Let's discuss the British Monarchy

[CanOWorms]

The two British ones in your parents polygamist relationship

None of my parents are in a polygamist relationship. I have many sets of parents.

Something being outdated doesn't make it barbaric

Something being harmful to society doesn't make it barbaric

Something that elevates one bloodline as inherently superior to others doesntmake it barbaric

Something being easily dissolvable doesn't make it barbaric

Something being discriminatory doesn't make it barbaric

Something with a horrific history doesn't make it currently barbaric

Individually, some of those are not always barbaric. However, here with the monarchy, the totality of all of those results in barbarism.

The monarchy isn't harmful to society
The monarchy isn't discriminatory

You think that restricting Catholics, Muslims, etc. from the monarchy is not discrimination? What do you call that? We can have different definitions of discrimination, but the fact stands that the monarchy precludes large groups of citizens from participating due to religion.

 

[Anarchist420]

The morality, legitimacy of the history of the monarch, should it be there? Is it ethical / moral? Why does America not have one? Is it better or worse without it.

Use this thread to discuss that.

Monarchy or democracy makes no difference. To illustrate my point:

In a democracy, you're just one vote, so you don't have a say unless you're the majority.

In a democracy and in a monarchy, not everyone is sovereign. In a democracy it's the majority who is sovereign, in a monarchy it's one person who is sovereign. It is unethical for anyone to rule anyone else without the consent of every individual ruled. Just because more people rule under a democracy does not make it more ethical, for it is unethical to use force against anyone.

Anyway, I will concede that popular rule (especially before 1864) was good for the soul. Several cases to point out:
Jefferson vs. Adams 2 both times. Jefferson was hugely popular.

Jackson vs. Adams 6. Jackson would've beat Adams in a landslide in a popular runoff.

Lincoln got < 2/5 of the popular vote and would've lost in a popularly decided election.

the Election of 1876 where the Bourbon Democrat won an absolute
majority of the popular vote but was not elected.

In 1888, another Bourbon Democrat lost the white house even though he won the popular vote.

Warren G. Harding won a landslide popular vote against a purely Wilsonian ticket.

However, that does not mean that more democracy is more ethical for it has taken away far more liberty than it has given. After all, an argument against secession from a federal republic was that a federal republic is "we the people", rather than "i the individual" or confederalism. The more confederalism the merrier.

 

[HAL9000]

None of my parents are in a polygamist relationship. I have many sets of parents.

How did you manage that, were you adopted multiple times or did you have several foster homes?

Individually, some of those are not always barbaric. However, here with the monarchy, the totality of all of those results in barbarism.

If you're referring to it being outdated in a barbaric sense in that it is not modern then sure, if you're using the term barbaric to mean brutal then you are wrong.

You think that restricting Catholics, Muslims, etc. from the monarchy is not discrimination? What do you call that? We can have different definitions of discrimination, but the fact stands that the monarchy precludes large groups of citizens from participating due to religion.

Of course not, it's like saying it's barbaric that only a catholic can be pope and that it's discriminatory to stop muslims becoming pope, the pope is by definition catholic and the head of the church of England is by definition christian.

 

[cybrsage]

I find it interesting that the Queen of England can dissolve the government of Canada...as well as strike down any of Canada's laws she wishes (all via her Governor General).

 

[RabidMongoose]

I find it interesting that the Queen of England can dissolve the government of Canada...as well as strike down any of Canada's laws she wishes (all via her Governor General).

Read up about what happened in Australia in the 70's.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Something that elevates one bloodline as inherently superior to others doesntmake it barbaric



Something being discriminatory doesn't make it barbaric

LOL - look at this deluded peasant!

 

[Lemon law]

Lordi this whole thread is totally worthless. In my listing of the thousand worst current world problems, a British ceremonial monarchy would not even make the list.

 

[CanOWorms]

How did you manage that, were you adopted multiple times or did you have several foster homes?

Something like that.

If you're referring to it being outdated in a barbaric sense in that it is not modern then sure, if you're using the term barbaric to mean brutal then you are wrong.

It's both.

Of course not, it's like saying it's barbaric that only a catholic can be pope and that it's discriminatory to stop muslims becoming pope, the pope is by definition catholic and the head of the church of England is by definition christian.

The head of the church of England should be divorced from the head of government. The government is not a religious institution.

 

[CanOWorms]

Lordi this whole thread is totally worthless. In my listing of the thousand worst current world problems, a British ceremonial monarchy would not even make the list.

It would probably be in the top 10 for me. But then again, I'm not a white male who feels some sort of kinship with an inbred monarch.

 

[HAL9000]

I find it interesting that the Queen of England can dissolve the government of Canada...as well as strike down any of Canada's laws she wishes (all via her Governor General).

I know, it would never happen though.

 

[HAL9000]

LOL - look at this deluded peasant!

I don't work in agriculture. I work in computing.

