1. Post #81
    Janek566's Avatar
    June 2010
    142 Posts
    What the fuck are you talking about.
    Sounds like you like dictatorship, with your "Democracy = eugh and it will leave Europe".
    ok you keep watching tv. good boy.

  2. Post #82
    rivershark's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,243 Posts
    That doesn't matter, because they are oppressing everyone because they are rich and evil and represent class difference! (apparently)
    Yeah that's kind of the vibe I'm getting in here

  3. Post #83
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,273 Posts
    O

    Tell you what, I will make a deal with you - I will support getting rid of the monarchy once the Whitehouse is a pile of rubble. Why can't the president operate out of a normal house?
    I'll argue the rest in a bit, when I have more time. but yea, let's do that. Honestly, really, I hold that position- put it in a scaled down, normal office or a normal home. There's no need to have an expensive mansion for head of state.

  4. Post #84
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2009
    17,072 Posts
    I believe that as far as it doesn't do any economical or political harm, it is a part of culture. A living one.
    I don't think there is much reason to get rid of them.

  5. Post #85
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,158 Posts
    I'll argue the rest in a bit, when I have more time. but yea, let's do that. Honestly, really, I hold that position- put it in a scaled down, normal office or a normal home. There's no need to have an expensive mansion for head of state.
    Why not? If it's already there why not let them live in it? What would be the point in having the Queen if you were going to stick her in a council flat?

  6. Post #86
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    Legally, sure. But let's be honest here. Law has nothing to do with it- it's a mostly moral issue. I don't mean to bring the debate down, but slavery was also legal at some point in time. Legality has about nothing to do with matters of morals.

    Practically, it's been shown quite the opposite in this thread, unless I missed something. I pointed out very clearly the moral problem with holding a monarchy. It's also been pointed out the practical reasons for not holding holding the monarchy, i.e, this:



    There are really very few practical benefits at all. And anything that does come as a practical benefit, simply put, can be outdone by other methods and other people, and it's as simple as that. You're arguing for the continued existence of an outdated model of governance through divine authority. There's a clear problem with that. Instead of affirming that the monarchy should remain in power, consider the moral reasons as to why the monarchy should exist in the first place. Your logic is the equivalent to Thomas Jefferson's on slavery: "Slavery isn't cool, and we shouldn't have it, but it's already here, so there's nothing we can do about it unless there's a reason why we need to."
    but i'm against the royal family..

  7. Post #87
    Gold Member
    Aredbomb's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,566 Posts
    What the fuck are you talking about.
    Sounds like you like dictatorship, with your "Democracy = eugh and it will leave Europe".
    He's trolling.

  8. Post #88
    chazzball's Avatar
    May 2007
    84 Posts
    Yes, it is needed, because we get random days off work for weddings and shit

  9. Post #89
    Former 101st AB Infantryman
    Dennab
    March 2012
    536 Posts
    Serving in the millitary is hardly note-worthy.
    They have so much, and all for nothing. Heck, the British taxpayer is paying for it, so they should feel obliged to give up much more than they do.
    How is Receiving Grievous bodily harm on behalf of someone else not note worthy. I guess its pretty easy to take someone elses life for granted when you've never served and spend your life behind a keyboard.

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,158 Posts
    Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.

  11. Post #91
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Sobotnik's Avatar
    July 2010
    21,545 Posts
    Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.
    We already have people doing work in charities, instead of being the patron head.

    We also have people doing diplomatic work, they are called diplomats.

  12. Post #92
    Gold Member
    Devodiere's Avatar
    November 2009
    10,464 Posts
    Obviously Royalty are not needed and if you were setting up a new government you would choose a Republic, but what is the point in being a Jacobin and demanding that all current Monarchs step down?

    Figurehead is an understatement for how little power they have, the cost to taxpayers is miniscule when looking at the rest of the budget, and the Tourism, Patriotism and general image of the country generated by a Monarch are worth the small cost. You could set up a massive advertising campaign, or you could just wheel the Monarch out a few times and do the exact same job.

  13. Post #93
    NorthernFall's Avatar
    June 2009
    1,754 Posts
    Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.
    Having prince phillip as a diplomat was a terrible idea.

