Paul Walker dies in car crash.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**kronk**

Sometimes people post things because they want attention.

I'd speculate as to why, but I've already had an account suspension in the past week...

**azazel the cat**

PredaKhaine wrote:Its an interesting view...

So, Prince Williams son (george? - I don't pay attention) deserves to die in a fire?

Tough to make that call as he's not old enough to understand concepts of monarchs or abdication yet. I'm inclined to say "no" in this instance, until such a time as he is mentally capable of doing so.

Generally speaking, I'm not down with 'sins of the father' nonsense, however, with monarchies it becomes a little iffy, as hereditary title kinda the root of the problem.

**Medium of Death**

What does that have to do with Diana, or the thread in general? Are you saying that the Royal Family should die because of their position? Seems a bit fething extreme if you understood the concept fully.

Oh and stay classy for saying that a child doesn't need to die in a fire... yet...

**timetowaste85**

That lady is on suicide watch because people threatened her? I read her article and I can say she wouldn't be missed by many (if any at all, honestly). I actually feel like I need a shower after reading that. It's disgusting.

**gunslingerpro**

When "I want attention" turns into "Negative Attention hurts me, wah".

**azazel the cat**

Medium of Death wrote:What does that have to do with Diana, or the thread in general?

I don't know. If only there was a quote tree explaining it somewhere...

Medium of Death wrote: Are you saying that the Royal Family should die because of their position?

They should be given the option to give up their positions, first. Otherwise, yes.

Medium of Death wrote:Oh and stay classy for saying that a child doesn't need to die in a fire... yet...

I'll sing what I have said.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Holy gak, you're a fething nutter. And I stand by that, I don't a damn if it breaks the rules. Seriously, you'er talking about who does and does not deserve to burn to death. NO ONE deserves that, period.

**sebster**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Not exactly, letters where found that showed she lost her faith ALONG time ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/letters-reveal-mother-teresas-secret/

That hardly shows the lady in a poor light. The stories that caused people to question her absolute goodness were more about her refusal to care for AIDS sufferers, and her willingness to withold treatment unless people showed religious piety.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
Generally speaking, I'm not down with 'sins of the father' nonsense, however, with monarchies it becomes a little iffy, as hereditary title kinda the root of the problem.

If it's just the title that's the problem, what if the monarch abdicates the entirely nominal powers of their position, but keeps the vast lands and estates?

If that is still a problem, what about common people who inherit vast fortunes?

**Bromsy**

Whew, yeah that article was just about the most in poor taste and despicable thing I've read this week.

**cincydooley**

So I know I'm one of the people that said he couldn't give two gaks about Paul walkers death, but the coroner announced today that he wasn't mercifully killed on impact. The poor dude was alive when that Italian toy car became a barbecue.

God damn, I know I said I didn't care, but hearing that he went out like that made just feel horrible.

**reds8n**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518156/Paul-Walker-secretly-bought-Iraq-war-veteran-9-000-wedding-ring.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518431/Paul-Walkers-charity-work-Tinseltown-tsunami-zone.html

yeah, feth that guy.

**Medium of Death**

Seemed like a proper nice guy the more that comes out about him.

**-Loki-**

reds8n wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518156/Paul-Walker-secretly-bought-Iraq-war-veteran-9-000-wedding-ring.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518431/Paul-Walkers-charity-work-Tinseltown-tsunami-zone.html

yeah, feth that guy.

How dare people do nice things!

**azazel the cat**

sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Generally speaking, I'm not down with 'sins of the father' nonsense, however, with monarchies it becomes a little iffy, as hereditary title kinda the root of the problem.

If it's just the title that's the problem, what if the monarch abdicates the entirely nominal powers of their position, but keeps the vast lands and estates?

If that is still a problem, what about common people who inherit vast fortunes?

I'm not a big fan of the idea of someone who inherits land or wealth as a result of the state collecting taxes or a tithe. However, if you inherit wealth due to private interests, then it's perfectly fine.

**d-usa**

Canada can always renounce the crown and join the USA.

Except the French speaking Canadians, feth those guys...

**sebster**

azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the idea of someone who inherits land or wealth as a result of the state collecting taxes or a tithe. However, if you inherit wealth due to private interests, then it's perfectly fine.

So your ire is just for people who hold entirely symbolic titles? You want someone to die in a fire because they hold a figurehead position and give rubber stamp approval to the laws of the land? Huh.

**Grimskul**

d-usa wrote:
Canada can always renounce the crown and join the USA.

Except the French speaking Canadians, feth those guys...

