Let's discuss the British Monarchy

[cybrsage]

I know, it would never happen though.

Agreed, I was just shocked to find out an Englishwoman had that much power over Canada.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

Dunno about that. Now that Prince Harry has grown out of his idiotic teenage years, he is a pretty rough and touble man.

It was reported, in early June 2007, that Prince Harry had arrived in Canada to train, alongside soldiers of the Canadian Forces and British Army, at Canadian Forces base Suffield, near Medicine Hat, Alberta. It was said that this was in preparation for a tour of duty in Afghanistan, where Canadian and British forces were participating in the NATO led Afghan War;[26] rumours that were confirmed in February the following year, when the British Ministry of Defence revealed that Harry had secretly been deployed as a Forward Air Controller to Helmand Province in the Asian country.[27] The revelation came after the media – notably, the German newspaper Bild and Australian magazine New Idea[28][29] – breached the blackout placed over the information by the Canadian and British authorities.[30] It was later reported that, while in Afghanistan, Harry had called in United States Air Forceair strikes,[31] helped Gurkha troops repel an attack from Taliban insurgents,[32] and performed patrol duty in hostile areas.[33] His tour came 735 years after his ancestor, Edward I of England (then Prince Edward), had also been on military duty in the Middle East during the Ninth crusade,[34] and also made Harry the first member of the Royal Family to have served in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, flew helicopters during the Falklands War. For his service, Prince Harry was decorated with the Operational Service Medal for Afghanistan by his aunt, the Princess Royal, at the Combermere Barracks in May 2008.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales#Military_career

 

[RabidMongoose]

No its not, there aren't any female first borns who are being discriminated against. Unless you have some super secret inside knowledge you'd like to share.

Wow, it's never happened? That's new. Moreover, it's the official and legal policy as of right now.

 

[WelshBloke]

Wow, it's never happened? That's new. Moreover, it's the official and legal policy as of right now.

Who is next in line to the throne? Who would be when this legislation goes through? So what's the rush?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Who is next in line to the throne? Who would be when this legislation goes through? So what's the rush?

Obviously you're fine with discrimination. I'm not. I wouldn't want discriminatory practices to be in place whether there is a rush or not. What if the US instituted a law that said no female could be president of the United States? Since there are no female candidates running for the presidency right now, would that be acceptable?

Usually it's the people in the majority who benefit from the discriminatory practices who feel that they're OK because they neglect to understand the psychological impact that these types of practices have upon people who are oppressed.

 

[WelshBloke]

Obviously you're fine with discrimination. I'm not. I wouldn't want discriminatory practices to be in place whether there is a rush or not. What if the US instituted a law that said no female could be president of the United States? Since there are no female candidates running for the presidency right now, would that be acceptable?

Usually it's the people in the majority who benefit from the discriminatory practices who feel that they're OK because they neglect to understand the psychological impact that these types of practices have upon people who are oppressed.

To be discriminatory someone has to be discriminated against. Which individuals are being discriminated against?

 

[RabidMongoose]

To be discriminatory someone has to be discriminated against. Which individuals are being discriminated against?

Women. Moreover, there are religious discriminations that are basically proxies for race within the institution.

Obviously you don't care about the discriminatory laws because you're likely of the demographic that is not inhumanely targeted by this discrimination.

 

[WelshBloke]

Women. Moreover, there are religious discriminations that are basically proxies for race within the institution.

Obviously you don't care about the discriminatory laws because you're likely of the demographic that is not inhumanely targeted by this discrimination.

OK so now we have got to the point that you've failed at both gender and race discrimination you want to move to religious?

Honesty I'd find something else to troll about, you're not very good at this.

Hell I'm pretty much a soft republican and you can't even convince me.

 

[RabidMongoose]

OK so now we have got to the point that you've failed at both gender and race discrimination you want to move to religious?

Honesty I'd find something else to troll about, you're not very good at this.

Hell I'm pretty much a soft republican and you can't even convince me.

If you're fine with discrimination, then you're less likely to acknowledge it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let's discuss the British Monarchy

America has publicly funded museums, Brits have a monarchy. I suspect our museums will last longer.

 

[Craig234]

I'd be cool with a black monarch.

In 2017 a black communist terrorist Kenyan Muslim monarch is freed up.

 

[WelshBloke]

America has publicly funded museums, Brits have a monarchy. I suspect our museums will last longer.

We have museums as well.

 

[WelshBloke]

If you're fine with discrimination, then you're less likely to acknowledge it.

