Monarchy debate/discussion

[williemillersmoustache]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

I've already addressed the 'nobility question'.  Do keep up.

Ah maybe it's definitions that's the issue here. Since you have mangaed to grasp the meaning of neither noble nor addressed.  

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Ah maybe it's definitions that's the issue here. Since you have mangaed to grasp the meaning of neither noble nor addressed.  

I don’t think this will be the end of it.  I’m not sure he understands the meaning of “meaning”.

[williemillersmoustache]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I don’t think this will be the end of it.  I’m not sure he understands the meaning of “meaning”.

Or "the"

[falkirkthebigclub]

Shame his old boy didn't know the meaning of Johnny.

[Antlion]

6 hours ago, Johnny Martin said:

I don't feel qualified to speak for them at all.

There's just nothing to suggest that they consider themselves as being superior to others or having superior bloodlines to others.  It just means they are higher up in the hierarchical system.

To answer you - Having a higher social rank in a class system does not make one superior at all, nor does it mean they have a superior bloodline.

You don’t feel qualified to speak for them - and yet you did.

Until the royals give up their titles and place in a hereditary class system - which as you’ve admitted places them higher up (or, in other words, make them socially superior to) others - then that constitutes solid evidence that they believe their bloodline grants them the right to be higher up the hierarchy than others.

I agree that they don’t have a superior bloodline. It’s a shame they don’t appear to agree - as evidenced by their willingness to use said bloodline as literally the only reason to occupy a higher place in our society (and constitution) than others.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Antlion

[Johnny Martin]

19 hours ago, Antlion said:

You don’t feel qualified to speak for them - and yet you did.

Until the royals give up their titles and place in a hereditary class system - which as you’ve admitted places them higher up (or, in other words, make them socially superior to) others - then that constitutes solid evidence that they believe their bloodline grants them the right to be higher up the hierarchy than others.

I agree that they don’t have a superior bloodline. It’s a shame they don’t appear to agree - as evidenced by their willingness to use said bloodline as literally the only reason to occupy a higher place in our society (and constitution) than others.

I didn't speak for them at all.

Being higher up a hereditary system does not equate to them being superior or having a superior bloodline.  Your attempt to equate social superiority with these just doesn't hold up, and comes across as an attempt to move the goalposts.

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

I didn't speak for them at all.

Being higher up a hereditary system does not equate to them being superior or having a superior bloodline.  Your attempt to equate social superiority with these just doesn't hold up, and comes across as an attempt to move the goalposts.

You claimed “they don’t think that at all”. You spoke for them. Own it.

I never said they have a superior bloodline or are superior. You just made that up. On the contrary, I’ll happy agree that most of them are thick, troglodytic mutants. I said they believe their bloodlines are superior - for how else could they justify those hereditary noble bloodlines granting them superior constitutional and social positions?

Of course, if they don’t believe in the superiority of their bloodline and (cynically) subscribe to a system that uses that bloodline to give them plum positions in society and the state anyway, then they’re simply con artists - like the late queen and current corpse, Lizzie Windsor.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 minute ago, Johnny Martin said:

I didn't speak for them at all.

Being higher up a hereditary system does not equate to them being superior or having a superior bloodline.  Your attempt to equate social superiority with these just doesn't hold up, and comes across as an attempt to move the goalposts.

"away and lie in yer ain pish" thread for this tripe. If the present incumbents of the positions at the "upper" levels of the class/power structures (the two being in virtually lock step in the UK) and cared a jot about social or "power" equality of opportunity, they could renounce their positions. Abdicate. Refuse to 'rise' to the throne. Luggy is only "King" because of his 'royal' bloodline. His disgracefully dishonestly sired offspring who sycophants believe are born "long to reign over us" are the physical manifestations of a belief in a right to power and influence based SOLELY on birth.  Anyone given a chance (in the widest sense) can study and apply for better employment - try as you might you could never be King.  Nobody is going to bow or curtsy to you. 

The idea that some people are "born to rule" should be up there on the shelf alongside bibles, flat-Earthers, Nessie and the Kraken. 

"Being higher up a hereditary system does not equate to them being superior" gets you on the ignore list. 

