so, the english are raping again

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

please tell me, what exactly did britain give to the rest of the world?

You've just found the ultimate way to troll the British.

If you're into riské humour, you could say, 'actually guys, you have invented a lot of shit, who invented the concentration camps.... <insert cheeky smile>'. We didn't gas anyone in the boa war but still it'd be quite humourous, amounst the right company. Anyone wearing an England top and short hair, to use a sterotype, probably wouldn't see the humour.

Topped with 'hey isn't your queen german, and, where the **** did the anglo-saxons come from?'

Although, I did try 100 year war jokes with a frenchman once, he didn't see the funny side.

And we gave, and are still trying to give, you lot humour!

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

please tell me, what exactly did britain give to the rest of the world?

Braveheart.. good movie..

[SilverSmoke]

Guys I feel like playing a game of Civ3 right now!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Actually we invented the computer which i think is probably one of the greatest achievements of modern man.

I know we invented the computer. I know why it failed initially failed and how it worked.

Did you actually read my post, or rather the one I was quoting?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In that case, we'll have to refer to systems rather than specific things. So, modern democracy, common law and the modern university system for starters.

where did you get that from? democracy is a rather old concept, everyone could have started using it. common law? what do you mean? your legal system is your thing, it probably had a lot of influence on the system in the US, but thats about it.
as for universities, i have no idea.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

where did you get that from? democracy is a rather old concept, everyone could have started using it.

yes but we invented the 'hay guys lets let lots of people vote and make it relevant!' kind of democracy :eng101:

common law? what do you mean? your legal system is your thing, it probably had a lot of influence on the system in the US, but thats about it.

paging yahwe for good definition of common law

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

where did you get that from? democracy is a rather old concept, everyone could have started using it.

Everyone could have started using it, but they didn't. I think that's the point for most of these examples. Lots of people could have invented the computer, but Charles Babbage was one who did it.

Anyway...this is all ridiculous. If I am going to claim the credit (or share the blame) for what other "English" people did, then why stop there? I hereby claim credit for every invention / good thing done by people whose first name begins with D. Hurrah for Donald Cotton (invented propellants for nuclear reactors). Hurrah for David Crosthwait, Diane Croteau, Douglas Engelbart, Dennis Gábor, David Paul Gregg, David Edward Hughes* and many others! And Daniel Dennett is pretty cool too.

Or what about claiming credit for everyone who has black hair? Together we shall crush the infidel blonde / brunettes / gingers. And so on.

"We" didn't invent anything. "We" didn't commit any crimes. I haven't invented a damn thing, and neither have most of the people on this thread I suspect. Likewise however, I have not killed or raped or anything of the sort.

The only reason that British people should be slightly more mindful about these things is that some of the wealth we currently rely on was originally generated through the oppression of others. So you can make an argument there, but imho it's a very weak one.

People often say "Well we have a duty to help Africa because of slavery". Well maybe, but what are they saying? That if there had been no colonialism or slavery and Africa was still poor then all we should do is point and laugh? We have a moral duty to help fellow human beings where we can. Regardless of the past.

Now the Iraq war is different because I was alive during that and although I was opposed (and demonstrated etc) I didn't try and kill Tony Blair, or do a suicide bombing or anything else like that. So perhaps I'm partially responsible for that (via my tax payments to the government) but I think most reasonable people would say that there was no easy way to influence government opinion on that, considering there was the largest demonstration in British history against it or something like that.

* No, I didn't know who any of these people were either.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

you really are a complete fool arnt you....

so, let me get this right, yo made an arse out of yourself by claiming that the ottoman empire created iraq, I corrected you with evidence, and I am the fool with no historical knowledge??

just say it, it will not hurt. just say : I was wrong, we did create Iraq, it was not the ottomans.
it really wont hurt dude

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Did it occur to you that the reason we began carving up parts of the old ottoman empire was because it collapsed in on itself? We moved in when a power vaccuum emerged after YEARS of conflict between the islamic and western spheres of influence. If we had not moved in then total anarchy would have been created in the region. As it stands, yes mistakes were made, but i see no reason to apologise for it. Someone else would have had to do it if we had not.

who the hell are you to go in and fill the power vacuum?? why didnt you people stay the hell home?? nobody asked you to go around and stop anarchys. and what a fine job you did stopping anarchy. we can see the results in iraq and kashmir and palestine . you did a hell of a fine job. thank you, you superior english civilisation, thank you for bringing peace to uncivilized arabs. thank you for the countless wars you have triggered because you just couldnt stay the hell home.

