Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on May 04, 2017, 01:19:12 PM
-
I heard about this individual on the BBC this morning, Phill the Greek has more or less retired; don't they go on about this bloke, it's now a major news item, why?
I don't wish him any ill but come on, why should anyone outside of his family and a few close friends of his care?
ippy
-
'Cos he's the chooky Embra, and that's supposed to mean something to some folk. Others prefer watching paint dry. I like Dulux.
-
'Cos he's the chooky Embra, and that's supposed to mean something to some folk. Others prefer watching paint dry. I like Dulux.
Not Crown then?
-
I hope he has a good few years of retirement ahead of him.
-
Surely not: how will we all cope?
-
Surely not: how will we all cope?
I think Philip has made many gaffs, but he has supported his wife through thick and thin, being the consort to a Monarch is not easy, it is not a job I would wish to have that is for sure.
-
I think Philip has made many gaffs, but he has supported his wife through thick and thin, being the consort to a Monarch is not easy, it is not a job I would wish to have that is for sure.
He gets around £360k pa for opening stuff. I think I'll keep an eye out for the job, because obviously for such an important role they'll be an exhaustive interview process.
-
I think Philip has made many gaffs, but he has supported his wife through thick and thin, being the consort to a Monarch is not easy, it is not a job I would wish to have that is for sure.
I've a simple solution to ease the load placed on this parasitic bunch: get rid of the institution of monarchy.
Easy peasy.
-
I've a simple solution to ease the load placed on this parasitic bunch: get rid of the institution of monarchy.
Easy peasy.
I think we are fortunate to have a Monarchy, the Queen has done a FANTASTIC job over the years, we could have a president like Trump, heaven help us!
-
I hope he has a good few years of retirement ahead of him.
He's had plenty of good years already off of others backs all his life Floo.
ippy
-
I think we are fortunate to have a Monarchy, the Queen has done a FANTASTIC job over the years, we could have a president like Trump, heaven help us!
The bloody Greek ponce, but then it does seem to be a good idea to rely on luck as to whether our head of state does a good job or not.
ippy
-
I think we are fortunate to have a Monarchy, the Queen has done a FANTASTIC job over the years, we could have a president like Trump, heaven help us!
So what is it the monarchy has done in, say, our lifetimes that could be considered as having been essential?
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't require that we adopt the US system but at least Trump was elected and in due course will up for re-election (if he gets the support of his party) when the US public can vote against him if they want rid: even then his time as President is limited to two terms of office and should he die in office it will be another elected politician and not a relative who replaces him.
-
So what is it the monarchy has done in, say, our lifetimes that could be considered as having been essential?
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't require that we adopt the US system but at least Trump was elected and in due course will up for re-election (if he get the support of his party) when the US public can vote against him if they want rid: even then his time as President is limited to two terms of office and should he die in office it will be another elected politician and not a relative who replaces him.
We will have to agree to differ.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN
-
We will have to agree to differ.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN
I get that you're a fan but I don't get why you think they are, or they should be, relevant in a democratic society.
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
Good for you Susan. :)
-
We will have to agree to differ.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN
I don't wish Betty any ill either Floo but she and all of her hangers on were to join the Foreign Office and we were able to select our head of state by some form of merit then, if you like, you and your fellow followers could still see the Sax Coburgs, perhaps on T V as a soap, well, they might be worth that much.
As for Big Ears taking over, I would/will find that to be insulting, a sort of establishment two fingers to the like of you and me Floo, Mr &Ms ordinary Joe & Joanna average.
ippy
-
Good for you Susan. :)
But this royal system it's not rational or logical in the slightest, I find this system insulting, Susan.
I see you as one of our more rational posters on the forum, it really surprises me to think you're a royalist, what happened?
ippy
-
Pretty much
http://newsthump.com/2017/05/04/prince-philip-retires-to-spend-more-time-on-racism/
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
What does it actually do that is worth having done?
-
I've a simple solution to ease the load placed on this parasitic bunch: get rid of the institution of monarchy.
Easy peasy.
-
Wot Gordon said.
-
Retiring at 95 is not bad! Everyone else retires 30 years earlier. And he looks fine too. Straight and tall and alert. Most of us may not be around at 95.
-
What does it actually do that is worth having done?
-
Well, it gets everything smelling of paint, I suppose.
-
But this royal system it's not rational or logical in the slightest, I find this system insulting, Susan.
I have no problem with this, Ippy, but I do sometimes think that the people you are pouring scorn upon are also victims who have been forced to lead many intimate aspects of their lives in public.
And we are all victims of a constitution that appears to have been fossilised about 150 years ago.
-
I don't wish Betty any ill either Floo but she and all of her hangers on were to join the Foreign Office and we were able to select our head of state by some form of merit then, if you like, you and your fellow followers could still see the Sax Coburgs, perhaps on T V as a soap, well, they might be worth that much.
