Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE]
    (Original post by L i b)
    That was precisely the point I was making, but for you. I am not here to question whether you believe what you say or not.


    So? Democracy isn't an end in itself.



    It is very arbitrary, and absolutist power concentrated in one body is dictatorship or, more properly, tyranny.



    Because traditional democratic theory is not absolutist. You are. And it's ridiculous.



    I'm afraid I don't believe in your principle of basic human equality. The vast majority of people don't, as they do not share in your fairly extreme socialist views.



    Yes you did - you said that 'the people' should be able to choose how they are governed without any qualification whatsoever.



    Again, appeals to novelty are a logical fallacy, as are appeals to apparent necessity - everything is expendable unless you set out an end which you are working towards.
    I think you'll find that the vast majority of people do believe that we're all equal, and I'm baffled by the insinuation to the contrary that you just made. People fought and died for civil rights, such as the right to a free education and the right to vote, based on the principle of a basic human equality. Obviously we're not all equal and different humans have different needs, but to venerate and glorify a group of people due to their birth contradicts this idea for me, hence my feeling that having a monarchy is not right. And I also find it interesting that you think the British public is one body instead of millions of independent bodies. How could we be dictators if we individually don't have the power to dictate anything? It's not a hard concept to grasp, and I don't feel that it's fair to attack me for my "fairly extreme socialist views" either.

    Nor did I even say that the public should run the government. I said they should be able to choose the government (the fabric of democracy) more than they can now in order to have more of a say in how the government represents them. That's all I want, no matter what it may have appeared I was saying before, that's seriously it. I don't feel that's "extremely socialist". Yes, I'm a socialist but I do draw the line. I disagree with the idea of a monarchy but I still believe that the government needs influence, I just think that the public should be able to vote for every person who makes decisions. I don't see why that's such a terrible thing.

    All in all, I feel we've digressed far too much from the point, and I'd rather we ended the animosity as it's getting us nowhere. We should respect each others' beliefs without shoving them down each others' throats because that's pointless. I'd rather just share my ideas without fear that I'm going to be ridiculed/harassed, and I'm more than happy to listening to other points of view - difference, after all, is what makes life interesting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    This isn't Plato's Republic. You cannot justify the Royal Family's rule based only on their intelligence.
    I didn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Why? They almost certainly "are" better than you. Why this rabid idealistic illusionary search of "equality" at all cost?
    I wonder just how much right-wing bile has been loaded into your mind, and at what age this rather intimidating education process began; I would compare it to locking Maggie Thatcher in a darkened studio and record her reading excerpts from Mein Kampf and playing them to a baby every night for a decade; but y'know, a little less extreme.

    What intimidates me about the whole thing is that, from what I can discern, you are endorsing ideals you don't have the capacity to truly appreciate. To endorse a sense of inferiority is utter madness - why would you want to believe that the Royal family is owed any more privileges in life than you or I? Unless of course, in some strange occultist fantasy of yours, you believe that by advancing their cause you are somehow on par with them, with the Royals, the "aristocrats" the people who you see as better than you or I, because (and I quote)
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And the reason that a monarch is likely to be better than you is there[sic] aristocratic upbringing.
    So ignoring your change of emphasis from "certainly are better than" to "likely to be better", an obvious tactic employed when those faithful to a truly fallible theory are faced with logic, you are saying that the Royal family is likely to be (or "certainly are") better than you or I, or that poster, is because of their aristocratic upbringing? So taking that point alone, the only thing that seperates us from them is a good n' proper aristocratic upbringing? Therefore if we were all granted such an upbringing would we not all be equal? It seems you are advancing the Royal family's high pedestal in society simply for the sake of having one. Why do you seem determined to be deferential to a higher power? Are you not confident enough in your own capabilities of decision making? Oh, of course, the mob. I forgot about those nasty fellows in lower classes, how dare they be uneducated, have accents and follow celebrities, how very stupid of them.
    Perhaps Mr. Scott, if we provided these people with this wondrous aristocratic upbringing, we would all be as well-educated and as wonderful as the Royals.
    But oh no you seem to be against equality. Those of us advocating this dirty and cretinous notion, who would subject ourselves to unacceptable "mob rule", are rabid eglitarians?