 

[Theb]

I find it interesting that the Queen of England can dissolve the government of Canada...as well as strike down any of Canada's laws she wishes (all via her Governor General).

Anyone can dissolve the government of Canada (they're very accommodating people).

 

[HAL9000]

Something like that.

So where in the UK were they from?

It's both.

Nope, it's really not, it's sophisticated so this disregards the first definition and to whom is it being "brutal"?

The head of the church of England should be divorced from the head of government. The government is not a religious institution.

Actually the British government is a religious institution we have no separation of church and state like you do, we are a Christian nation

 

[CanOWorms]

So where in the UK were they from?

All over. People move around.

Nope, it's really not, it's sophisticated so this disregards the first definition and to whom is it being "brutal"?

Sorry, I disagree. It is brutal to minority groups and citizens in society.

Actually the British government is a religious institution we have no separation of church and state like you do, we are a Christian nation

Barbarism, much like Saudi Arabia.

 

[HAL9000]

All over. People move around.

Where were they born?

Sorry, I disagree. It is brutal to minority groups and citizens in society.

How? Here's the definition of brutality:

the state of being brutal; a cruel or savage act; the use of excessive physical force e.g. police brutality

To whom are they using excessive physical force?

Barbarism, much like Saudi Arabia.

You think that a country having a national religion is brutal?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't work in agriculture. I work in computing.

Farmville is related to computing.

 

[HAL9000]

Farmville is related to computing.

I've never used nor felt the urge to use farmville.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I've never used nor felt the urge to use farmville.

How peasant.

 

[CanOWorms]

Where were they born?

I'm not sure.

How? Here's the definition of brutality:

There are lots of different dictionaries with definitions.

To whom are they using excessive physical force?

Doesn't have to be only physical.

You think that a country having a national religion is brutal?

Yes, and especially so in the case of the UK with the imposition of a requirement of following the national religion to be the head of state.

You may be eligible for the head of state and therefore you are ok with such a requirement. But others who are not refuse to be subjugated by such brutal barbarism.

 

[WelshBloke]

It would probably be in the top 10 for me...

Why? It's amusing that you get this worked up about it but why?

 

[crashtestdummy]

The crown, as it stands in the modern world, is a symbol for Britain. When you get past the "dignity" and "glory" crap that you hear from Brits, it comes down to a few principles:

The royalty are to remind Brits of the heyday of the Empire, when Britain had a controlling interest in 20% of the world's population. By modern democratic standards, however, this is a legacy they should rather want to forget, mush as the we in the US try to gloss over our history of slavery. It was an empire controlled by merchantilistic strong-arm tactics and protection schemes. Not really something befitting the class that the British attribute to themselves.

As for those who are actually part off the royal family, none of them have ever particularly done anything to deserve their position. They're not particularly bright, fit, good-looking, and have absolutely no grounding in reality. In fact, you could argue that you'd do better picking your royal family at random from the population, as the royal family is quite inbred. If you must have a figurehead, why not elect one? You could pick David Beckham, Ian McKellan, Stephen Hawking, or Jeremy Clarkson as your "King". At least they've done something to deserve it.

 

[HAL9000]

How pleasant.

Fixed.

I'm not sure.

Where did they spend the majority of their lives in the UK?

There are lots of different dictionaries with definitions.

True enough, which is why I went with Wiktionary, a community dictionary that tends to represent the majorities accepted usage of a word.

Doesn't have to be only physical.

It does according to wiktionary.

Yes, and especially so in the case of the UK with the imposition of a requirement of following the national religion to be the head of state.

You may be eligible for the head of state and therefore you are ok with such a requirement. But others who are not refuse to be subjugated by such brutal barbarism.

I'm not eligible to become head of state, I'm not a royal I'm a commoner, I wouldn't want to be a royal, nor would most people I know, why would I want a life of subjugation and obligation imposed on me? I'd rather be free to do as I wish.

No one is being subjugated by the royal family, they are there for us, we keep them there as it is convenient that is what you don't understand, we have the power.

 

[Theb]

I'm not sure.

Whoa, ok can we put the Monarchy talk on hold for a little bit? I think the fact that you have numerous, ever-moving parents with no known origin needs to be explored in detail.

Do you have any super powers?

 

[CanOWorms]

Why? It's amusing that you get this worked up about it but why?

I'm not worked up about it. I'm merely criticizing it. Are you worked up for defending it? I'm amused and slightly shocked that people can be defending such a practice in a supposedly modern society, especially when countries like Nepal can modernize.

The UK has so much potential. Monarchy is one of the things that is holding it back. The world is just watching in awe that such barbarism is still around.

 

[WelshBloke]

Whoa, ok can we put the Monarchy talk on hold for a little bit? I think the fact that you have numerous, ever-moving parents with no known origin needs to be explored in detail.

Do you have any super powers?

Be honest, how long would you put up with him for?