As for Big Ears taking over, I would/will find that to be insulting, a sort of establishment two fingers to the like of you and me Floo, Mr &Ms ordinary Joe & Joanna average.
ippy
History and continuity of positive tradition are worth more than, in my opinion!, negative ideas of an alternative to royalty which would be so dull, colourless, boring, lacking in pageantry, spectacle and interest. I bet it would cost a whole lot more too and certainly wouldn't bring in as many tourists!
Also it provides entertainment, theatre and a change of routine which looking at screens cannot do.
-
History and continuity of positive tradition are worth more than, in my opinion!, negative ideas of an alternative to royalty which would be so dull, colourless, boring, lacking in pageantry, spectacle and interest. I bet it would cost a whole lot more too and certainly wouldn't bring in as many tourists!
so ther
Obviously this is subject on which we will never agree Susan.
For me it's an insult to my intelligence, to be dependent on luck as to whether we get a good and hard working head of state is ludicrous.
ippy
-
Obviously this is subject on which we will never agree Susan.
For me it's an insult to my intelligence, to be dependent on luck as to whether we get a good and hard working head of state is ludicrous.
ippy
Yep.
Betty is a reasonable old stick - but the fact that we have absolutely no say on who is, or is not, our head of state is an insult to our intelligence.
-
Ippy
I think you are probably right there, i.e. that this is an area of disagreement!! By the way, did you notice I edited my post?
-
History and continuity of positive tradition are worth more than, in my opinion!, negative ideas of an alternative to royalty which would be so dull, colourless, boring, lacking in pageantry, spectacle and interest. I bet it would cost a whole lot more too and certainly wouldn't bring in as many tourists!
Just get rid: don't replace them.
The tourists will still come since there is ample history involving the monarchy for those that like such stuff.
-
I see the ever-sycophantic BBC still have this as the lead story on their website: presumably the received wisdom is that this is more important than anything else.
Odd though that they don't have a 'comments' option for this story.
-
An outsiders view. Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want. And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.
-
An outsiders view. Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want. And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.
I would happily do both. In part though the three issues, and more see HoL, are linked. The monarchy and state church are entwined and the voting system is part of the establishment control that uses the soap opera of the monarchy to distract from the lack of democracy. The 'dignified' (as per Bagehot) parts of the constitutional institutions work in harmony to cause sclerosis .
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
Me too :)
-
An outsiders view. Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want. And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.
-
Hi, Dave;
We're working on it!
Only the mess in Westminster has a senile electoral system for the rabble chamber AKA the 'commons', with the coffin dodgers being appointed by the great and the good to become more unelected great and the good in the house of 'lords'.
I'm with you on the State church thing - the CofE should not have representation in the Hol - because the UK HAS no state church - nor should it have.
What England does is England's affair.
At least in Scotland,the elections to Holyrood and Brussels are more democratic, being semi-proportional representation. Even yesterday's local elections were PR, rather than England's first past the post.
As for the Windsors?
I've met a few - one in particular, Anne, is personable, down to earth and interesting to talk with.
Trouble is, of course, we have no say in who is our head of state in the long run.
Elizabeth Windsor seems a nice old lady - never met her or Phil - but that's the trouble: we judge by what we have now.
We have no choice in who we have next.
Chairlie's a well meaning prat - but still a prat.
-
Chairlie's a well meaning prat - but still a prat.
You have no evidence of this, only a perception heavily influenced by populist media.
You may be right, he may well be a prat but on the other hand he may simply be a well-meaning intelligent man trapped into a lifetime of virtual non-activity by the curses planted on him at the time of his conception. Certainly he has had his problems (not least of them an arranged marriage with a highly photogenic bimbo) but he has had to experience them in the full glare of publicity projected through the distorting lens of the gutter press.
Who knows, I might regard you as a prat were it not for the fact that your deeds and misdeeds are cloaked in near total anonymity. Murdoch and the Mail have never heard of you and so have never made your indiscretions and momentary follies public property.
However, he (in his public role), his family, his milieu, the constitutional spiders web which entraps him, the deceits and conceits and barely legitimate devices which permit a political dictatorship the pretence that it is "democratic" have all long passed their dissolution date and we desperately needsome kind of renewal. We won't get it by fulfilling Mrs May's dream of becoming the Venezuela of Europe.
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
Me too.
I think the Queen is a quite remarkable woman and my respect for her has grown over the years (I was quite anti royalas a young person).She sets a fine example & has not been afraid to change with the times albeit slowly.
(Never heard her referred to as "Betty" except on here!)
-
You have no evidence of this, only a perception heavily influenced by populist media.