Originally Posted by JammyJim

What is it that you want?
A UK wide apology for our history? (all several thousand years of it?)

I want you to stop being arrogant about your history and admit that you should have stayed the **** home.
most importantly, I want you to say that inventions or historical accomplishement do not justify the countless invasion and sloughters of other countries.


Just say it : we screwed up the enrtire world, we are sorry, we should have stayed the **** home, instaed of going out and playing superpower, which we had no right to do. we are not more civilized than other countries. Other poeple are just as good or better as we are. We are not gods chosen people to bring civilisation to underdevelopped countries.

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Or would you prefer to make sweeping generalisations based on your very limited historical knowledge of world events. Knowledge that has clearly been somewhat biased by whatever education (if indeed any) you have recieved..

Im not making generalization. With your attitude, you are confirming everything i have said. You believe that your history is so bloody great. instead of being very ashamed of it, you are proud of it. I take this as an insult to me and to the countless other people who have suffered throughout centuries under english arrogance and hostility.
and please, your the one with the historical deficits. you are the one who claimed that the brits didnt create Iraq. (another one of their great contribution to mankind)

Originally Posted by JammyJim

I think im safe in saying that not a single other member of this community has read this and gone 'COR BLIMEY HES RIGHT!!!2122123'

Just like a little baby, everyone agrees with me, so I must be right. whats the matter?? not enough selfesteem ?? I dont give a damn if some english dudes with ill placed national pride
are agreeing with you

[Ninja_spammer]

The strong rule, the weak follow or submit. The meek shall inherit nothing but ashes and large international debts.

If Iraqis could find their arses without the aid of a flashlight and a hunting dog then their might be no need to go around making states for them.

So are you against purely british attrocities or shall I be expecting two hundred other threads from you denoucning every other country that every did something bad?

Perhaps the rape of nanjingby the Nipponese or the rape of germany by your glorious Soviet comrades?

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

The strong rule, the weak follow or submit. The meek shall inherit nothing but ashes and large international debts.

If Iraqis could find their arses without the aid of a flashlight and a hunting dog then their might be no need to go around making states for them.

So are you against purely british attrocities or shall I be expecting two hundred other threads from you denoucning every other country that every did something bad?

Perhaps the rape of nanjingby the Nipponese or the rape of germany by your glorious Soviet comrades?

no, only against people who go around and brag about their atrocities calling them achievements like the english do.
well, at least you caled them attrocities, thats an improvement.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

The strong rule, the weak follow or submit. The meek shall inherit nothing but ashes and large international debts.

well said, a good example for the english arrogance, which they are hated for throughout the world.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Perle

well said, a good example for the english arrogance, which they are hated for throughout the world.

People always hate winners.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Perle

well said, a good example for the english arrogance, which they are hated for throughout the world.

Such assumptions little one.

They may be hated in your former homeland but I've yet to see an Islamic state that likes anyone else who isn't an Islamic state.

An affront to god or some such nonsense.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes but we invented the 'hay guys lets let lots of people vote and make it relevant!' kind of democracy :eng101:

well, how about switzerland? and we had some free cities here aswell which had some form of democracy

[Ninja_spammer]

Didnt we do some Pillaging and Burning as well?


Seems a bit innefficient to just rape a place and not pillage and burn whilst there.

Didnt we learn *anything* fom the Vikings?

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Didnt we do some Pillaging and Burning as well?


Seems a bit innefficient to just rape a place and not pillage and burn whilst there.

Didnt we learn *anything* fom the Vikings?

your attempt at being sarcastic failed misrably. actualy the english were fantastic in pillaging other countries. Look at africa, you ****ed the place up real bad..

