Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you would take the time to read my post i did not object at all. I merely pointed out that he had hypocritically accused the other gentleman of being a stereotype before becoming one himself.
    You clearly made a point of labeling it as a stereotype and your consequent posts imply a sense of resentment to the phrase and those who use it.

    Do you apply the same mentality to 'Allahu Akbar'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    What? Why are you so scared of being British?

    There is alot more to being British than fulfilling a vauge stereotype. So much for diversity eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    There is alot more to being British than fulfilling a vauge stereotype. So much for diversity eh?
    The funny thing is that I don't. Unlike yourself who doesn't even know what a neoconservative was when you tried to call me one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    You clearly made a point of labeling it as a stereotype and your consequent posts imply a sense of resentment to the phrase and those who use it.

    Do you apply the same mentality to 'Allahu Akbar'?

    Are you going to deny that the phrase isn't part of the stereotypical perception of a Brit?
    And yes 'Allahu Akbar would be associated with a stereotypical follower of Islam, whats your point?

    I do not resent the phrase in any way. I do however find it quite amusing when it is used in an attempt to portray patriotic credibility on the internet, when in reality Don's argument was sufficient enough. That quote in my view was pure overkill and for me removed an element of credibility from the post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The funny thing is that I don't unlike yourself who doesn't even know what a neoconservative was when you tried to call me one.


    Why must you resort to ad hom Don? That sentance makes no sense at all.

    Plus, what does the definition of neoconservative have to do with this argument? If you wish to have further discussion then quote me in the other thread instead of driving this one off topic in an attempt to avoid the points i have raised.

    Do you know, I think you try so hard to be what you imagine is British that you miss what being a Brit is all about, hence these inferiority complex-esque accusations you throw at everyone who doesn't view our heritage like a religion, or worship the Royal Family as if they were some kind of tea drinking pantheon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why are you scared that by reforming the system we will lose our identity?

    I'm from Scotland, though I lived in England for several years, and I like Britain. True, it has its faults, what country doesn't? But it's my home and there is much about it that makes me happy. We have a great landscape and some very interesting people.

    I wouldn't class myself as a "patriot" in the traditional sense of the word, as I don't want to portray myself as fulfilling some of the criteria that the word suggests - people have different interpretations of what it means to a be patriotic. However, suffice [it] to say that I'm quite content with being British. Our traditions are fascinating and our history - though bloody - is rich.

    Yet, the fact remains that, in order for a nation to survive and grow, it must understand its surroundings and adapt accordingly. It is clear that contemporary British politics is ever-marred by the presence of an outdated system. The corruption that results from the House of Commons/House of Lords dichotomy is no longer sustainable. We must - and most likely will - reform and adapt, forging ourselves into a modern and prosperous European state - one that is ready to take on the future.

    Does this mean I will feel any different about my country? Of course not. Nothing can take that away; and nothing will.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I am not to well informed on the role of the modern monarchy.

    I am intrigued as to just what impact completely removing the Monarchy would have on political agenda? I mean apart from a few formalities would there be a large difference?
    It would change the political agenda in that we would have two elections, assuming you’re going for the Irish or French systems. Also an elected official as head of state is far more likely to use there power against the government for all the wrong reasons.

    (Original post by Moosehead)
    Yet, the fact remains that, in order for a nation to survive and grow, it must understand its surroundings and adapt accordingly. It is clear that contemporary British politics is ever-marred by the presence of an outdated system. The corruption that results from the House of Commons/House of Lords dichotomy is no longer sustainable. We must - and most likely will - reform and adapt, forging ourselves into a modern and prosperous European state - one that is ready to take on the future.
    We were the first modern and prosperous European state due to the institution's that you feel need to change. I don’t understand where you got the idea that our politics is marred by the system which has worked so well for hundreds of years. The current expenses scandal came about due to the attitude of some MP's and civil servants, not our parliamentary system. I would say the only reform we need is to change the HoL to a fully appointed chamber whereby members are selected by independent committee then give the House some teeth by removing or at least amending the Parliament Acts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Another example of the typical moron strategy. "If someone disagrees with you, call him evil".
    As someone with the intellectual capacity of a teaspoon, you are no doubt well versed in typical moron strategy. And you seem strangely obsessed with
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You're the one you uses ad hominem attacks
    as if by attacking your person, I am somehow revoking my right to any sort of opinion?