  14. Post #94
    Gold Member
    Patriarch's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,507 Posts
    How is Receiving Grievous bodily harm on behalf of someone else not note worthy. I guess its pretty easy to take someone elses life for granted when you've never served and spend your life behind a keyboard.
    They are not doing it "on my behalf"; I never asked them to, and I don't think they should. They chose to do it off their own accord, and so to expect me to thank them is simply absurd.

    Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.
    Once again, they don't actually do the charity work, but simply promote it, so to give them the credit is a huge insult to those who are actually doing the work.
    As for the diplomatic work, don't be so naive. They're there to show off, and nothing more.

  15. Post #95
    Gold Member
    erazor's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,264 Posts
    I find the idea of the monarchy detestable on multiple grounds. Not limited to but including:

    1. Our monarchy (UK) represents a blur between Church and State. Even if the connection is just titular, the fact that we haven't chosen to remove it is an embarrassment. The monarch must still be a Protestant.

    2. The monarchy has its roots in the concept of "the divine right of kings". I think that all people are born equal, and the preservation of our royal family is in direct contradiction of this.

    3. The fact that they carry out "diplomatic" work is irrelevent; a president could do a better job, having been chosen based on their merits rather than accident of birth.

  16. Post #96
    Gold Member
    SataniX's Avatar
    May 2010
    5,592 Posts
    They are not doing it "on my behalf"; I never asked them to, and I don't think they should. They chose to do it off their own accord, and so to expect me to thank them is simply absurd.


    Once again, they don't actually do the charity work, but simply promote it, so to give them the credit is a huge insult to those who are actually doing the work.
    As for the diplomatic work, don't be so naive. They're there to show off, and nothing more.
    However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?

  17. Post #97
    Gold Member
    Patriarch's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,507 Posts
    However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?
    That's hardly enough to justify their position.

  18. Post #98
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,273 Posts
    but i'm against the royal family..
    I know, I was quoting that post for the video, backing my argument.

  19. Post #99
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Sobotnik's Avatar
    July 2010
    21,545 Posts
    However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?
    Not really. Sometimes they are hypocritical.

    Mrs Elizabeth is the patron head of the RSPCA, yet supports fox hunting. This is like having a child molester being the head an organisation to prevent cruelty to children.

    Furthermore, the royal family more or less claims it has the right to rule because the Norse god Woden let them. They are also apparently descended from him. I find this doubtful.

    Luckily the monarchy of Britain is composed mostly of thick people, who actually realise they are too thick to rule. This doesn't stop Mr Charles from expressing his worthless views, such as his support for bullshit alternative medicine like homeopathy.

    We have had a variety of useless tossers. Mr Edward 7th spent most of his time fornicating and using a frolitia chair.
    Meanwhile we had Comrade George 6th who was completely fucking useless at public speaking.

  20. Post #100
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,425 Posts
    Not really. Sometimes they are hypocritical.

    Mrs Elizabeth is the patron head of the RSPCA, yet supports fox hunting. This is like having a child molester being the head an organisation to prevent cruelty to children.
    If foxes are a pest then surely even the RSPCA could respect that?

    RSPCA Australia doesn't get bothered by the killing of pests that much, as long as it is done humanely. Refer to http://kb.rspca.org.au/75/

  21. Post #101
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Sobotnik's Avatar
    July 2010
    21,545 Posts
    If foxes are a pest then surely even the RSPCA could respect that?

    RSPCA Australia doesn't get bothered by the killing of pests that much, as long as it is done humanely. Refer to http://kb.rspca.org.au/75/
    Well I can see why they would want to get rid of pests.

    I question why a collection of men on horseback set some dogs on the fox and follow it around till the thing gets exhausted and then torn to shreds by some dogs.

    That sounds quite humane.

  22. Post #102
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,425 Posts
    Well I can see why they would want to get rid of pests.

    I question why a collection of men on horseback set some dogs on the fox and follow it around till the thing gets exhausted and then torn to shreds by some dogs.