You may be right, he may well be a prat but on the other hand he may simply be a well-meaning intelligent man trapped into a lifetime of virtual non-activity by the curses planted on him at the time of his conception. Certainly he has had his problems (not least of them an arranged marriage with a highly photogenic bimbo) but he has had to experience them in the full glare of publicity projected through the distorting lens of the gutter press.
Who knows, I might regard you as a prat were it not for the fact that your deeds and misdeeds are cloaked in near total anonymity. Murdoch and the Mail have never heard of you and so have never made your indiscretions and momentary follies public property.
However, he (in his public role), his family, his milieu, the constitutional spiders web which entraps him, the deceits and conceits and barely legitimate devices which permit a political dictatorship the pretence that it is "democratic" have all long passed their dissolution date and we desperately needsome kind of renewal. We won't get it by fulfilling Mrs May's dream of becoming the Venezuela of Europe.
Sorry:
I've met the so-called Duke of Rothesay now on a number of occasions.
He has a flat in Dumfries House, where he and Camilla spend quite a lot of time, and walk their mutts in the estate. I've met him there - twwice, and sa couple of tiimes on other occasions at Kirk 'do's'.
My observation was ome of personal. first hand experience, not of media swallowing.
-
HH #34
Ah, very well said.
Robinson #35
When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.
. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.
-
HH #34
Ah, very well said.
Robinson #35
When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.
. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.
-
Susan:
Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor is no better, no worse than the average persion.
She is no more worthy of respect than the average person.
I treat the role she claims with scorn and ridicule for several reasons, the most important being the lack of election involved.
The other reasons are, in order of importance,
1) My nation's attitude to the monarchy was always different to that of England.
At best, the monarch was seen as first among equals, and at worst, an inconvenience to be circumvented when necessary. Only three - perhaps four - monarchs ever really dominated the Scots court.
After the union of the Crowns, the monarch was seen as an absentee landlord, and as interfering in Scots internal affairs. (After all, we started the so-called "English" civil war.
2. The South West of Scotland was infamous for the 'killing time' when Scots Presbyterians were asked to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church - and the hills, moors and cemetaries are dotted with the memorials of thoswe who would not do so. Many bore the slogan "We have no King, save Christ".
It still holds for many of us.
I have no loyalty to the unelected head of state who bears unearned titles because of accident of birth, regardless of how nice she may, or may not, be.
-
HH #34
Ah, very well said.
Robinson #35
When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.
. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.
It's her fault that she doesn't see the bowing as demeaning to people or that being the head of an established church in England promulgates irrationality, and inequality.
-
Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.
Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.
As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.
One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.
-
Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.
Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.
As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.
One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.
don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.
And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?
-
don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.
And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?
It was Princess Diana that was being referred to as " a photogenic bimbo" in HH post
-
As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!
Does it really work?
I imagine most of us have known no monarch other than the Queen. We will only know whether the monarchy actually works when we get the next few. If they aren't as good (or as loved) as the Queen views may change.
I seem to remember there was a survey that showed a majority wanted the monarchy to skip a generation and go to William rather than Charles. The very notion that this seems to be a popular idea indicates that our current hereditary monarchy system doesn't actually work, because (by definition) you get whoever is first in line for the throne, whether they are good or bad, and you don't get a say.
-
don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.
And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?
Not at the moment, no. The situation is safer, more stable, as things are and the Queen has enough experience and common sense to realise that. There is no strong, invincible, successfully constructed, humanist alternative and if the CofE vacated its position, then far more dangerous, probably violent, religious ideologiess would seek to replace it.
The change, which I think is inevitable, will have to be clear and well managed.That is why it wil take such a frustratingly long time. It will not happen during my remaining years, even if I manage another 8 or 10.
-
Not at the moment, no. The situation is safer, more stable, as things are and the Queen has enough experience and common sense to realise that. There is no strong, invincible, successfully constructed, humanist alternative and if the CofE vacated its position, then far more dangerous, probably violent, religious ideologiess would seek to replace it.
The change, which I think is inevitable, will have to be clear and well managed.That is why it wil take such a frustratingly long time. It will not happen during my remaining years, even if I manage another 8 or 10.
Is that what has happened in Scotland then?
-
Does it really work?
I imagine most of us have known no monarch other than the Queen. We will only know whether the monarchy actually works when we get the next few. If they aren't as good (or as loved) as the Queen views may change.
I seem to remember there was a survey that showed a majority wanted the monarchy to skip a generation and go to William rather than Charles. The very notion that this seems to be a popular idea indicates that our current hereditary monarchy system doesn't actually work, because (by definition) you get whoever is first in line for the throne, whether they are good or bad, and you don't get a say.
It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.
-
It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.
Yes, far better to continue on that 'rational' position of hereditary. That's how I choose my doctors
-
It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.