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Perle

Look at africa, you ****ed the place up real bad..

Just so I can be clear when you say "you" do you mean people who are descended from English people alive then or is anyone who is born in this country? What are people who migrate here from Eastern Europe (for example) included in your rage?

[Ärketrollmannen]

Didn't the english get the system with 12 jurymembers from the vikings (among other things)?

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Just so I can be clear when you say "you" do you mean people who are descended from English people alive then or is anyone who is born in this country? What are people who migrate here from Eastern Europe (for example) included in your rage?

I mean you as people like jammyjim who are proud of english history and say things like: who cares if millions of people died and suffered, it was for the greater glory of the british crown.

souds like a damn cardassian to me.

[Ste]

It was me. I did it. I'm sorry. The revision was getting to me.

[Mek]

http://inventors.about.com/library/i..._inventors.htm

above is a link to a website with all the british inventions on (dont know how concise it is havent had a look yet)

perle, you keep going on about the british empire raping etc..but your core argument (before it spiralled off into a rant about all wars british fought turning into a huge orgy of raping and debauchery) was based on the actions of 3 soldiers..

also, germany doesnt have a perfect history themselves...they may have appologised for it and groveled and the like but it doesnt make it go away....even if you got an apology out of every single british person for the countrys actions it doesnt make a damn bit of difference...whats done is done..get over it, get a life..

p.s do i sense a hint of jealousy over the british history??

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Perle

so, let me get this right, yo made an arse out of yourself by claiming that the ottoman empire created iraq, I corrected you with evidence, and I am the fool with no historical knowledge??

just say it, it will not hurt. just say : I was wrong, we did create Iraq, it was not the ottomans.
it really wont hurt dude

What in gods name are you talking about? I pointed out that the REASON iraq came about was not because of british imperialism so much as the collapse of another empire which spanned half of the arab world which left this horrific vaccum of power.
Yes we did go and carve up the land using mandates to 'legitimise' our power and so on but what your asking is an apology for doing so....why exactly? If we had not others would have and at the time there was a true sense that we were civilising the rest of the uncivilised world for the greater good of the empire.

who the hell are you to go in and fill the power vacuum?? why didnt you people stay the hell home?? nobody asked you to go around and stop anarchys. and what a fine job you did stopping anarchy. we can see the results in iraq and kashmir and palestine . you did a hell of a fine job. thank you, you superior english civilisation, thank you for bringing peace to uncivilized arabs. thank you for the countless wars you have triggered because you just couldnt stay the hell home.

We were the most powerful nation on earth in the same way that America steps in when a vacuum threatens to engulf entire areas into civil war. Did it occur to you that the collapsing of an empire usually leads to rather alot of 'fighting' and violence as a result.

I want you to stop being arrogant about your history and admit that you should have stayed the **** home.
most importantly, I want you to say that inventions or historical accomplishement do not justify the countless invasion and sloughters of other countries.

No. Im not arrogant of my history. It IS my nations history. Why should i be ashamed of it? We remain one of the largest economies in the world and one of the bastions of freedom for centuries. Why in gods name should i be embarassed to say 'im british'. Oh and our inventions/historical accomplishments propelled the world into the 20th century and without many of them you wouldnt be talking on this internet forum today. Obviously someone else would have invented most of the stuff but the point is that the british did it first because of the 'conditions' of the age.

Just say it : we screwed up the enrtire world, we are sorry, we should have stayed the **** home, instaed of going out and playing superpower, which we had no right to do. we are not more civilized than other countries. Other poeple are just as good or better as we are. We are not gods chosen people to bring civilisation to underdevelopped countries.

No.
Imo we are more civilised than most countries outside of the western world. We dont go round cutting peoples hands of for stealing or making sure women cant vote. We dont descent into civil war everytime theres an election and we dont threaten our neighbours with invasion.
We are a civilised country and tbh id FAR FAR prefer to live in the west and enjoy its 'civilisation' thani would some backwater shithole in the middle of a desert riding around on a camel and praying i find water before i get ethnically cleansed by a rival religion.

