flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I enjoy watching Royal Weddings and other Royal Events! You don't.. You enjoy Christmas and all the pretence that comes with it - I don't.. We can have a glorified Sunday Roast whenever we want? Christmas has lost all it's value and worth and no longer fits into society as it was meant to be, this is my opinion of Christmas the same as it is the opinion of yours about the Royal Family. They are both traditional and both a non-necessity. The difference is, you don't have to celebrate Christmas if you don't like it. I have no choice about being a subject of the Queen. I have no choice over whether my government is being influenced by a credulous fool just because of who his mummy and daddy were. I have no choice about my taxes being spent to fund their royal weddings and other royal events. You aren't being forced to subsidise Christmas, I however am forced to subsidise the royal family. By the way why do you feel you need to set aside the 25th December to spoil your family? you can do that everyday/week/month if you wanted to!Well we all have different lives and live in different places, it's nice to have one time of year where we're all likely to go home. It doesn't have to be on 25th december, but I think it's nice that it's in the middle of winter, gives it a cosy atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Did you forget Godwin's law? An excellent point but I thought it was necessary to illustrate an extreme situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Unfortunately you are misreading what I wrote. My point was that if political parties changed would the armed forces etc. have to swear an oath to the incoming party. The answer is no. Also, that's not all you said, I'm pretty confident I understood it perfectly. You said this: "What would happen if a different political party gained power with vastly differing views ? Would the armed forces etc continually swear allegiance to differing parties. It would be possible for a political party to effectively have its own army, navy, air force, marines, police, prison service etc. It is this potential that makes the oath to the monarch so important.." The stupid part that I pointed out was stupid was a central part of your argument. There's no wider context that changes it, no words with double meanings that could have been the cause of misunderstanding, that's what you said, and that's what I commented on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The difference is, you don't have to celebrate Christmas if you don't like it. I have no choice about being a subject of the Queen. I have no choice over whether my government is being influenced by a credulous fool just because of who his mummy and daddy were. I have no choice about my taxes being spent to fund their royal weddings and other royal events. You aren't being forced to subsidise Christmas, I however am forced to subsidise the royal family. Well we all have different lives and live in different places, it's nice to have one time of year where we're all likely to go home. It doesn't have to be on 25th December, but I think it's nice that it's in the middle of winter, gives it a cosy atmosphere. You wouldn't have a choice unfortunately even if we didn't have the Royal Family! the government would find something else to spend our taxes on! and in fairness, the Royal Family bring in a hell of a lot of money through tourism which is all put back into the pot. I'm picturing a log burner and a big glass of red wine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The answer is no. Also, that's not all you said, I'm pretty confident I understood it perfectly. You said this: "What would happen if a different political party gained power with vastly differing views ? Would the armed forces etc continually swear allegiance to differing parties. It would be possible for a political party to effectively have its own army, navy, air force, marines, police, prison service etc. It is this potential that makes the oath to the monarch so important.." The stupid part that I pointed out was stupid was a central part of your argument. There's no wider context that changes it, no words with double meanings that could have been the cause of misunderstanding, that's what you said, and that's what I commented on. Please reread the paragraph paying attention to the first two sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Did you forget Godwin's law? Godwin's law merely states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. It doesn't mean that 'whoever mentions Hitler or the Nazis first loses the argument automatically'. If Harvey really thinks having an oath for our armed forces similar to the one the US have would lead to us becoming a fascist dictatorship I for one would love to see his reasoning. ---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 14:58 ---------- You wouldn't have a choice unfortunately even if we didn't have the Royal Family! the government would find something else to spend our taxes on!... which would be decided by elected representatives of the people. The government spends my taxes on loads of things I don't agree with, one that immediately comes to mind is trident. I don't quite see what your point is? and in fairness, the Royal Family bring in a hell of a lot of money through tourism which is all put back into the pot.I do not buy that the Royalty are a net boost to our economy, not at all. I've seen figures going both ways on that argument and do not know who to trust. It certainly seems to me that kicking them out of their residencies and turning them into awesome museums would bring in at least as much tourism money as they do themselves. Plus we'd save loads on security. It's an argument for another thread though because my republicanism is not based greed. I don't want rid off the royal family because I think I'd be better off financially without them, I think the principle of monarchy is inherently morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Godwin's law merely states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. It doesn't mean that 'whoever mentions Hitler or the Nazis first loses the argument automatically'. If Harvey really thinks having an oath for our armed forces similar to the one the US have would lead to us becoming a fascist dictatorship I for one would love to see his reasoning. Yes I know that, but apparently some forums have a rule that when it happens the thread is over. Obviously, it's just as well it doesn't apply on this forum as it is a fairly regular thing. Personally I thing the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world - and I believe the only one in Europe - without a written constitution is unacceptable. The Americans hold their constitution in utmost respect, it is the guarantor of their freedom, in particular the freedom of the people against the power of the state. We have no such protection, an unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on to paraphrase Samuel Goldwyn. Without an ordinary citizen being able to read his/her rights and be able to hold them up as defense against the state we are at the mercy of the establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Godwin's law merely states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. It doesn't mean that 'whoever mentions Hitler or the Nazis first loses the argument automatically'. If Harvey really thinks having an oath for our armed forces similar to the one the US have would lead to us becoming a fascist dictatorship I for one would love to see his reasoning. ---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 14:58 ---------- ... which would be decided by elected representatives of the people. The government spends my taxes on loads of things I don't agree with, one that immediately comes to mind is trident. I don't quite see what your point is? I do not buy that the Royalty are a net boost to our economy, not at all. I've seen figures going both ways on that argument and do not know who to trust. It certainly seems to me that kicking them out of their residencies and turning them into awesome museums would bring in at least as much tourism money as they do themselves. Plus we'd save loads on security. It's an argument for another thread though because my republicanism is not based greed. I don't want rid off the royal family because I think I'd be better off financially without them, I think the principle of monarchy is inherently morally wrong. Morally wrong! WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Morally wrong! WOW Does it really amaze you the thought that someone might consider hereditary privilege to be morally wrong? Can you really not understand that mindset? To quote yourself, WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Does it really amaze you the thought that someone might consider hereditary privilege to be morally wrong? Can you really not understand that mindset? To quote yourself, WOW What I don't understand is someone saying something is morally wrong that has been part our culture and tradition since 4th Century! We have been Morally wrong for many a century haven't we.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.