    That sounds quite humane.
    What is this? I've never heard of fox hunting being done like this. Are you just grasping at straws or is this practice still as common as you make it out to be to this day?

  23. Post #103
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Sobotnik's Avatar
    July 2010
    21,545 Posts
    What is this? I've never heard of fox hunting being done like this. Are you just grasping at straws or is this practice still as common as you make it out to be to this day?
    That is how the British upper class traditionally practice fox hunting if I am not mistaken.

  24. Post #104
    Janek566's Avatar
    June 2010
    142 Posts
    wow great arguments. You either love democracy or you will. Anyone with different NORMAL views is trolling. Very well.

    (User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - Read the rules sticky." - Megafan))

  25. Post #105
    Gold Member
    JoeSkylynx's Avatar
    October 2008
    10,022 Posts
    That is how the British upper class traditionally practice fox hunting if I am not mistaken.
    Catch me if I'm wrong but... Didn't the Hunting Act of 2004 block the usage of dogs in hunting?

  26. Post #106
    gamerman345's Avatar
    April 2010
    2,432 Posts
    The Monarchy has always existed in this country, just because some people are absurdly jealous of them doesn't mean they should be gotten rid of.

    And its not like they sit on their arses every day. In Britain our monarchy go out to visit other countries in the commonwealth to strengthen diplomatic relations often.

  27. Post #107
    cqbcat's Avatar
    April 2010
    3,548 Posts
    fairies and goblins aren't a "thing of the past", they just dont exist period

    but anyway, the monarchy in Britain brings in HUGE amounts of money for the government, both directly and indirectly.
    there's no real reason to get rid of it just because "it feels old"
    Implying that goblins and fairies don't exist.

    It doesn't really matter if there are still monarchies. It is my understanding that most monarchies run at a reduced power level, parallel to elected governments.

    The real threats are dictatorships which are just modern day versions of barbaric god kings on Earth.

  28. Post #108
    Capitalist Dog's Avatar
    September 2011
    119 Posts
    don't care, tbh, as long as idiots aren't running countries.

  29. Post #109
    Here's to giving Garry Newman more money.
    Chaplin's Avatar
    August 2011
    4,762 Posts
    Only royalty I support: Belgium.
    The country would probably fall apart were it not for the monarchy, its the only thing keeping it together.
    Other than that, rich people buying expensive cars for themselves using taxpayer's money is quite definitely not needed. People should be able to choose their leaders, and nobody should inherit power. Reasoning that you can inherit the ability to be an effective ruler is about as dumb as believing you are born a musical god because your father was a rock-star.

  30. Post #110
    Gold Member
    DarkendSky's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,046 Posts
    Out of all the monarchies to whine about, you picked England? Really? Other than the royalty's social influence, they don't really have any official power other than things like knighting people. Does it really matter?

  31. Post #111
    Beel's Avatar
    April 2012
    18 Posts
    I don't really mind the monarchy of England, as long as they keep bringing cash and tourists in, I'm fine with it.
    But I do feel they don't do very much.

  32. Post #112
    Gold Member

    November 2007
    4,471 Posts
    From a foreigner POV and reading both sides, I'm really not seeing any convincing argument from the anti-monarchy side other than semantics while ignoring the practical benefits.

    this is towards the UK monarchy only tho.

  33. Post #113
    I pushed my dad off the stairs and all I got was he came back
    Aerkhan's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,767 Posts
    Other than that, rich people buying expensive cars for themselves using taxpayer's money is quite definitely not needed. People should be able to choose their leaders, and nobody should inherit power. Reasoning that you can inherit the ability to be an effective ruler is about as dumb as believing you are born a musical god because your father was a rock-star.
    Dutch Monarchy in a nutshell.
    They recently bought a nice house in Africa, Greece and who knows where more with the money of the Taxpayer. And they won't even knight people anymore.

  34. Post #114
    NorthernFall's Avatar
    June 2009
    1,754 Posts
    Catch me if I'm wrong but... Didn't the Hunting Act of 2004 block the usage of dogs in hunting?
    A lot of fox hunters thought the ban was silly and they probably just carry on as normal anyway.

    It's still stupid, foxes are not pests.