Im not making generalization. With your attitude, you are confirming everything i have said. You believe that your history is so bloody great. instead of being very ashamed of it, you are proud of it. I take this as an insult to me and to the countless other people who have suffered throughout centuries under english arrogance and hostility.
and please, your the one with the historical deficits. you are the one who claimed that the brits didnt create Iraq. (another one of their great contribution to mankind)

Yes you are. Your asking for a total unreserved apology for Britains past. I was being 'sarcastic' earlier but i dont think you quite 'picked up on it'. As for Iraq. Noone 'created it'. It was already there. Iraq didnt suddenly rise up from the waters and become a nation on the command of britain. It was part of a division of the Ottoman empire granted but this does nto mean that every single fault and problem it has caused over the years is ours to blame.

It would be like blaming us for the Cold War...here comes the science bit!


If we had not discovered america.
If we had not 'lost' the wars of independence.
If we had gone back and claimed it instead of thinking '**** em'

America would be under our control. Its vast resources wouldve been part of the empire. Noone would have dared to attack anyone and WW2 would never have happened. The Cold war Would nto have taken place and the various proxy wars would not have killed thousands.

soooo by your logic (apologise because you made iraq), we should apologise for losing control of america too....or maybe just discovering it. damn our imperial ambitions. sigh

Just like a little baby, everyone agrees with me, so I must be right. whats the matter?? not enough selfesteem ?? I dont give a damn if some english dudes with ill placed national pride
are agreeing with you

Its usually a fair indication that when your right people go 'you know what...hes right'. and when your wrong and drivelling on about something either

a) noone cares about
b) noone agrees with

people tend to go 'shut up you fool' much likee most of the people here.


Its a shame you didnt understand the earlier sarcasm but hey ho. Maybe its just because im British.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Perle

your attempt at being sarcastic failed misrably. actualy the english were fantastic in pillaging other countries. Look at africa, you ****ed the place up real bad..

Sarcasm would be wasted on a colonial peasant such as yourself.

Kindly get back to tilling the fields,extracting oil or whatever it is your supposed to be doing, before I have you whipped for your impudence.



Why did you leave Iran btw, it hasn't been under British or American Influence for about 25 years now, is it not time to return to the motherland?

[skiddy]

JJ 1 - Perle 0

Oh, and Perle, we just had a lecture last night about morality and integrity - something essential to the British Armed Forces which unfortunately in recent days certain soldiers within have lacked (although, we've established you're thick as pig shit so I'll spell it out for you - Iraq prisoners)

Perhaps you would like to attend one of our briefings and see what the British Army and the values we try to uphold are all about.

When we're done, I'm sure I can think of some reason to have you detained for a short while without charge. You're Iranian for a start, and we're the big evil country who has no respect for others. By your logic, because of past and present occurences - every British citizen believes in invading foreign lands and taking what isn't ours - as does our entire government system and monarchy. Thus, you're a terrorist and believe in suicide bombs that kill childeren and families. Because of your logic, when someone speaks out or does something in Britain, it essentially means that said statement becomes British policy. Welcome to the world of stereotyping.

Kind Regards,

Britain.




Alternatively, you can stop posting this inane drivel.

[Dead_Meat]

Originally Posted by Perle

souds like a damn cardassian to me.

Oh dear. You're a trekkie.

Maybe you could make a fifteen page long comparison of the effects of the Klingon menace and how it was shaped by the actions of the British on Earth, then make sweeping generalisations about how the Federation is for good and that anyone standing in it's way is evil and should be destroyed.

Go on, pleeeeease...

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

Oh dear. You're a trekkie.

Maybe you could make a fifteen page long comparison of the effects of the Klingon menace and how it was shaped by the actions of the British on Earth, then make sweeping generalisations about how the Federation is for good and that anyone standing in it's way is evil and should be destroyed.

Go on, pleeeeease...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...&rd=1&tc=photo

there ya go perle...you now can play as the evul federation and oppress/rape/pillage the klingons...

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Mek

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...&rd=1&tc=photo

there ya go perle...you now can play as the evul federation and oppress/rape/pillage the klingons...

