If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Remember, you are the delusional one, not the rest of the world.
Come to think of it, more the reason for you to provide some evidence (for a bleeding change) that countries don't exist. Can't you even find a single website, no matter how delusional, to support your argument? Even the most ludicrous tinfoil hatters can at least provide the odd link...
Why not? Because you say so?
I see you don't just pretend to be the Ultimage Judge of what exists and doesn't in the present. You also control the past. Wow.
You were the one asking for "evidence that countries existed".
And as usual, when presented with it you change the subject or pretend you wanted something else.
It can be good or bad art. But art it is, and more to the point, it has been created.
Yes God.
Nope. It's creation.
You really should come to terms with it.
I ask for more details because i know you are talking out of your hat. the fact that you can't provide them is proof in itself.
How can you prove a negative? You can't. It's not an argument, it's just the truth. The fact that no one has noticed really isn't my concern.
No, because a kingdom is based on the idea of a border, which cannot exist.
I told you the criteria, you failed to provide evidence that I can sense. You are therefore deluded. pretty simple. If I claimed to see a 6ft rabbit called Harvey, you would want to have a shufti at the carrot munching fucker for yourself. When you failed to see it you would call me delusional. I am asking for your "harvey" please.
No, "art" is created by the person looking on. One mans van gogh is another man's firelighters.
nope, it's reformation. You mould material into new shaopes and move the bits left over to one side. At no point is anything created, just stuff is moved about.
Terms with what? I haven't had any evidence yet. Your claim that you "feel" it isn't good enough, for all i know you are lying, in fact it seems very likely because I dion't have the same feeling.
Lol, sounds like a pub fight.
If this thread had been a pub fight, you'd be spark out.
Not likely. But excellent show of machismo, grats.
On the basis of your arguments you twit... :rolleyes:
In short, this is akin to presenting evidence to a fundie that the earth is billions of years old, and them saying the evidence is fabricated and that those fossils are made of plastic.
Keep burying your head in the sand- be my guest.
Proving a negative can be tricky- in most cases. However proving a negative with something so obvious and real as countries should be much easier, since it's there for all to see.
If someone came and claimed the Moon doesn't exist, despite the entire world being able to see it, you would think the person making such extraordinary claim would have to be the one showing everyone else the error of their ways, don't you agree?
Why cannot it exist?
I know a man who is blind. He cannot see the sea, therefore the sea doesn't exist.
I've told you before and I'll tell you again: if you have sensory depravation of any kind it's not my problem.
You don't know much about art do you?
. Nope. A flying machine is created. No amount of "moving about" material could possibly create a flying machine by accident, not even in a billion worlds throughout the entire span of the universe.
Sen-so-ry de-pra-va-tion.
Anyway, you continue to ignore links providing plenty of proof. I cannot do anything more than show you the proof. If you ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist (as you do of so many other things) there is little else I or anyone can do to provide 'evidence', is there?
Apologies, you may have noticed I am very literal. I still think I am winning, myself.
Are you one of those "extremists" that the men/woman calling themselves "the Government" have warned me about ?
Count ME out of your absolutes please.
BTW I think it is possible to de-program your "CPU".You may be surprised at the output if you had different input software? (GIGO
Klintock,
MY perception has you well ahead on points,and if I was the ref I`d consider stopping the fight.
seeker
Because if I don't like something in this country, I try and change it the British way .... via the ballot box. Do you think that those protestors that tried to break up the Muslim Council of Great Britain meeting shortly before the elections by stating that elections were un-Islamic (and they want to IMPOSE Sharia law on us) are good Britains? If they don't like our systems, they should either vote to change it, or shut up, or leave the country.
And your point is ... ? This is the 21st century. Regardless of who invented what, even as far back as the Crusades, is pointless and does not justify blowing up innocent people in a tube train
Erm ... and Scientologists and Agnus Dei promote overthrowing the government, imposing their laws on the majority, blowing themselves along with dozens of inncocent people just so they can get to paradise and shag 70 virgins?