    Aside from their aristocratic upbringing, the Royals do of course have their lineage to call upon - yes that old chesnut - did you know that the current Saxe-Coburg Gotha family, the Royal family of the UK, changed their names to Windsor, a completely made up name, because the proles were being bombed by Germans (and of course that whole mess in Russia), it was a dangerous time to be a Royal. They changed their name, they truly sold out, because they were afraid. They were at our whim, as it should be. When the **** hits the fan, when these "aristocrats" have their backs to the wall, they will always be at our whim, because they have no power any more. The very notion that they will be the very last bastions of democracy, that their inherent altruism leads them to defend the very virtues that make us British, is total rubbish.
    (Original post by Don_Scott's lovely blog 'anti-NICE')
    While he is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army.
    How very naive, most likely should such a situation ever arise, the Royal family would go into exile (it's very fashionable thing for them to do when their country is in need of them) living out the rest of their lives in some tax-free former colony enjoying a life of luxury, but let's be honest, the chances of such a takeover are slim-to-none. The chances of Royalty saving our bacon in such a circumstance, is unequivocally none.

    (Original post by Don_Scott's very strange blog)
    the monarchy is completely pro-family
    Of course Don! Absolutely dedicated to the family unit....oh, wait



    To now go to your equally thought provoking, "Patriotic Conservative Party for TSR" - which would probably be a wet dream for the secret love child of a Thatcher/Reagen union - where you state that
    (Original post by religious nut Don Scott)
    The traditional Christian nuclear family is the rock of Western civilisation."
    as well as that you support the monarchy because you're a traditional conservative party. Mutually exlusive from where I am sitting mate, right back to Henry VIII and his six wives.

    I think that you need to be ruled. You're an advocate of the age-old oppressive institutions of the Monarchy and the Church. And this last quote I'll take once again from that blog of yours;
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    If men do not bow to Kings, who will they bow to? Rather a noble King than a decadent celebrity.
    This is when I started to consider the possibility that you were some hardened lefty on a wind-up, because surely even the most mindless right-wing, self-important bigot can not honestly believe this kind of crap. I await your response on how deeply you do believe in this stuff.

    All in all this debate is a little pointless to be honest, as anyone with half a brain will confirm they are a state-funded tourist attraction and really, very little more. But I shall conclude; absolutely nothing gave these people the right to be wealtheir, safer and more respected than anyone in this country, and nothing you say can convince me even slightly to the contrary. Their ancestors murdered other wealthy and respected people to take their place. It's always been about power and wealth and who had more of it, and it has never, ever been about what was right for this country. So please rethink your bizzare belief in the sanctity of Royalty, for it is no less an oxymoron than a pious humanist.
    Thankyou and goodnight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I actually clapped in front of my computer after that post. Jolly good show!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    I wonder just how much right-wing bile has been loaded into your mind, and at what age this rather intimidating education process began; I would compare it to locking Maggie Thatcher in a darkened studio and record her reading excerpts from Mein Kampf and playing them to a baby every night for a decade; but y'know, a little less extreme.

    What intimidates me about the whole thing is that, from what I can discern, you are endorsing ideals you don't have the capacity to truly appreciate. To endorse a sense of inferiority is utter madness - why would you want to believe that the Royal family is owed any more privileges in life than you or I? Unless of course, in some strange occultist fantasy of yours, you believe that by advancing their cause you are somehow on par with them, with the Royals, the "aristocrats" the people who you see as better than you or I, because (and I quote)


    So ignoring your change of emphasis from "certainly are better than" to "likely to be better", an obvious tactic employed when those faithful to a truly fallible theory are faced with logic, you are saying that the Royal family is likely to be (or "certainly are") better than you or I, or that poster, is because of their aristocratic upbringing? So taking that point alone, the only thing that seperates us from them is a good n' proper aristocratic upbringing? Therefore if we were all granted such an upbringing would we not all be equal? It seems you are advancing the Royal family's high pedestal in society simply for the sake of having one. Why do you seem determined to be deferential to a higher power? Are you not confident enough in your own capabilities of decision making? Oh, of course, the mob. I forgot about those nasty fellows in lower classes, how dare they be uneducated, have accents and follow celebrities, how very stupid of them.
    Perhaps Mr. Scott, if we provided these people with this wondrous aristocratic upbringing, we would all be as well-educated and as wonderful as the Royals.
    But oh no you seem to be against equality. Those of us advocating this dirty and cretinous notion, who would subject ourselves to unacceptable "mob rule", are rabid eglitarians?