Nevar! It would just add to when people think Canada as being nothing but the USA's top hat. >

Our secret maple syrup engine plans would be stolen and duplicated while our plans to consume you with the Mexicans in a 2-front war will be ruined! Caribou Cavalry away!

**azazel the cat**

sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the idea of someone who inherits land or wealth as a result of the state collecting taxes or a tithe. However, if you inherit wealth due to private interests, then it's perfectly fine.

So your ire is just for people who hold entirely symbolic titles? You want someone to die in a fire because they hold a figurehead position and give rubber stamp approval to the laws of the land? Huh.

Let me fix that for you:
"So your ire is just for people who hold symbolic titles, though technically not symbolic, and that your tax dollars pay for in order for them to live a life of luxury without ever earning it, all the while representing the most undemocratic and urepresentative form of government possible, and being living monuments to the idea that men are not all created equal before the law? You want someone to die in a fire for that?"
And yes.

**Ahtman**

If you want to be anti-Royal that is fine, as there are others out there that aren't keen on it as well, but wishing for them to die in a fire is a bit uncouth, and doing so in a thread about a perfectly nice guy who wasn't a royal who did actual actually die in a fire is callous in the extreme.

**sebster**

azazel the cat wrote:
Let me fix that for you:
"So your ire is just for people who hold symbolic titles, though technically not symbolic, and that your tax dollars pay for in order for them to live a life of luxury without ever earning it, all the while representing the most undemocratic and urepresentative form of government possible, and being living monuments to the idea that men are not all created equal before the law? You want someone to die in a fire for that?"
And yes.

This is very odd, you seem to be doing absolutely everything you can to talk around the fact that the monarch is nothing but a figurehead, with theoretical powers that will never be used in practice. And looking at the monarch only through those theoretical powers, and not through the actual position and it's place in the everyday functioning of British and Commonwealth government. And from there inventing some kind of false outrage that these people still function as if they were the kings and queens of ages past, which they simply aren't.

And then you still go back to complaining about how they inherited their money, when other non-noble people who inherited their money aren't deserving of dying in a fire.

Oh, and the taxpayers thing is incorrect. The money brought in to the UK through increased tourism more than pays for the cost of the formalities of the head of state.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
If you want to be anti-Royal that is fine, as there are others out there that aren't keen on it as well, but wishing for them to die in a fire is a bit uncouth, and doing so in a thread about a perfectly nice guy who wasn't a royal who did actual actually die in a fire is callous in the extreme.

Actually this is a better answer. Everyone please pretend I'd said this

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Like I said, nutter...

**azazel the cat**

sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Let me fix that for you:
"So your ire is just for people who hold symbolic titles, though technically not symbolic, and that your tax dollars pay for in order for them to live a life of luxury without ever earning it, all the while representing the most undemocratic and urepresentative form of government possible, and being living monuments to the idea that men are not all created equal before the law? You want someone to die in a fire for that?"
And yes.

This is very odd, you seem to be doing absolutely everything you can to talk around the fact that the monarch is nothing but a figurehead, with theoretical powers that will never be used in practice. And looking at the monarch only through those theoretical powers, and not through the actual position and it's place in the everyday functioning of British and Commonwealth government. And from there inventing some kind of false outrage that these people still function as if they were the kings and queens of ages past, which they simply aren't.

And then you still go back to complaining about how they inherited their money, when other non-noble people who inherited their money aren't deserving of dying in a fire.

Oh, and the taxpayers thing is incorrect. The money brought in to the UK through increased tourism more than pays for the cost of the formalities of the head of state.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
If you want to be anti-Royal that is fine, as there are others out there that aren't keen on it as well, but wishing for them to die in a fire is a bit uncouth, and doing so in a thread about a perfectly nice guy who wasn't a royal who did actual actually die in a fire is callous in the extreme.

Actually this is a better answer. Everyone please pretend I'd said this

I said my piece regarding this in my first post, maybe even my second as well.

And I pity you if you cannot see the difference between Johnny Richdad inheriting his family's capitalist wealth, and some monarch inheriting his family's wealth. The former earned it (whatever your definition might be) whereas the latter simply collected it from people under the guise of government. Oh, yeah, and I don't own a tourism boutique, therefore my tax dollars were not returned to me in any way. The last time any royals came through town, I paid the bill.

**Kovnik Obama**

azazel the cat wrote:
[

Medium of Death wrote: Are you saying that the Royal Family should die because of their position?

They should be given the option to give up their positions, first. Otherwise, yes.