I'm fine with the fact that you are either unable to articulate your points clearly or that you don't really have a firm argument, you just seem to be going "but... but discrimination " over and over.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm fine with the fact that you are either unable to articulate your points clearly or that you don't really have a firm argument, you just seem to be going "but... but discrimination " over and over.

That's because you're fine with discriminating against others. You just keep making excuses to make the discrimination OK with you. That's fine, lots of people with race and gender issues are like that.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's because you're fine with discriminating against others. You just keep making excuses to make the discrimination OK with you. That's fine, lots of people with race and gender issues are like that.

Well it might be a start if you could point out some people who are being discriminated against, but feel free to carry on with the "but... but non specific discrimination " argument if you want.

 

[davmat787]

That's because you're fine with discriminating against others. You just keep making excuses to make the discrimination OK with you. That's fine, lots of people with race and gender issues are like that.

FFS, do you simply copy/paste the same spewage over and over? Why are you so freaking obsessed with race issues? You ever hear of the 'cry wolf' syndrome?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well it might be a start if you could point out some people who are being discriminated against, but feel free to carry on with the "but... but non specific discrimination " argument if you want.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge reality. Not much else I can do for you. Some people like discrimination, you're obviously one of those people.

 

[RabidMongoose]

FFS, do you simply copy/paste the same spewage over and over? Why are you so freaking obsessed with race issues? You ever hear of the 'cry wolf' syndrome?

I'm sorry that I am against discrimination?

Does that make you feel better?

 

[WelshBloke]

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge reality. Not much else I can do for you. Some people like discrimination, you're obviously one of those people.

And I've pointed out where you are wrong on all of them.

The monarch doesn't have to be male (obviously) and doesn't have to be white. They do have to be church of England but I'll discuss that with you when we get the gender/race thing sorted.

 

[Craig234]

You know that the only English one in that photo is the tall one?

The short ones are the 'Hobbits' - only slightly disguised 'HobBRITS'.

Come on, you deny history?

Who wrote the book on a magic pill to make Brits big people (Alice in Wonderland)?

Who wrote about a big American who sails to an island of tiny people - who could THAT be - and thrills his tiny audience by letting the tiny people tie him up (Gulliver's Travels).

The fact every literary classic about the tiny people has a British author, just coincidence!

 

[RabidMongoose]

And I've pointed out where you are wrong on all of them.

I'm pretty sure that you've been wrong on everything.

The monarch doesn't have to be male (obviously) and doesn't have to be white. They do have to be church of England but I'll discuss that with you when we get the gender/race thing sorted.

The monarch doesn't have to be male, but the institution prefers males. As such, it is discriminating based on gender. Moreover, there are religious issues with the monarchy, most of which are a proxy for race in this case. Thus, the monarchy is barbaric.

 

[Craig234]

We have museums as well.

And a few of the things in your museums are even owned by Britain!

 

[WelshBloke]

... The monarch doesn't have to be male, but the institution prefers males. As such, it is discriminating based on gender. Moreover, there are religious issues with the monarchy, most of which are a proxy for race in this case. Thus, the monarchy is barbaric.

That's your argument?

It doesn't discriminate based on gender, as I said earlier the laws of succession are being changed and there's no one being discriminated against at the moment.
/gender

Race doesn't equal religion. You can chose your religion but not your race, and there's no race barrier to entry to the royal family.
/race

The monarch is head of the church of England, it's an intrinsic part of being king/queen. You need to be Catholic to be pope, you need to be Muslim to be grand mufti, you need to be CofE to be king/queen.


Edit: and unless you can put together a decent argument I'm finished with you, you've stopped being amusing and are just tedious now.

 

[micrometers]

the best thing about the monarchy is that it separates the symbol of the nation from the governing body of the nation. That is, the Queen represents England, and the Prime Minister governs it.

In America, the President is both the symbol and the governor of the country.

The worst thing about it is that it is undemocratic and it actually costs the people hundreds of millions per year.

 

[RabidMongoose]

That's your argument?

It doesn't discriminate based on gender, as I said earlier the laws of succession are being changed and there's no one being discriminated against at the moment.
/gender

Race doesn't equal religion. You can chose your religion but not your race, and there's no race barrier to entry to the royal family.
/race

The monarch is head of the church of England, it's an intrinsic part of being king/queen. You need to be Catholic to be pope, you need to be Muslim to be grand mufti, you need to be CofE to be king/queen.

Yup, pretty much just excuses for racism.

It's fine. Lots of British people are fine with racism.