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Because they have an important role to fill? I don't believe equality is an inherent good. The idea that we are all equal is completely contary to human nature. I have no problem saying that your average Joe Bloggs is inferior to your average Windsor as considering the culture that they are a part of, it is almost undeniably self evident.
    Inferior in what way? I mean actually, what the f**k are you talking about? As you consider wealth and education the two most important virtues in determining a person's value, then what difference does it make who has access to it? Take Joe Bloggs Jr. fresh out the womb, swop him with Prince Harry fresh out the womb, give Joe B that aristocratic upbringing, stick Prince Harry on a council estate, what happens then? Either you're saying that as Royalty they will be inherently better, which is the biggest load of tripe I have read since you last blogged on that sh*te blog of yours, or that what seperates us from the Windsors is their education/upbringing/wealth/power, which then makes a mockery of everything you said, because if everyone was granted an equal upbringing, went to an excellent school and never wanted for anything, would reach a higher point of being...then shouldn't we all have that access? What gives the Royals the right, other than accident of birth?
    "it is almost undeniably self-evident [that the royals are superior]"....priceless. I gave you suficient evidence with the marriage scandal stuff that they are as fallible as the next person, it could not be further from self-evident that they are superior to me in any way other than their vast, inherited wealth and vast, inherited importance.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I also never said I saw myself as equal to them because I'm arguing in their favour, that is ridiculous nonsense. I know that I'm middle class and I'm proud to live like a middle class young man is meant to live. You're the one you uses ad hominem attacks to assert your supposed superiority (and considering your decadence, the fact of the matter is, you are inferior).
    I never suggested you said it, I suggested that it might be part of some bizzare fantasy of yours which, you know, was as good a guess as any as to why they command your feverish respect, but I'm willing to admit I was wildly off-the-mark. Instead you just think they're superior because...because....OH THEY JUST ARE!
    Then you came out with some rubbish about being inferior to you because - and this is bizzare - of my decadence...my philistinic, self-obsessed decadence. And at the same time you say that you're proud to "live like a young middle class man is meant to live" the very definition of wanton decadence! make up your mind Scott! Oh and futhermore, while you're getting all offended at my ad hominems, can you refrain from stating - as if it were a fact pulled out an encylopedia rather than your arse - that I am "inferior". At least back up that kind of conjecture, because right now I can only connect my anti-monarchist sentiments to your assertion of my inferiority? Which, even for you, is a bit daft.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The fact is that humans are so different from each other in most meaningful ways to treat them equally is a recipe for disaster and is against human nature. When man does not bow to God, King and Country then he bows to decadent celebrities and other assorted popular people.
    Quite obviously you have recently emerged from some sort of Victorian time warp and after conquering the internet you are now attempting to correct our many social ills one by one, because I cannot believe that someone who, I have to admit, seems reasonably intelligent, would proclaim that "When a man does not bow to God, King and Country.....then he bows to decadent celebrities"
    Firstly, I don't believe in God. I jumped off that ship a long time ago, so I'd rather not address it. Whether a higher power is indeed out there or not, I am certainly not going to let a piece of text written hundreds of years ago dictate what is best for me or the state. I think that's alot scarier than the notion that we were all created equal which in your mind is "against human nature" (whatever that means).
    Secondly, King and Country....now we have been over this. The King is someone who, by accident of birth, inherited power, wealth and loyalty. They do not represent me or my interests in any way, they care about me as much as I care about them (which is nil), they have no qualifications to command my respect, and they don't deserve it.
    "When a man doesn't bow to King and Country" that reminds me of the kind of talk that got millions of boys killed in World War I. Some of them were kids, our ages, maybe younger even. They were sent to fight in defence of our king, our country, our money spinning Empire, in trenches overseas for inches of land. They were lions led by donkeys, and what for? They laid down their lives for "King and Country", and they got nothing for it but rows of unmarked graves. There was nothing noble about that.



    .