That's not what that game's about at all. Birth of the Federation/Armada 1 and 2, maybe. The TNG Board Game? Like ****.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's not what that game's about at all. Birth of the Federation/Armada 1 and 2, maybe. The TNG Board Game? Like ****.

/me shrugs, was just browsing ebay when i saw the reply n was on a page with a star trek game on

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

paging yahwe for good definition of common law

the common law is a system whereby the law 'grows' or 'evolves'. essentially there are no 'rules' to begin with, individual incidents come to court and the court decides the right outcome in that circumstance. that decision is recorded and published as a judgement.

when the next incident comes to court the court either, finds that this new incident is similar to a past judgement then the same result is given. if not a new judgement is created.

over time a series of these judgements which have things in common are grouped together for easy access ie. 'criminal matters' or 'claims for money without a contract'

the common law continues to grow for as long as there are new facts and new incidents.

this english concept has influenced hundreds of nations legal systems.

the competing legal idea is a 'civil law' system. with this system a book of laws is written first and then incidents are resolved by reference to this book. this system is open to abuse by tyrannies and is oft time critiscised for its inflexibility.

the common law system was one of the brightest gems that the empire gave the world. i'm glad you have mentioned it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

everyone could have started using it.

I've heard genius described as doing what anyone could have done, but noone else did. That applies here somewhat.

[wu_trax]

how many other countries use that system? i know that we don't, except for one or two exceptions.
and how is that less open to abuse? appoint different judges and get different results. you don't even have anything written to rely on. sure, laws can be changed, but at least you are safe for the time before a law is changed.

[Nodrog]

It's funny, although unbelievably ignorant, when people try to claim that 'their' country invented something, when what actually happened was that one or two isolated geniuses made the discovery/invention in question, normally while being horrifically attacked by the people of the country whose descendents later try to take the credit for it.

Your ancestors are most likely to have been amongst the creatures involved in the abuse of those who advanced the world forwards. No 'country' or 'society' has produced anything of value. Get over it.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

how many other countries use that system? i know that we don't, except for one or two exceptions.
and how is that less open to abuse? appoint different judges and get different results. you don't even have anything written to rely on. sure, laws can be changed, but at least you are safe for the time before a law is changed.

you're completely wrong. trust me.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It's funny, although unbelievably ignorant, when people try to claim that 'their' country invented something, when what actually happened was that one or two isolated geniuses made the discovery/invention in question, normally while being horrifically attacked by the people of the country whose descendents later try to take the credit for it.

Your ancestors are most likely to have been amongst the creatures involved in the abuse of those who advanced the world forwards. No 'country' or 'society' has produced anything of value. Get over it.

Whilst this applies for specific inventions, the 'social inventions' which I mentioned were as much a product of the society of the time as the works of individuals.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Phang

you're completely wrong. trust me.

that may be right, however, id like to get a little more of an answer.

[JammyJim]

its not about 'who' its about 'how'

If you slapped sir issach newton in the middle of some backward hillybilly tribe who still lived in mud huts he probably would not have sat there and 'discovered' anything.

charles babbage would not have thought 'hmm a computer!'

its more to do with society creating the conditions at the time that enabled such inventions to take place.

or am i mistaken

[JammyJim]

Common law legal systems
The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States (except Louisiana and Puerto Rico), Canada (except Quebec private law), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Basically, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain except those British colonies that were taken over from other Empires, such as Quebec (following French law to some extent) and South Africa (following Roman Dutch law to some extent) where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.

The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, the former Soviet bloc, and most of the rest of the world.

Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but in fact it has a unique system which combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707. Scots common law differs in that the use of precedents is subject to the courts seeking to discover the principle which justifies a law rather than to search for an example as a precedent and that the principles of natural justice and fairness have always formed a source of Scots Law. Comparable pluralistic legal systems operate in Quebec, Louisiana and South Africa. These systems are referred to as mixed legal systems

The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.)

