At first it was but a murmur, a rumble, but by the time he had finished speaking, while the assassins were untying my ankles in order to lead me to the scene of my murder, I heard, as plainly as ever I heard anything in my life, the clinking of horseshoes and the jingling of bridle chains, with the clank of sabres against stirrup-irons.
--Arthur Conan Doyle, "How the Brigadier Held the King", in The Complete Brigadier Gerard
The Raven Black wrote:
I wonder where this idea that France is a land of cowards takes roots. Is it ancient or recent, a US thing or something widespread ?
In the US, I think, it's a combo of an older stereotype of the French as effete degenerates mixed with US anger and resentment at De Gaulle's "ingratitude" post-WW II.
In addition to Engels and Oyeyemi, I started reading a collection of Arthur Conan Doyle stories about a character I'm pretty unfamiliar with...Brigadier Etienne Gerard.
Not sure how the politics of a Victorian Brit writing about a Napoleonic soldier will turn out, but looking forward to it.
Vive le Galt!
Even an abbreviated answer is an answer. From your points, I'm reminded of the French revolution, where the citizens who rose up (like your armed working class) were ever ready to do so again, and frequently did as each successive council or leadership was deemed corrupt by those who sought to replace them.
Alas, they didn't rise up for my boy, Max.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
2. What exactly is a "leftish fashion"? If you mean painting people who disagree as "morally repugnant and socially retarded", than Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity must be some of the most leftish fashioned people on the planet. Glen Beck was famous for his blackboard dissertations in which he defined "progressivist" as someone deliberately out to destroy America.
This was cute:
Scott Betts wrote:
We* would be more likely to chant "Prepare the tumbrils! Prepare the tumbrils!"
featuring villainous Jacobins called things like Judas McSerpent (like any reasonable person, I know perfectly well that my life would be 1bn % better were I to change my name to Judas McSerpent) who spend all their time seducing innocent young ladies into a life of ATHEISTIC LIBERTINAGE!
Pfft. We declared sodomy "an imaginary crime" and abolished all laws against homosexuality in 1791. Eat that, Jefferson.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not to mention that most of the French Revolutionaries weren't atheists.
Despite my better judgment, I very much enjoyed The Scarlet Pimpernel, but he better not try that shiznit here in Galt!
Speaking of which, Auguste Blanqui was a true hero of the working class, brave and true, and I cherish his memory, but, alas, I have not read that book, Comrade Longears. Is it awesome?
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
It's a strange issue, and it reminds me of a debate my class had back when I was taking criminal justice and politics about how back in the day, a middle eastern diplomat had come to the use for some sort of diplomatic council and brought his wife. Without realizing why, the US arrested him as he entered the country because his wife happened to be 13, (even though they hadn't had sex, and more importantly hadn't had sex in the US), sent her home (now without her guardian and legal protector and now with no where to go) while they tried to figure out what the heck to do with him.
How strange. In New Hampshire, I believe, the law still says girls can get married at the age of 13 as long as they have their parents' permission.
He should have flown into MHT.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'm not sure this is a corner case at all, as much as just an uncommon one, with extra hot buttons. From the parent's perspective of the younger child, (removing the fact that both are female or that it is homosexual), it seems perfectly reasonable that they should have the full right to protect their daughter legally. Arguing that because it's a gay relationship goes a long way to show that the younger individual is regardless of her age, mature and competent enough to make a choice for herself, which then leads to well why would she then not be if the partner where a male? People might say that they don't think it would matter, but the past evidence of very similar cases (just switching up the genders) has shown pretty strongly that they (as a general community) simply do not.
what would be the difference if the other partner was male? That's basically what it comes down to, how is this any different than if an older male had been having sexual relations with an underage/younger female, and in what way should the remove the parents (of the younger girl's) rights to legally defend their child, (whom they are legally accountable for)? The law either applies equally, regardless of gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation, etc. . ., or it doesn't. It's not about getting all the perks but none of the responsibility, which is exactly what arguing that "because they where gay it's ok" is doing.
It is the opinion of this Revolutionary Tribunal that sodomy is an imaginary crime, and that laws against high schoolers boinking each other, whether they be straight or gay, is the acme of stupidity. We find the defendant NOT GUILTY!
I think a lot of people are also jumping on the assumption that the parent's primary (or only) motivation is because they have an issue with their daughter being homosexual and are using this as an excuse to break that up. But the truth is that parent's of children are at least equally if not more concerned with their daughters having heterosexual relationships than they are with homosexual one, its very common that they disallow (or attempt to) their daughters from dating until they are _____ years old, period.
From what little I have read, the parents of the younger girl never complained while 17-year-old Kate was boinking their daughter and went and filed charges when she turned 18. These are unconfirmed accusations, as far as this Revolutionary Tribunal is concerned, but, if true, the offending parents shall be sentenced to a Fun-Timey Reeducation Through Labor Supercenter to produce vibrators and Massengill for the lesbian masses until they admit they harbor counterrevolutionary attitudes.
My understanding is that it was primarily oral relations, which again means
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I, too, am a lawyer with a vast experience in expatriating rich people...
Vive le Galt!
All I know is that Grigori Yefimovich better stay the f#*$ out of Galt.