Main > Everything Else
7 dead 16 wounded at attack on Dutch queensday.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: polaris on May 09, 2009, 07:23:54 pm ---
there are things that make me proud of being british.
--- End quote ---
And I can see that. However, I might suggest that historically they have often been a rather negative party of your society which probably explains why they are virtually powerless today, and why the whole concept of nobles, etc., is gone (I think it is, anyway?). Just look at the Sherrif of Nottingham!!! :P
I am just predisposed to viewing appeals to tradition with a great deal of suspicion. I think they are often made in order to prop up bad things that can't otherwise be defended (see separate but equal, bible reading and corporal punishment in schools, disenfranchisment of women, gay marriage, etc.)
And hey, no need to worry about your national pride suffering for getting rid of the Royalty. Just look at France. ;)
ChadTower:
--- Quote from: shmokes on May 09, 2009, 07:39:45 pm ---It doesn't matter who defines it.
--- End quote ---
Sure it does. Your point (two wrongs != right) is a red herring in the absence of any wrongs.
polaris:
--- Quote from: shmokes on May 09, 2009, 07:52:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: polaris on May 09, 2009, 07:23:54 pm ---
there are things that make me proud of being british.
--- End quote ---
And I can see that. However, I might suggest that historically they have often been a rather negative party of your society which probably explains why they are virtually powerless today, and why the whole concept of nobles, etc., is gone (I think it is, anyway?). Just look at the Sherrif of Nottingham!!! :P
I am just predisposed to viewing appeals to tradition with a great deal of suspicion. I think they are often made in order to prop up bad things that can't otherwise be defended (see separate but equal, bible reading and corporal punishment in schools, disenfranchisment of women, gay marriage, etc.)
And hey, no need to worry about your national pride suffering for getting rid of the Royalty. Just look at France. ;)
--- End quote ---
well france had their revolution in which they brought down their aristocracy but we are too down the road for the guillotine. you know i ultimately agree with your views on people having favoured birthrights, but to me thats a whole other issue that having a president doesn't address. theyre entirely politically powerless but do have influence socially and societally, theyre a museum piece to me that costs us to maintain and yes also represent hideous parts of our history, but generally if you look at our history weve been a bunch of ---daisies--- really as a conquering and enslaving nation. people in britain are desperately holding on to the great in great britain but we havent been great for 100 years really and then we werent actually great we were powerful and shat on people.
our society is changing so fast the royals cant keep up like the examples you gave, but are trying to act more akin to current feeling by being less indulgent.
i can remember as a child royal events like the wedding of charles and diana being massive events hell dianas death stopped the country for a week, its just something that unifies the country like july the whatsit for you, the history is sketchy but we need things to feel good about in todays world, i wont watch the queens speech on christmas day cos im such a commie but hell i hope theres a wedding or something so my daughter can have a street party like i experienced,
really why get rid of them, they dont cost that much, they dont affect politics so why change the silly bits of our parliament, its just the showbiz side of it, and we spunk loads of cash on ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- rather than helping the needy so yknow things need to change but not just them and id put them far down the list
im gonna stop now we'll pick this up in pnr no doubt sometime and i dont want this thread sent there cos of me
:cheers:
Ed_McCarron:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on May 08, 2009, 11:06:39 am ---
--- Quote from: shmokes on May 07, 2009, 10:20:02 pm ---
--- Quote from: patrickl on May 07, 2009, 08:56:25 pm ---
It's time for her son to become king.
--- End quote ---
Why should he be king? What's so great about him?
--- End quote ---
Some moistened bent lobbed a scimitar at him.
--- End quote ---
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on May 09, 2009, 08:02:03 pm ---
--- Quote from: shmokes on May 09, 2009, 07:39:45 pm ---It doesn't matter who defines it.
--- End quote ---
Sure it does. Your point (two wrongs != right) is a red herring in the absence of any wrongs.
--- End quote ---
Sigh . . . Chad, you just haven't thought this through. It's not a mathematical formula that you actually apply to a situation to determine whether a right does not exist. It's a play on words (2 negatives = positive) to point out the logical flaw of defending the rightness of an action by pointing to someone else who did/does the same thing (which is obviously irrelevant). It might reveal hypocrisy, but it doesn't affect the rightness of the action.
Patrick is using the two wrongs make a right argument to establish the rightness of the actions. I said that royalty is wrong because of x, y and z and he responded, "Look, Obama does some of the very same things." That's two wrongs make a right. Just like if you tell your youngest kid that he's not supposed to take cookies from the jar without asking first and he responds by pointing out that his older brother does it all the time. Of course your son isn't suggesting that what he is doing is wrong, but that when literally combined with his older brother's wrong it mathematically produces a right. He's saying, "How can what I'm doing be wrong when my older brother does the very same thing and hasn't got in trouble?" A person guilty of the fallacy is ALWAYS defending the rightness of his actions. That's the whole point, isn't it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version