    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The name change was a patriotic duty and they were widely supported by the British people. I never said that they were "inherently" good people but the fact that they don't have to use petty political tactics to become Head of State like a President does, the fact that they are brought up their whole lives to be good rulers and the fact that they are devout Christians and very patriotic makes them very capable rulers. And yes because of the relevance of the monarchial institution in British history, the monarchy does make up a fundamental part of the British idenity that to destroy it would be like an atheist destroying the beautiful St. Paul's Cathedral just because he doesn't believe in it's message.
    There's nothing beautiful about the monarchial institution in British history, so don't make a parallel between a fabulous piece of architecture and that.
    The "fact" that they are "devout Christians and very patriotic" does not make them "very capable rulers" nor is it much of a fact anyway. How you can equate pious Christianity to sound leadership is beyond me, and patriotic? How can you possibly quantify that? Of course they're going to be proud of being British because no doubt in their minds, they think it is all theirs anyway. Being brought up this way (read: indoctrinated) in no way guarantees that they will be good leaders.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Name me a British monarch who has abandoned his people and I'll name you more Presidential traitors.
    All I will say is that the ever diminishing power of the monarchs and the aristocracy in general has had a direct relationship to the improvement of the lives of the general British public. A fantastic education, free healthcare, security and protection against crime, Royalty have had this as a right from birth for hundreds of years. We only got the Police force and the NHS in the last century. You cannot compare an ELECTED President to a monarch. It is utter madness.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The idea of the responsability of leadership being passed through the generations is inherently Pro-Family. I could name far more AMERICAN Presidential scandals.
    And it's inherently stupid. The point is that American presidents are elected members of the public. Indeed they are feverishly revered in America, something I have never understood, but in principal they are as human as any of us. And that's the point...so are the Royals. Like I said earlier, as fallible as the next human being, superior upbringing or not.


    (Original post by Don_Soctt)
    This is way you show your true colours. You have no respect for traditional British institutions or values that they majority of the British people do have respect for.
    Perhaps you and I differ on our definitions of "traditional British institutions"...the powers in our country have always exploited everything they could, they were the ultimate homage to capitalist greed, sending kids down coal mines, selling slaves from out of Africa, robbing countries of their resources to feed the glorious Royal empire, upon which the sun never set. I am as willing as the next man to forget the bloodshed that this "institution" has been responsible for, but if you are to extol the virtues of tradition then accept that the "British institutions" that so you speak so fondly of, have been responsible for many evils throughout this world. Just take a look at Northern Ireland.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You are essentially a stereotype. There are many accurate names that I could call you but I will refrain for the sake of traditional British civility.
    You can call me anything under the sun, then again we wouldn't want any ad hominems would we? I am actually curious to see what words you would use an indeed if they are accurate.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Again you begin with a pointless ad hominem. It is also quite funny because I'm not a Thatcherite.
    I do apologise on that front, it was just so spectacularly easy.
    Interestingly;

    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher's manifesto in 1979)
    The Economy
    Profits are the foundation of a free enterprise economy. In Britain profits are still dangerously low. Price controls can prevent them from reaching a level adequate for the investment we need.
    Immigration
    But firm immigration control for the future is essential if we are to achieve good community relations. It will end persistent fears about levels of immigration and will remove from those settled, and in many cases born here, the label of 'immigrant'.

    (Original post by Don_Scott's patriotic conservative TSR party 2009)
    The Economy
    The Patriotic Conservative Party supports a free market economy and the vast reduction of the bureaucracy that meddles with our lives.

    Immigration
    The Patriotic Conservative Party supports stronger restrictions of immigration into this country and considers mass immigration to be a contradiction of the principle of national self-determination.
    I could go on, but wouldnt want to be ad hominemingngnging anyone...
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    God Save the Queen.
    Yawn. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    What? Why are you so scared of being British?
    I think he (Aeolus) may well be scared of your definition of what it is to be British. As most rational people probably would be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I put him on my ignore list because I have better things to do than argue with rude people like him.

    I would be perfectly happy to debate someone civil.

    Well i personally am interested in your response to many of his points, so i have taken the liberty to edit his post and remove anything personally offensive, leaving only an argument that brings up some very good points.

    Would you be willing to provide a counter argument??


    Are you suggesting that as if by attacking your person, I am somehow revoking my right to any sort of opinion?