No you don't and you know it.
Oh c'mon! Take your head out of your arse. Where did I say anything about having problems with Muslims for being Muslim? However, I do believe that as much as the government has to take some of the blame for allowing Islamic hardliners to spout there bullshit uninhibited, the Muslim community must also take its share of the blame for allowing radicals to take over their mosques, incite their youth etc.
And I am racially prejudice? Oh fuck off! I have no problem with anyones colour or race. I do have a problem with religon. That is completely different.
So far we have had -
1) Countries are based on agreements/mutual consensus.
2) At no point was a mutual agreement or consensus arrived at.
3) Countries can be sensed.
4) They have no colour, sound, feeling, smell or taste.
5) There are lines on maps which denote countries.
6) Maps aren't territories.
7) Countries are obvious Wah!!
8) They are so obvious you can't produce a shred of evidence for them
9) Everyone knows there are countries!! (except klintock)
10) All small children know that santa brings their presents.
11) there is something rong with kilintock for wanting proof in the first place. :rolleyes:
DO you have anything else to add before I proclaim you a loony, Al?
"On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. "
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/history/ch3.htm#victory
There you go then, there is a set date when at least that bit of America became America.
See link re Spain as to just one example.
Yep. Problem?
Nor does love. Can't you feel love either?
Wow. A bit of progress at last.
(Pssst... You are at serious risk of making a fool of yourself if you make such statements).
Nope. They give a geographical representation of countries.
To everyone but you, oh Almighty Lord.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And yet the penny won't drop...
Now you really are making a fool of yourself.
Certainly peculiar... just as it would be if someone demanded proof that the Atlantic Ocean exists.
What is more worrying though is your burying your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence before you.
Proclaim away klintock, proclaim away.
See, Al this is what's known as evidence. Of course, for it to be valid, great britain and spain both have to exist first. Also, writing things down on a piece of paper would have to gain the power to create borders, which doesn't happen in real life, only in harry potter books.
For the sake of argument, lets say that congress agreed to those terms and to obide by them. What's that got to do with everyone else though? What stops any of the signatories from just not bothering pretending there are borders? In fact it's proof that counties are imaginary.
So do many countries now not exist on your own logic? Name a country that exists through mutual agreement and consensus then. if not, drop the argument entirely I have defeated it often enough now.
Try again, that was a despot forcing his will onto everyone else. No agreement or consensus there.
Yeah, only you are doing it. Find me someone to corroborate.
>cough< Love has no feeling but you can feel it? Make your mind up.
Now we are getting somewhere. Are the lines on those maps invented by people or are they grown on trees?
>sigh<
Usually.
Well, you would take them to that ocean point at it and say look an ocean. You say there is a country called "england" yet when i go to where the border should be theres nothing I can point at and say "oOooh - border!". of course, there is no atlantic ocean either, that's just another way of looking at things.
What evidence? You have produced none.
Oh, and Al, your a loonie
Yes there is, I dont know if you have ever traveled across borders but theres normally a nice sign, or even a gate and fence.
How did you get there?
As it was explained to you many pages ago, it'd be impossible for all individuals concerned to sign agreements with each other. That's why there is such thing as heads of state and representatives. Comprende?
LOL. Of course you have...
Spain.
As it was explained to you many pages ago, it'd be impossible for all individuals concerned to sign agreements with each other. That's why there is such thing as heads of state and representatives. Comprende?
My family, and many of my friends do. You should go abroad. Perhaps you'd start feelings something.
Let me make it clearer: love cannot be sensed with any of your precious five senses. And yet it can be sensed- it exists, demolishing all your fancy theories.
Oops!
You know very well what the answer is. You also know very well that man is capable of creating things- you just don't like it because it disproves your theories. Tough luck.
How about if you were in Australia? Pretty clear borders, for all to see.
Oops!
Whatever you say King George.