    Aside from their aristocratic upbringing, the Royals do of course have their lineage to call upon - yes that old chesnut - did you know that the current Saxe-Coburg Gotha family, the Royal family of the UK, changed their names to Windsor, a completely made up name, because the proles were being bombed by Germans (and of course that whole mess in Russia), it was a dangerous time to be a Royal. They changed their name, they truly sold out, because they were afraid. They were at our whim, as it should be. When the **** hits the fan, when these "aristocrats" have their backs to the wall, they will always be at our whim, because they have no power any more. The very notion that they will be the very last bastions of democracy, that their inherent altruism leads them to defend the very virtues that make us British, is total rubbish.

    How very naive, most likely should such a situation ever arise, the Royal family would go into exile (it's very fashionable thing for them to do when their country is in need of them) living out the rest of their lives in some tax-free former colony enjoying a life of luxury, but let's be honest, the chances of such a takeover are slim-to-none. The chances of Royalty saving our bacon in such a circumstance, is unequivocally none.


    Of course Don! Absolutely dedicated to the family unit....oh, wait



    To now go to your equally thought provoking, "Patriotic Conservative Party for TSR" - which would probably be a wet dream for the secret love child of a Thatcher/Reagen union - where you state that
    as well as that you support the monarchy because you're a traditional conservative party. Mutually exlusive from where I am sitting mate, right back to Henry VIII and his six wives.

    I think that you need to be ruled. You're an advocate of the age-old oppressive institutions of the Monarchy and the Church. And this last quote I'll take once again from that blog of yours;

    This is when I started to consider the possibility that you were some hardened lefty on a wind-up, because surely even the most mindless right-wing, self-important bigot can not honestly believe this kind of crap. I await your response on how deeply you do believe in this stuff.

    All in all this debate is a little pointless to be honest, as anyone with half a brain will confirm they are a state-funded tourist attraction and really, very little more. But I shall conclude; absolutely nothing gave these people the right to be wealtheir, safer and more respected than anyone in this country, and nothing you say can convince me even slightly to the contrary. Their ancestors murdered other wealthy and respected people to take their place. It's always been about power and wealth and who had more of it, and it has never, ever been about what was right for this country. So please rethink your bizzare belief in the sanctity of Royalty, for it is no less an oxymoron than a pious humanist.
    Thankyou and goodnight.
    Quite possibly the greatest thing I've ever read on this forum. Bravo.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    Aside from their aristocratic upbringing, the Royals do of course have their lineage to call upon - yes that old chesnut - did you know that the current Saxe-Coburg Gotha family, the Royal family of the UK, changed their names to Windsor, a completely made up name, because the proles were being bombed by Germans (and of course that whole mess in Russia), it was a dangerous time to be a Royal. They changed their name, they truly sold out, because they were afraid. They were at our whim, as it should be. When the **** hits the fan, when these "aristocrats" have their backs to the wall, they will always be at our whim, because they have no power any more. The very notion that they will be the very last bastions of democracy, that their inherent altruism leads them to defend the very virtues that make us British, is total rubbish.
    The whole country was at war, not just 'the proles'. King George V changed the family name and disowned all German relatives simply for that reason, hardly selling out. Might I also add he was extremely popular so you can forget your wet dream fantasy that there was going to be some sort of revolution.

    In recent history I can point you to one King who certainly was the last bastion of democracy, Juan Carlos I of Spain. It is my belief that we need a system of check and balances and the Monarchy is the best way to get that, far superior to a presidential system.

    How very naive, most likely should such a situation ever arise, the Royal family would go into exile (it's very fashionable thing for them to do when their country is in need of them) living out the rest of their lives in some tax-free former colony enjoying a life of luxury, but let's be honest, the chances of such a takeover are slim-to-none. The chances of Royalty saving our bacon in such a circumstance, is unequivocally none.
    I disagree, during the second world war the kings of Eastern Europe, Denmark etc did indeed flee there countries but they came to Britain to lead the resistances and maintain government, hardly living it up in some tax-free colony.

