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.
Cant be fethed with the jubilee, good excuse to drink though.
Id like the monarchy if they actually did anything other than sit around on their fat pampered behinds.
Give me a king that goes around riding a horse and directs battles, or drives a tank or something. Give the monarchy full control or sack em off, not this half arsed nonsense we have now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/04 13:01:28
As an American I can tell you that the worst thing we ever did to our culture, possibly the root of all that is bad with our culture, is switching out a human being for a few pieces of paper. Adoration of those papers slowly corrupted us into a nation of fundamentalists.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/04 13:58:14
I really cannot fathom the hatred that some people have for the Royal Family, I think it's mostly jealousy and ignorance.
Matty has made excellent points on the previous pages, and I'd suggest going further and giving the Queen more power in terms of being able to expel corrupt MP's.
The day that we loose our Royal Family will be a sad day for the UK and lead us down a slippery slope of reputation tarnishing Presidents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/04 14:27:06
That's quite a bit more problematic than you seem to think, at first blush.
I grant you, nepotism is rife within British culture. But a meritocracy is not an impossible utopia, which we shouldn't even bother trying to achieve just because it's a bit difficult to put into practice.
Meritocracy and democracy should not be considered ends in and of themselves. Removing the monarch would not make society better. Look at us with our Constitution. You have enough problems despite having the Queen around. Getting rid of her, I can assure you, will only lead to many more. This is one matter that we "colonials" have more experience regarding.
I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and should sort itself out from then on.
Solely removing the monarchy and expecting things to suddenly get better would be stupid. But with other things going on concurrently with such measures there stands a great opportunity for this country to become an actual democracy. We can't remove the monarchy and leave the house of lords as it is, but then again what would be the point in reforming the house of lords to not allow hereditary peers, while still allowing the biggest ones of all.
Some of us prefer the laws to be based on precedent and a written language. They lend an air of predictability to our everyday lives.
I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
Fortunately, most civilized countries have done away with the monarchy. Even those who retain them see them as a figurehead, not as having any real power.
biccat wrote:I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
I suppose they might whoever they are but they and absolute monarchy are hardly relevant to this conversation.
...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
biccat wrote:I suppose others might prefer the whims of an absolute monarch.
I suppose they might whoever they are but they and absolute monarchy are hardly relevant to this conversation.
...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
We have a constitution...
It's a touch unconventional maybe...
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
biccat wrote:...unless someone were to provide a comparison between the US and England based on the presence of the Constitution in one and the Monarch in the other.
Herp takes derp. Checkmate. Is that how we're playing?
OR no one is talking about absolute monarchy in even the slightest way ... except for you. The contrast I made was between the veneration of a living human being and the adoration of pieces of paper.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Manchu wrote:Herp takes derp. Checkmate. Is that how we're playing?
Your sharp criticism and exceptional skill at witty responses are unmatched; your barbed words are too much for the more simpleminded here to comprehend, let alone fully grasp the weightiness of their bite. Your lexographical mastery endures no contest in this, the most weightiest of topics.
Manchu wrote:OR no one is talking about absolute monarchy in even the slightest way ... except for you. The contrast I made was between the veneration of a living human being and the adoration of pieces of paper.
You drew a contrast between a written source of law and an individual, thereby leading one to the conclusion that the individual could equally function of a source of law.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/04 17:58:14
biccat wrote:You drew a contrast between a written source of law and an individual, thereby leading one to the conclusion that the individual could equally function of a source of law.
I suppose that if one completely ignored the context of the statement in favor of, say, some kind of transparent personal vendetta that might indeed be the conclusion to which "one" might be led.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/04 18:08:16
Manchu wrote:I suppose that if one completely ignored the context of the statement in favor of, say, some kind of transparent personal vendetta that might indeed be the conclusion to which "one" might be led.
If someone were to interepret facts in such a manner, they would be more than welcome to. It certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened here.
But upon reading "As an American I can tell you that the worst thing we ever did to our culture, possibly the root of all that is bad with our culture, is switching out a human being for a few pieces of paper" as I moused over the thread, I was curious what direction the thread had turned.
Imagine my surprise when it had taken a predictable one, albeit from an unpredicted source.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/04 18:14:22
I won't pretend that my distaste for fundamentalism is apolitical but I object to the notion that, given some familiarity with my posts, it is surprising.