New York State, which also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, also began a codification of its laws in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the Field Code applying to civil procedure. The original colony of New Netherlands was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the British captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was recaptured by the Dutch. When the English finally regained control of New Netherlands -- as a punishment unique in the history of the British Empire -- they forced the English common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic as the patroon system of land holding, based on the feudal system and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. The influence of Roman Dutch law continued in the colony well into the late nineteenth century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[wu_trax]

if 'we' wouldn't have invented the printing press all those people would just have lived their lives without archiving anything (or at the very least other people wouldn't have noticed them)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Isaac Newton himself said he was standing on the shoulders of Giants, it is clear he was referring to the unusally tall caucasion race.

To introduce a bit of historical accuracy to this thread, it's fairly likely that this quote was designed to be an insult to Hooke, who was a bit of a hunched dwarf type fellow. The reason for this is that Hooke and Newton were in constant argument over who had discovered the inverse square law, and Newton was an exceedingly petty man.

Of course, the quote is a fairly inaccurate representation of the process of scientific discovery. A more accurate one would be 'If I have seen father than others, it is because I'm standing on a big heap of midgets'.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

its not about 'who' its about 'how'

If you slapped sir issach newton in the middle of some backward hillybilly tribe who still lived in mud huts he probably would not have sat there and 'discovered' anything.

charles babbage would not have thought 'hmm a computer!'

its more to do with society creating the conditions at the time that enabled such inventions to take place.

or am i mistaken

If you mean that the less the average peasant tries to kill the superiors that dwell amongst them, the more likely they are to produce something of value, then I agree. However the only positive contribution that society can make to genius is to leave it alone. Sadly, most can't even manage that.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Of course, the quote is a fairly inaccurate representation of the process of scientific discovery. A more accurate one would be 'If I have seen father than others, it is because I'm standing on a big heap of midgets'.

Not so much in Newton's day. its only in the last few hundreds years that 'averageish' men have had leading research/university positions.

(I don't mean 'averageish' in a particularly insulting sense here, simply that there's no way it could sensibly be argued that most university scientist today is in the same league as the innovators of the 16th-18th centuries). "Normal science" is a relatively new phenomenon.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

However the only positive contribution that society can make to genius is to leave it alone.

You're being rather selective on your definition of 'society'. For example, where would Einstein have been without the teaching he received in the european university system?

You appear to be defining 'society' as the parts of said society which haven't contributed to the discovery in question, which means that your argument is fairly truistic.

[Ninja_spammer]

One day Gordon, you will get over your schooldays, I just know it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Not so much in Newton's day. its only in the last few hundreds years that 'averageish' men have had leading research/university positions.

(I don't mean 'averageish' in a particularly insulting sense here, simply that there's no way it could sensibly be argued that most university scientist today is in the same league as the innovators of the 16th-18th centuries). "Normal science" is a relatively new phenomenon.

Yeah, I meant modern day rather than the C17.

Although having said that, remember that we're looking at a fairly biased sample, as we only remember those who made discoveries. We don't know about the numbers of Gentlemen Scientists overall.

[Ste]

Am I right in comparing the common law system to Wikipedia?
If something wrong/unpopular get's written/passed it's usually rectified quite quickly by the appeals court.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

how many other countries use that system? i know that we don't, except for one or two exceptions.
and how is that less open to abuse? appoint different judges and get different results. you don't even have anything written to rely on. sure, laws can be changed, but at least you are safe for the time before a law is changed.

its less open to abuse because it grows so slowly over time.

if a tyrannical dictator were to seize power in england he would find it humanly impossible to fully change our legal system in his lifetime.

civil law systems you can just rewrite the book.



P.S. of course the judgements are written down.

[wu_trax]

i don't understand how this in any way binding. you have nothing written down, not even a constitution. who authorises what is legal(probably wrong word) and what isn't? isn't that supposed to be the job of the government, not that of some judges?

PS anyway, a tyranical dictator could just develop his own civil law system

[Phang]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

who authorises what is legal(probably wrong word) and what isn't? isn't that supposed to be the job of the government, not that of some judges?

only if you're big on tyranny.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

PS anyway, a tyranical dictator could just develop his own civil law system

Not within the parliamentary system, he couldn't.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

only if you're big on tyranny.

Actually, having government set the law isn't tyranny.