    Inferior in what way? Do you consider wealth and education the two most important virtues in determining a person's value, then what difference does it make who has access to it? Take Joe Bloggs Jr. fresh out the womb, swap him with Prince Harry fresh out the womb, give Joe B that aristocratic upbringing, stick Prince Harry on a council estate, what happens then? Either you're saying that as Royalty they will be inherently better, which i disagree with, or that what seperates us from the Windsors is their education/upbringing/wealth/power, which then contradicts everything you have said, because if everyone was granted an equal upbringing, went to an excellent school and never wanted for anything, would reach a higher point of being...then shouldn't we all have that access? What gives the Royals the right, other than accident of birth?
    (Original post by DonScott)
    "it is almost undeniably self-evident [that the royals are superior]"
    ....priceless. I gave you suficient evidence with the marriage scandal stuff that they are as fallible as the next person, it could not be further from self-evident that they are superior to me in any way other than their vast, inherited wealth and vast, inherited importance.

    You seem to believe that the Royal Family are superior because...because....OH THEY JUST ARE!

    You also suggested i was inferior to you because - and this is bizzare - of my decadence...my philistinic, self-obsessed decadence. And at the same time you say that you're proud to "live like a young middle class man is meant to live" the very definition of wanton decadence! Oh and futhermore,can you refrain from stating - as if it were a fact pulled out an encylopedia - that I am "inferior". At least back up that kind of conjecture, because right now I can only connect my anti-monarchist sentiments to your assertion of my inferiority? Which, even for you, is a bit daft.


    Quite obviously you have recently emerged from some sort of Victorian time warp and after conquering the internet you are now attempting to correct our many social ills one by one, because I cannot believe that someone who, I have to admit, seems reasonably intelligent, would proclaim that "When a man does not bow to God, King and Country.....then he bows to decadent celebrities"
    Firstly, I don't believe in God. I jumped off that ship a long time ago, so I'd rather not address it. Whether a higher power is indeed out there or not, I am certainly not going to let a piece of text written hundreds of years ago dictate what is best for me or the state. I think that's alot scarier than the notion that we were all created equal which in your mind is "against human nature" (whatever that means).
    Secondly, King and Country....now we have been over this. The King is someone who, by accident of birth, inherited power, wealth and loyalty. They do not represent me or my interests in any way, they care about me as much as I care about them (which is nil), they have no qualifications to command my respect, and they don't deserve it.
    "When a man doesn't bow to King and Country" that reminds me of the kind of talk that got millions of boys killed in World War I. Some of them were kids, our ages, maybe younger even. They were sent to fight in defence of our king, our country, our money spinning Empire, in trenches overseas for inches of land. They were lions led by donkeys, and what for? They laid down their lives for "King and Country", and they got nothing for it but rows of unmarked graves. There was nothing noble about that.




    The "fact" that they are "devout Christians and very patriotic" does not make them "very capable rulers" nor is it much of a fact anyway. How you can equate pious Christianity to sound leadership is beyond me, and patriotic? How can you possibly quantify that? Of course they're going to be proud of being British because no doubt in their minds, they think it is all theirs anyway. Being brought up this way (read: indoctrinated) in no way guarantees that they will be good leaders.



    All I will say is that the ever diminishing power of the monarchs and the aristocracy in general has had a direct relationship to the improvement of the lives of the general British public. A fantastic education, free healthcare, security and protection against crime, Royalty have had this as a right from birth for hundreds of years. We only got the Police force and the NHS in the last century. You cannot compare an ELECTED President to a monarch. It is utter madness. The point is that American presidents are elected members of the public. Indeed they are feverishly revered in America, something I have never understood, but in principal they are as human as any of us. And that's the point...so are the Royals. Like I said earlier, as fallible as the next human being, superior upbringing or not.




    Perhaps you and I differ on our definitions of "traditional British institutions"...the powers in our country have always exploited everything they could, they were the ultimate homage to greed, sending kids down coal mines, selling slaves from out of Africa, robbing countries of their resources to feed the glorious Royal empire, upon which the sun never set. I am as willing as the next man to forget the bloodshed that this "institution" has been responsible for, but if you are to extol the virtues of tradition then accept that the "British institutions" that so you speak so fondly of, have been responsible for many evils throughout this world. Just take a look at Northern Ireland.
    Offline

    14
    Stay on topic please.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus
    )

    Secondly, King and Country....now we have been over this. The King is someone who, by accident of birth, inherited power, wealth and loyalty. They do not represent me or my interests in any way, they care about me as much as I care about them (which is nil), they have no qualifications to command my respect, and they don't deserve it.
    They represent your country and your countries interests in exactly the same way your local MP represents you even if you didn’t vote for him. Now where on earth do you get the ridiculous idea that the Monarch does not care about you? The Queens duty is to every person she reigns over and the evidence is there that she takes this very seriously, she has only the countries best interests at heart.