I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone, rather than some demi-god figure, above us all. That, in the 21st century, someone has "divine right" to subjugate me is an absolute disgrace. Hierarchies, if they must exist, should not be a given, your place within them should be earned, by what you can provide toward that position.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
Man I wonder if that's been tried before?
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
All I'm talking about is a reminder that government is ultimately about people rather than ideas. That is something we have lost, or partly lost, in the United States as a result of a certain worshipful attitude toward the Constitution. For example, if universal healthcare is unconstitutional, some would say that means universal healthcare is wrong (that is literally what people think in this country). To me, it would indicate that our Constitution is no longer up to the task of providing for the government of people.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
Man I wonder if that's been tried before?
Image doesn't work, but I guess you're referring to the 10 commandments? Well I guess the first few modern laws would be I am the only Law, Worship no other Law etc. Comparing a religion that was created as a form of social control with modern law in a country ruled by consent is a bit different.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone,
Man I wonder if that's been tried before?
Image doesn't work, but I guess you're referring to the 10 commandments? Well I guess the first few modern laws would be I am the only Law, Worship no other Law etc. Comparing a religion that was created as a form of social control with modern law in a country ruled by consent is a bit different.
I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Manchu wrote:What do you mean by "unflinching reverence"?
All I'm talking about is a reminder that government is ultimately about people rather than ideas. That is something we have lost, or partly lost, in the United States as a result of a certain worshipful attitude toward the Constitution. For example, if universal healthcare is unconstitutional, some would say that means universal healthcare is wrong (that is literally what people think in this country). To me, it would indicate that our Constitution is no longer up to the task of providing for the government of people.
Your constitution, I believe, can be amended to keep up with moral relativism. Government isn't about people, or at least shouldn't be. This is the problem with modern democracy, it has become a popularity contest. Government should be about ideas and ideals, and how we as societies move toward becoming fair and just for all. I don't know your constitution in any depth but isn't it "for the people" therefore providing healthcare for all, it could be argued, could fall under that.
By unflinching reverence I am referring to the worshipful attitude you yourself noted. And some of the idiots I have seen on the television around this jubilee.
dæl wrote:I'm sorry but if people feel the need to show unflinching reverence toward something I'd rather it be a set of irrefutable laws, set in stone, rather than some demi-god figure, above us all. That, in the 21st century, someone has "divine right" to subjugate me is an absolute disgrace. Hierarchies, if they must exist, should not be a given, your place within them should be earned, by what you can provide toward that position.
Yes but mate your arguing against a position that doesn't exist!
The monarcy has evolved, its nothing like you seem to wish it was anymore.. unflinching reverence?! Demi-God?! "Divine right to subjugate?!
feth me.. everything your saying is ridiculously clichéd. Its the same stuff people are saying on the Republic Facebook page that I am busy trolling. They make out that any show of support makes you a "cringing peasant desperate to grovel in the dust" and all that horse gak. Its a classic strawman.
I'm not even a huge monarchist. I just think the Queen is a nice old lady, and the idea that they do "feth all" and have great lives is nonsense. Charles I like less, but I don't hate the bloke, and I like Harry and William and think they actually try hard. Much harder than the fething politicians. And ultimately a few million quid a year is feth all anyway, and we do actually get something back, most importantly, its my cultural heritage and it means alot to me, that's fething it!
Would ANYONE support the Monarchy if it worked anything like the way you and your Republican chums wished it did? Of course not! Jesus.. I cant even believe some of the stuff you typed.. divine right to subjugate.
If the Queen walked into Subway behind you and said "May I push in, one is in a hurry?" and you said "Piss off, I was first and I want my vegi delight on responsibly sourced bread, oh and I support Palestine and save the whales" you wouldn't go to prison. You wouldn't be "forced to show unflinching reverence" to anyone.
So exactly what have you got against the 69% of Britons that like things just the way they are? And why to you think you have a "divine right" to force your unpopular regime change (scrapping the monarchy) onto everyone else?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
AustonT wrote:I suppose I can forgive you because the image didn't work but no it is not the 10 commandments. It's the Twelve Tables.
Much more relevant, but still it legislated for an unquestioned hierarchy, which is a monarchy by another name. Still, I don't really know enough about them to know their benefits and failings.
" -KingCracker
