Ignorance. - Page 2

Solumina · 09-24-2008, 09:50 AM

According to my mother that would make you a flower child

Fatbaby · 09-24-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Wow, you're stupid.

By the rules you've established here, the Kingdom of Prussia should still exist.

WOW! Your damned condemning without explaining yourself. How does a northern state of germany that was abolished in 1934 by the Nazi's congfirm your statemen?

JCC · 09-24-2008, 11:36 AM

Because Prussia was "the land (a area of land bordered by oceans and the national boundaries of other nations) and the people that take residence there".

Fatbaby · 09-24-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Because Prussia was "the land (a area of land bordered by oceans and the national boundaries of other nations) and the people that take residence there".

You still have not made your point.

JCC · 09-24-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatbaby

You still have not made your point.

Ophelia's point: by your definition of a country, Prussia is still a country.

Fatbaby: NO IT ISN'T BLAH BLAH I PULL OUT DATES TO THROW AT YOU AS IF I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT

JCC: Actually, Prussia falls right into the categorical definition of a country that you stated here.

Fatbaby: YOUR POINT IS?!

Fatbaby · 09-24-2008, 12:09 PM

Gosh! Facts and figures confuse me too.

JCC · 09-24-2008, 02:07 PM

Also, the de facto abolition of Prussia was 1934, but the de jure abolition, which means when it was finally put into practice, was 1947, so your statement was false anyway.

TheBloodEternity · 09-24-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Also, the de facto abolition of Prussia was 1934, but the de jure abolition, which means when it was finally put into practice, was 1947, so your statement was false anyway.

I think you have that the wrong way around, de jure means by law and de facto means by fact, doesn't it?

gothicusmaximus · 09-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBloodEternity

I think you have that the wrong way around, de jure means by law and de facto means by fact, doesn't it?

Yes, but 'in fact' is taken to mean 'unofficial'. For instance, a sickly, inept king may be the legal ruler of a domain, but his cunning advisor is the country's de facto leader.

TheBloodEternity · 09-24-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Yes, but 'in fact' is taken to mean 'unofficial'. For instance, a sickly, inept king may be the legal ruler of a domain, but his cunning advisor is the country's de facto leader.

That's what I mean. For a minute my mind decided that it made more sense that the country would have been abolished by law but then still have been an unofficial country for a while.

Scareebowfairy · 09-25-2008, 07:14 AM

I must ask about modern war,
First, what exactly are you fighting for? Are you fighting for anything that is worthy of you risking your life?
Second, are you just a pawn in the leaders chess game? Fighting for there selfish, corrupt purposes?
No, I would not go to war for my country, because I don't believe it's my right to go and kill someone who might be as innocent as the next person, just because the leaders or Government says its ok to do so.

JCC · 09-25-2008, 08:37 AM

Why 'modern' war? Do you think that wars in previous eras were any different?

Scareebowfairy · 09-28-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Why 'modern' war? Do you think that wars in previous eras were any different?

Well no I don't, I mentioned modern war because it's what my generation is up against.
Whereas previous wars are now the 'past'