How can someone else represent me if i don't authorise them to? How did they become head of state? Also, as the state is a geographical location bound by imaginary borders, how do you become head of state of something that doesn't exist yet to then invent it?
....was brought into being by a man who at least had the courtesy of not pretending he represented anyone (but god). His authority rests on the existence of god, a wonderfully unprovable bit of hokum. He didn't "represent" or had the "mutual agreement" of the local population, he had lots of sworda etc. So still no country that "exists" through your first argument.
You've already said yourself that you feel love about half a dozen times - make yer mind up!
First law of thermodynamics. And it's not my theory.
Nope. As I am sure you are aware the "border" for australia is several miles out to sea, good look getting me a photo of it. :rolleyes:
Kilntock: Are you putting forward that it is impossible for a country to exist? The basis being, as there is no physicality to a border, people aren't forced to observe it and hence it is subjective?
That's about the size and shape of it. It's not that people aren't forced to observe it so much, because they are (at times). More that whether they do or don't it still isn't there. Even putting a fence around an area just means that there is now a fence there. The fence can be removed. It's not a fact, it's an opinion.
So you're saying even though people are often told to observe these borders (or treat them in a specific manner) by other people (becuase these people have a belief in the border), it still doesn't give the border any more validity?
2) Read a bit of history
3) It wasn't amusing the first time you tried out- it still fails to be amusing. And no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any less real.
Change the record if you will.
Nope. He was the representative of the people at the time. As it has been pointed out to you millions of times now, it would be impossible for every single citizen to sign agreements with everyone else. That is why we have representatives/heads of State.
My mind is well made up. It is you who keep moving the goalposts as more avenues are closed to your argument.
I thought you didn't believe in laws.
And in any event, that said law has zero significance to the case in hand. A flying machine is created. No question about it whatsoever.
But then, there is no question that countries exist either, so what chance do I have to make you see the former when you refuse to admit the latter? :rolleyes:
Well there you are then. Get a pedometer, walk into the water and count 12 miles from the very shore of the water.
What else do you need?
Yes it is a fact, aside from the border concerns its a fact that you can have a fence, the physical presence of a fence is not an opinion, you can prove its there.
I think you may well be opening up Pandora's box there
Yep, in exactly the same way as you would tell someone to get to fuck if they forced you to adhere to their religious beliefs etc. You say we should behave this way, I say different. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't tell me it's a fact.
So they died out with their origniators then, if they ever existed at all?
Please take your own advice. I suggest "The Isles" but I can't for the life of me remember who wrote it. Says pretty much what I am saying.
Look, you think there are countries because some "leaders" made them up. the fact that they are "leaders" is also an opinion. i really don't want to get into the whole legitimacy argument because that's another misnomer where you will confuse fact and opinion.
No king in history ever said he was a representative of the people. They were usually the biggest murdering bastard around and hence their "power" in any event you can only represent someone if they give their assent. So I await your proof that people ever assented, ever.
What? I said name something you that exists that you cannot sense in some way. You said love. You also said (a hatful of times) that you feel love. Last time i checke dfeeling was one of the five senses. Sort yourself out.
This is law in it's physics sense - i.e. it's worked everywhere so far that we checked. It's more a guide to what scientists assume will happen. of course like all such laws it's open to revision the second that new data come out.
I am saying that you can never add to or subtract from the total amount of stuff in the universe. What are you on about?
And when i get there (nice jesus freakery touch, btw) how will I know that there is a border? Will there be a blue forcefield? Will I get that mysterious feeling you keep harping on about but never give details of?
Just noticed this -
1) laws only apply within the "border", so that's out if there are none.
2) If that was so then all groups who spoke a different language would automatically become one country, which doesn't happen.
3) Culture is no respecter of any boundary so that's bunnies, or are we all "american" because we watched an episode of friends once?
4) So if all the people of "england" were moved to another part of the globe then "england" would move with them? Nope, bollox.
Otherwise, how would we know?
As far as you know a computer program is writing these answers. The words on the screen can be sensed though.