mjw47 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 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.... So, in your mind if something has gone on for a certain period of time it becomes acceptable even if it is unacceptable to others? Muslim countries have been treating women as objects to be dealt with as the men in their lives dictate for centuries, does that make it acceptable? Yes the comparison may be over the top, but it makes the point, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 What I don't understand is someone saying something is morally wrong that has been part our culture and tradition since 4th Century! Women having no rights and being treated as not much more than property and baby making machines was part of our culture and tradition for even longer than that. Longevity does not make something moral. We have been Morally wrong for many a century haven't we.... Yes. ---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 15:37 ---------- 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. You'll have no quarrel from me on those points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Isn't morality subjective anyway? What's moral for one person, one group of people, one historical context etc; isn't moral for another... An interesting topic for sure. I wonder if we're somewhat like bees? If there's some deep psychological need within us, that we need to rally around a central focal point; and we operate best under a hierarchical paradigm. That central focus for many cultures, has historically been, a royal family? On the other hand, there's also the saying about criminals. The not very good ones, they put them in prison, but with the really excellent ones, they put you on a throne! Is that not also the case with the royals? They're simply better (as a family) when it comes to gaining and retaining power, influence and wealth. They're also up there with the likes of Apple, when it comes to skill in cultivating a positive public image for themselves. The notion that just because something has been around, we should continue to keep it around; is a flawed one. We should keep what works, what serves us best; and as soon as a thing loess it's value, we should seriously consider dropping it, or re-purposing it. If not, we could still be holding to the notion that the sun revolves around the earth; I mean, that was the prevalent paradigm for centuries, why change it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 So, in your mind if something has gone on for a certain period of time it becomes acceptable even if it is unacceptable to others? Muslim countries have been treating women as objects to be dealt with as the men in their lives dictate for centuries, does that make it acceptable? Yes the comparison may be over the top, but it makes the point, doesn't it? Hmmmm My point is there are many things in life that are more Morally wrong than the fact the UK has a head of state! I like having a Royal Family! I LOVE the history of Britain's Royal families, right back to the old clans.. The Royal Family in modern times are merely a figure head as I keep saying! The real people in charge of us are in parliament, the very privileged and aristocratic, these are the people who have always been in charge of us! And the Aristocratic families are somewhere down the line related to the throne or have some ties.... So I don't see what the problem is, we have a Royal Family that is a figure head for the country, brings in revenue for the country and gives back to the country and common wealth countries, yes we have no choice in who the family is going to pick for next in line to the throne but as they have no real power it hardly affects us as hard working, tax paying people! Or we have elections, where we do have a choice who we put in power to represent us as a country, the privileged! they are as bent as they come and I for one don't trust any of them. I like having a Monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Waldo, when you say that the royals are better as a family at gaining and retaining power you are obviously referring to the present incumbents ancestors. For centuries now the system has protected them against change I doubt some of the current lot could manage a real job http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8042033 Link doesn't seem to work, story of Charles ,in addition to having someone 'load' his toothbrush in a morning he has someone to lower his seat for him in a stadium with pop up seats, probably couldn't work it out for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Hmmmm My point is there are many things in life that are more Morally wrong than the fact the UK has a head of state! The existence of bigger problems does not eliminate the need to be rid of lesser ones, otherwise we'd never get anything done. I like having a Royal Family! I LOVE the history of Britain's Royal families, right back to the old clans.. The Royal Family in modern times are merely a figure head as I keep saying!I also love the history of Britain's royal families, I enjoy learning about it very much. That's not going to go away when we become a republic. The real people in charge of us are in parliament...who Prince Charles because of his privileged hereditary position gets to write secret letters to in order to influence them, that they will take seriously or at least read purely because of his privileged hereditary position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The existence of bigger problems does not eliminate the need to be rid of lesser ones, otherwise we'd never get anything done. I also love the history of Britain's royal families, I enjoy learning about it very much. That's not going to go away when we become a republic. ...who Prince Charles because of his privileged hereditary position gets to write secret letters to in order to influence them, that they will take seriously or at least read purely because of his privileged hereditary position. And I'm sure there are many influential patrons who do this not just members of the Royal Family.. Do you not believe that some of our wealthiest countrymen do not have some sort of influence? Parliament can be bought! it has been proven.. Anyone with wealth can influence - look at Bernie Ecclestone!! he's just bought his way out of a nasty situation hasn't he! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Waldo, when you say that the royals are better as a family at gaining and retaining power you are obviously referring to the present incumbents ancestors. For centuries now the system has protected them against change I doubt some of the current lot could manage a real job. Yeah, better than other families; if they weren't, then some other family would be calling themselves 'royal' and having the masses fawn over them! For the current lot, I guess the challenge isn't so much the acquisition (via thievery and murder) of power, as the retaining of it. Maintaining the credibility of the fiction that is royalty. That calls for a different set of talents! Basically, I guess it's all about good PR. All that said, I honestly don't have any animosity towards any of them; they're all just human beings doing their best, given the circumstances of their birth; and I can imagine being born in to that family, is truly, as much a curse as it is a blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 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.... Those "traditions" you keep harping on about weren't handed out to the populace like free bread or soup, they were imposed, and imposed with harsh penalties if you didn't bend. Those so called traditions weren't traditions, they were the rule of law with an iron fist. Sheep still bleat about how grateful we should be to our monarchy as they provided us with so much "tradition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Waldo, Have to admit I feel much the same, in fairness they had no control over what family they were born into and whilst they shouldn't have it held against them neither should they be given deferential unearned respect for it. In fact if everyone held the same view of them as I do they'd actually have a far better life. No one would interfere with them and they could live the private life of wealthy farmers, which is probably what they'd enjoy. So it's those royalist bothering nuisances that are causing them trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.