    All in all this debate is a little pointless to be honest, as anyone with half a brain will confirm they are a state-funded tourist attraction and really, very little more.
    You don’t know much about your own country, prejudice based on ignorance.
    But I shall conclude; absolutely nothing gave these people the right to be wealtheir, safer and more respected than anyone in this country, and nothing you say can convince me even slightly to the contrary. Their ancestors murdered other wealthy and respected people to take their place. It's always been about power and wealth and who had more of it, and it has never, ever been about what was right for this country. So please rethink your bizzare belief in the sanctity of Royalty, for it is no less an oxymoron than a pious humanist.
    The current royal family came here at the invitation of parliament, which tells us two things. First of all your about 500 years too late with the whole murder, death kill thing. Second of all we, the British people, gave the Windsor’s the right to reign. Parliament has never tried to get rid of the Monarch even though I’m sure several Labour governments would have loved too because the populace wouldn’t have stood for it.

    They are not the wealthiest in the country, but even so there wealth has nothing to do with there social position and it is no business of you or I. What do you have against protecting ones head of state? And, unfortunately, they are not the most respected in the country, this quote says it best:
    “Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked’; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach – men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.” - C.S Lewis
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Renner)
    ...we, the British people, gave the Windsor’s the right to reign...
    I didn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    I wonder just how much right-wing bile has been loaded into your mind, and at what age this rather intimidating education process began; I would compare it to locking Maggie Thatcher in a darkened studio and record her reading excerpts from Mein Kampf and playing them to a baby every night for a decade; but y'know, a little less extreme.

    What intimidates me about the whole thing is that, from what I can discern, you are endorsing ideals you don't have the capacity to truly appreciate. To endorse a sense of inferiority is utter madness - why would you want to believe that the Royal family is owed any more privileges in life than you or I? Unless of course, in some strange occultist fantasy of yours, you believe that by advancing their cause you are somehow on par with them, with the Royals, the "aristocrats" the people who you see as better than you or I, because (and I quote)


    So ignoring your change of emphasis from "certainly are better than" to "likely to be better", an obvious tactic employed when those faithful to a truly fallible theory are faced with logic, you are saying that the Royal family is likely to be (or "certainly are") better than you or I, or that poster, is because of their aristocratic upbringing? So taking that point alone, the only thing that seperates us from them is a good n' proper aristocratic upbringing? Therefore if we were all granted such an upbringing would we not all be equal? It seems you are advancing the Royal family's high pedestal in society simply for the sake of having one. Why do you seem determined to be deferential to a higher power? Are you not confident enough in your own capabilities of decision making? Oh, of course, the mob. I forgot about those nasty fellows in lower classes, how dare they be uneducated, have accents and follow celebrities, how very stupid of them.
    Perhaps Mr. Scott, if we provided these people with this wondrous aristocratic upbringing, we would all be as well-educated and as wonderful as the Royals.
    But oh no you seem to be against equality. Those of us advocating this dirty and cretinous notion, who would subject ourselves to unacceptable "mob rule", are rabid eglitarians?


    Aside from their aristocratic upbringing, the Royals do of course have their lineage to call upon - yes that old chesnut - did you know that the current Saxe-Coburg Gotha family, the Royal family of the UK, changed their names to Windsor, a completely made up name, because the proles were being bombed by Germans (and of course that whole mess in Russia), it was a dangerous time to be a Royal. They changed their name, they truly sold out, because they were afraid. They were at our whim, as it should be. When the **** hits the fan, when these "aristocrats" have their backs to the wall, they will always be at our whim, because they have no power any more. The very notion that they will be the very last bastions of democracy, that their inherent altruism leads them to defend the very virtues that make us British, is total rubbish.

    How very naive, most likely should such a situation ever arise, the Royal family would go into exile (it's very fashionable thing for them to do when their country is in need of them) living out the rest of their lives in some tax-free former colony enjoying a life of luxury, but let's be honest, the chances of such a takeover are slim-to-none. The chances of Royalty saving our bacon in such a circumstance, is unequivocally none.


    Of course Don! Absolutely dedicated to the family unit....oh, wait
    [To now go to your equally thought provoking, "Patriotic Conservative Party for TSR" - which would probably be a wet dream for the secret love child of a Thatcher/Reagen union - where you state that
    as well as that you support the monarchy because you're a traditional conservative party. Mutually exlusive from where I am sitting mate, right back to Henry VIII and his six wives.

    I think that you need to be ruled. You're an advocate of the age-old oppressive institutions of the Monarchy and the Church. And this last quote I'll take once again from that blog of yours;

    This is when I started to consider the possibility that you were some hardened lefty on a wind-up, because surely even the most mindless right-wing, self-important bigot can not honestly believe this kind of crap. I await your response on how deeply you do believe in this stuff.