    Perhaps you and I differ on our definitions of "traditional British institutions"...the powers in our country have always exploited everything they could, they were the ultimate homage to greed, sending kids down coal mines, selling slaves from out of Africa, robbing countries of their resources to feed the glorious Royal empire, upon which the sun never set.
    Now you fly your true hideous colours, your attacks upon the Monarchy have no root in the current situation or indeed reality simply your warped version of history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    .

    Now you fly your true hideous colours, your attacks upon the Monarchy have no root in the current situation or indeed reality simply your warped version of history.

    Do you deny any of that happened? :lolwut:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Do you deny any of that happened? :lolwut:
    I don’t think any of that was bad for the time, I think the Empire was indeed glorious and I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with the Monarchy today. He also seems to blame the monarchy for all those things, which is far from the truth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, why should I care about imperialism if I had nothing to do with it? Why should I care about slavery if I had nothing to do with it? Why should I retrospectively cast a moral judgement on the past when I had nothing to do with it? Isn't this your rule lefties? If I shouldn't be patriotic because I had no choice over where I was born then why should I give a crap about imperialism or slavery? (As it happens I do, but then I'm patriotic also)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I don’t think any of that was bad for the time, I think the Empire was indeed glorious and I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with the Monarchy today. He also seems to blame the monarchy for all those things, which is far from the truth.

    How can you justify it being glorious? Was it glorious for those who suffered under it? Looking back it is easy to portray the empire as romantic, and though i am no apologist i think it is absurd to ignore the atrocities commited. I find that most of the individuals on here who passionately argue the case for ethnic identity and sovereignity will declare the empire as a glorious tradition and remember it with pride, overlooking the fact that it oppressed hundreds of ethnicities around the world taking away their right to rule their own lands. It's quite an hypocricy really.

    However I do agree that it doesn't directly have anything to do with the monarchy today. But indirectly i suppose they are the family most associated with our imperialistic past, but then again all of us have an association to some degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Oh, why should I care about imperialism if I had nothing to do with it? Why should I care about slavery if I had nothing to do with it? Why should I retrospectively cast a moral judgement on the past when I had nothing to do with it? Isn't this your rule lefties? If I shouldn't be patriotic because I had no choice over where I was born then why should I give a crap about imperialism or slavery? (As it happens I do, but then I'm patriotic also)

    Im not too sure what you are getting at here?? I believe apologising for the past is an illogical waste of time. What makes more sense is recognising where we went wrong and applying those lessons to the future. As a citizen of any nation, denying you have a responsibility to learn, and then apply these lessons to the future is not only absurd, but also very selfish.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How can you justify it being glorious? Was it glorious for those who suffered under it? Looking back it is easy to portray the empire as romantic, and though i am no apologist i think it is absurd to ignore the atrocities commited. I find that most of the individuals on here who passionately argue the case for ethnic identity and sovereignity will declare the empire as a glorious tradition and remember it with pride, overlooking the fact that it oppressed hundreds of ethnicities around the world taking away their right to rule their own lands. It's quite an hypocricy really.
    In my unashamedly nationalistic view; the furthering of our country and the increase in standard of living to our own countrymen/ancestors is justification at a time when the plight of many a Briton was awful to say the least.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    In my unashamedly nationalistic view; the furthering of our country and the increase in standard of living to our own countrymen/ancestors is justification at a time when the plight of many a Briton was awful to say the least.

    So you would say that Hitler's quest for lebensraum was a just and noble crusade?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you would say that Hitler's quest for lebensraum was a just and noble crusade?
    Lebensraum was around long before Hitler, and I call you on Godwin’s law.

    I would have opposed German empire building as it was a threat to British Empire building, no more no less.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,973

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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