 

 

[Jeff Venom]

When did inbreeding in European Royal families start to become less common? That this was even a thing suggests Royalty saw it's bloodline as being superior. 

[BFTD]

What a bizarre argument. They have our money, land, and servitude. It doesn't matter if they genuinely believe they're superior beings or are aware that it's all a grift.

[scottsdad]

Just now, Jeff Venom said:

When did inbreeding in European Royal families start to become less common? That this was even a thing suggests Royalty saw it's bloodline as being superior. 

I think when it became clear with the Russian royals that their inbreeding was causing serious health issues, they grudgingly allowed in the common folk to plough the occasional princess. 

[Florentine_Pogen]

8 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I think when it became clear with the Russian royals that their inbreeding was causing serious health issues, they grudgingly allowed in the common folk to plough the occasional princess. 

What does she work as the rest of the time ?

[BFTD]

11 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

What does she work as the rest of the time ?

Pretendy charity work or incredibly important, vital, military operations where she's just one of the lads and doesn't get special treatment.

[Detournement]

You see a man go on TV who has 3 legitimate kids and 2 b*****ds. He says the world is over populated. 

You see a man go on TV who travels by helicopter and private jet. He says the world needs to reduce carbon emissions.

You come to conclusion that they don't believe they are superior to anyone else.

You bend over too fast and your one brain cell falls out your nose.

 

[Johnny Martin]

5 hours ago, Antlion said:

You claimed “they don’t think that at all”. You spoke for them. Own it.

I never said they have a superior bloodline or are superior. You just made that up. On the contrary, I’ll happy agree that most of them are thick, troglodytic mutants. I said they believe their bloodlines are superior - for how else could they justify those hereditary noble bloodlines granting them superior constitutional and social positions?

Of course, if they don’t believe in the superiority of their bloodline and (cynically) subscribe to a system that uses that bloodline to give them plum positions in society and the state anyway, then they’re simply con artists - like the late queen and current corpse, Lizzie Windsor.

Me having an opinion on the situation doesn't mean I'm speaking for them.

You said they think they have a superior bloodline, which implies a general superiority, like the way white or black supremacist racists go on,  You then pointed to their position at the top of a hierarchical, hereditary system as proof of this, stating that they are 'socially superior' - a goalpost move if anything!  It makes no sense.

As for everyone else, chill out a bit eh?

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

Me having an opinion on the situation doesn't mean I'm speaking for them.

You said they think they have a superior bloodline, which implies a general superiority, like the way white or black supremacist racists go on,  You then pointed to their position at the top of a hierarchical, hereditary system as proof of this, stating that they are 'socially superior' - a goalpost move if anything!  It makes no sense.

As for everyone else, chill out a bit eh?

Nope - it implies they have a sense of hereditary superiority which, until and unless they renounce their social and constitutional superiority, they obviously do. Either that or they’re grifters taking advantage of the system. Which is it?

[Johnny Martin]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Nope - it implies they have a sense of hereditary superiority which, until and unless they renounce their social and constitutional superiority, they obviously do. Either that or they’re grifters taking advantage of the system. Which is it?

Neither.

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

Neither.

Impossible. It has to be one or the other. They either believe that their bloodline entitles them to higher social and political positions than others (in which case they’re supremacists) or they don’t believe this and accept those higher social and political positions anyway, which makes them con artists. The only other possible alternative is that they literally don’t think, and so lack the critical faculties to even recognise the link between their bloodline and privileged, superior status - which might be true in some cases.

[Granny Danger]

8 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Impossible. It has to be one or the other. They either believe that their bloodline entitles them to higher social and political positions than others (in which case they’re supremacists) or they don’t believe this and accept those higher social and political positions anyway, which makes them con artists. The only other possible alternative is that they literally don’t think, and so lack the critical faculties to even recognise the link between their bloodline and privileged, superior status - which might be true in some cases.

Genuine question.  Why are you debating with this cretin?

[Antlion]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Genuine question.  Why are you debating with this cretin?

Not so much debating as replying - though still a good question. A debate would require him to actually offer some idea why these supremacists continue accepting their blood-based privileges - i.e., stating what he thinks they believe about it - rather than just continually claiming they don’t think anything.