    All in all this debate is a little pointless to be honest, as anyone with half a brain will confirm they are a state-funded tourist attraction and really, very little more. But I shall conclude; absolutely nothing gave these people the right to be wealtheir, safer and more respected than anyone in this country, and nothing you say can convince me even slightly to the contrary. Their ancestors murdered other wealthy and respected people to take their place. It's always been about power and wealth and who had more of it, and it has never, ever been about what was right for this country. So please rethink your bizzare belief in the sanctity of Royalty, for it is no less an oxymoron than a pious humanist.
    Thankyou and goodnight.
    Good points :yy:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how a verbose, pseudo-intellectual string of ad homs can be considered 'good', for those brown nosing Eradicus's incoherent essay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    I don't see how a verbose, pseudo-intellectual string of ad homs can be considered 'good', for those brown nosing Eradicus's incoherent essay.

    Ad homs aside i think he bought up some very good points. Why don't you try to come up with a coherent counter argument instead of resorting to the same sort of drivel you accuse Eradicus of?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    ...ad homs...brown nosing...
    :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I did!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    I don't see how a verbose, pseudo-intellectual string of ad homs can be considered 'good', for those brown nosing Eradicus's incoherent essay.
    Yes, I interpreted it as:

    "waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, I'm so intelligent with all this fancy vocabulary, waffle, waffle, blah, blah, blah".

    The poster probably could have expressed his points in a few sentences instead of attempting to break the world record for "the longest post ever seen on an internet message board".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The role of any monarchy is to rule its subjects (i.e. you). One unit rules all. That's not democracy! This is a very ancient system of rulership which began with the Egyptians and the Sumerians. You can even see traces (some big, some small) of the iconography between ancient monarchy and modern (and post-modern for those who believe we are living in those times) monarchy (i.e. crowns, coronations, ceremonies, the mace, religious symbolism, etc, etc).

    All man-made systems like this show a perennial evolution in ideas, images and symbols from ancient times.

    We are still being ruled.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Piggy's Glasses)
    Yes, I interpreted it as:

    "waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, I'm so intelligent with all this fancy vocabulary, waffle, waffle, blah, blah, blah".

    The poster probably could have expressed his points in a few sentences instead of attempting to break the world record for "the longest post ever seen on an internet message board".
    I interpreted your post as:
    Oh I didn't understand his post! blah blah I want to be angry at something so i'll criticise the length blah blah
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    I interpreted your post as:
    Oh I didn't understand his post! blah blah I want to be angry at something so i'll criticise the length blah blah
    I interpreted your post as:

    "How dare he criticise my internet friend's over-use of fancy vocabulary. I often do that in my posts. How very dare you"

    Shall we continue?

    :p:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    All in all this debate is a little pointless to be honest, as anyone with half a brain will confirm they are a state-funded tourist attraction and really, very little more.
    Precisely.

    Unfortunately, it looks like it'll take another generation to get rid of them, as the last few die-hards remain entrenched in their ill-conceived views.

    One thing I've learned in my life is that you should never try to directly change peoples' opinions, as you will simply expend a great deal of energy without making any noticeable progress. All you can do is provide them with the evidence they need to make up their own minds. The power of a belief derived from intrapersonal observation, analysis and evaluation should never be underestimated.

    All you can do is hope that people make the right choice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    All you can do is hope that people make the right choice.
    You've already failed your own criteria
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    Precisely.

    Unfortunately, it looks like it'll take another generation to get rid of them, as the last few die-hards remain entrenched in their ill-conceived views.

    One thing I've learned in my life is that you should never try to directly change peoples' opinions, as you will simply expend a great deal of energy without making any noticeable progress. All you can do is provide them with the evidence they need to make up their own minds. The power of a belief derived from intrapersonal observation, analysis and evaluation should never be underestimated.

    All you can do is hope that people make the right choice.
    Exactly this. You can't change the mind of a person using logic who's reached their views illogically.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 123450)
    Exactly this. You can't change the mind of a person using logic who's reached their views illogically.
    And what logic is that? Proper examination of our system and the alternative systems leads me to find that our system is superior. But I bet your going to go on about 'democracy', which is fairly irrelevant.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.