no title to determine who owned what.

no. that is not how the western legal concept of land ownership works (i don't expect you to understand the moral questions of ownership).

You claimed parts were acquired in wars of conquest. I'm still waiting for evidence of those purported 'wars of conquest'.

well let's start with the annexation in 1512 of parma and piacenza (these were then given a as duchy to an illegitimate son of pope). you can do your own research for the rest.

[giblets]

Who said anything about black people? I'm aware they aren't your number one favourites, but I don't think that makes you racist Gribbler.

You were banned for being a racist.

[giblets]

yes indeed how can one say that those in occupation of the land had a better claim to it than european interlopers. why i bet those savages didn't even have title documents.

"Do you have a flag?"

[DaShi]

You were banned for being a racist.

[Berzerker]

Given that all current title in the US is subsidiary to this, are you arguing that no one truly owns land? The purchasee is not responsible for how the purchase was obtained - we don't jail them for legitimately buying something, especially land, when it turns out their seller did not actually own it. Nor does it make the purchaser a thief.

But the land wasn't owned by other people. When the US purchased the land - it was owned by Europeans.

You sound like a Pharisee

Call me when you give your land away.

We're too far from running water, nobody was living here

But I'm not the one denying their rightful claim to land.

[Berzerker]

oh yeah, where did Jesus say he was fine with Roman soldiers killing Jews..... like Jesus?
That was your argument, right? Thats my interpretation anyway.

How you've turned Jesus into a barbarian is beyond me

[Ben Kenobi]

You were banned for being a racist.

For stating the obvious that people who assault cops are thugs? Hey, try for a cop's gun sometime. I would wager it would work out poorly for you, white or black.

[Ben Kenobi]

it offered around three times as much in monetary terms as the 1929 offer did, which funnily enough is what i said. and proves that the pope was offered compensation, contrary to your claim that he was expropriated (if only!), but decided to reject the offer.

The concordat offered sovereignty. I love how you choose to leave out the most important deal with the concordat. Had the liberals actually offered the pope something similar, I'm sure he would have accepted. They did not. What they offered - was something they could take away, at anytime. Now, legally, the pope retained autonomy, which was a very important decision for the Holy See, especially with hindsight.

Why, if the liberals are all about freedom, did they offer a worse deal than the fascists?

well let's start with the annexation in 1512 of parma and piacenza (these were then given a as duchy to an illegitimate son of pope). you can do your own research for the rest.

It's your argument, cockney. Asking you to prove your argument means you doing your own homework for once.

[kentonio]

Why, if the liberals are all about freedom, did they offer a worse deal than the fascists?

I love the idea that if you don't offer preferential deal terms to a religious theocracy then you must hate freedom.