You mean it would be better to stick with an anachronistic arrangement which provides one family with a privileged sinecure for life with no real usefulness (unless you count waving and cutting ribbons now and then) instead of actually electing someone to perform a designated role for a time limited period after which they are exposed to re-election.
Better perhaps to just get rid, don't replace and adjust the current political governance system so as to remove all the non-elected (such as the House of Lords), ensure that all those we elect accountable via regular elections and adjust the arrangements to include checks and balances - we should also replace the current voting system.
Not even sure we need a ceremonial Head of State in the first place.
-
It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.
I don't think they'd have got a different answer by asking more people. I think there is a very sizeable block who want William rather than Charles when the Queen dies and as you rightly point out, to do so means you aren't really in favour of a hereditary monarchy.
I think there have been quite a number of properly conducted polls that have found the same thing. This is perhaps the most recent, from just last year:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/make-william-next-king-say-8708800
And it wasn't even close, more than twice as many people wanted William rather than Charles.
-
Yes, far better to continue on that 'rational' position of hereditary. That's how I choose my doctors
Non sequitur is a phrase I avoid using, just in case I mis-use it, but I think it applies to your post here!
In my opinion, there is no comparison between the choice of a doctor and the position of a Queen
-
Not even sure we need a ceremonial Head of State in the first place.
No, we may not need one, but we've got one, and it works, and the events where the Queen appears are well looked forward to and enjoyed by large numbers of people always; and remembered and talked of with a smile and pleasure. I think perhaps the right adjective for those who would turn the colour of monarchy into the monochrome of its absence, is 'killjoy'? :)
-
And it wasn't even close, more than twice as many people wanted William rather than Charles.
But it's not going to happen that way, is it? The constitution doesn't work that way, and when Charles becomes king, everyone - okay, not the killjoys!! - will watch the Coronation , the parades, the colour and comment on the weather just as we always do. I hope I live long enough to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's robust health, and her mother's long life, this might not be so.
-
No, we may not need one, but we've got one, and it works, and the events where the Queen appears are well looked forward to and enjoyed by large numbers of people always; and remembered and talked of with a smile and pleasure. I think perhaps the right adjective for those who would turn the colour of monarchy into the monochrome of its absence, is 'killjoy'? :)
I'm not a monarchist, but I'd accept that the Queen works. But that doesn't mean that Charles, William, George or whoever comes after them will work.
The big issue we have is that due to longevity we are going to have to accept that we will have 'future' monarchs kicking their heals waiting and waiting and waiting for the job they were 'born into' for 60 or 70 years. Reputations aren't enhanced in our media age by being perceived as a hanger on all that time - we've seen it with Charles - when he was a young man he was very popular, but his popularity has declined over the years. Sure William is currently popular but who knows what scandals etc lie in wait over the next 20 years or so that he'll be waiting for the job.
-
But it's not going to happen that way, is it? The constitution doesn't work that way, and when Charles becomes king, everyone - okay, not the killjoys!! - will watch the Coronation , the parades, the colour and comment on the weather just as we always do. I hope I live long enough to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's robust health, and her mother's long life, this might not be so.
But whichever way it happens will be a problem for the monarchy.
If it goes by pure inheritance and Charles becomes King then that won't be the preferred outcome of (probably) a majority of the country and their loyalty to him, and by inference the monarchy, will be diminished.
If there is a constitutional settlement that bows to public opinion and the monarchy skips a generation, then not unreasonably people will begin to ask why they don't have a greater say again in who is our head of state.
-
Non sequitur is a phrase I avoid using, just in case I mis-use it, but I think it applies to your post here!
In my opinion, there is no comparison between the choice of a doctor and the position of a Queen
Why? In what sense does inheriting the title of head of state make any rational sense?
-
Why? In what sense does inheriting the title of head of state make any rational sense?
Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!
-
Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!
And it supports inequality, the House of Lords, the established church and bishops voting. As noted earlier your position is similar to those who supported bear baiting because people enjoyed it.
Or indeed those who support homeopathy on the NHS.
-
Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!
It doesn't, Susan: the monarchy/aristocracy is offensive anachronistic nonsense that we should dispose of at the earliest opportunity.
It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians.
-
Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!
As I've said before - it only works because of the Queen.
Imagine if there is a future monarch who is bonkers - or completely uninterested in doing the job, or deeply offensive etc. Would it still work then. It only works if you are comfortable that whoever is in the role will do a good job and be acceptable to the British people. You can't be sure of that.
-
Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.
Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.
As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.
One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.
Sorry, Robinson.
I Thought Elizabeth not-the-second was supposed to be monarch of the so-called united Kingdom, not just of England.
And what does William Mountbatten-Windsor have to do with anything?
Will we have a choicre whether we want him, Kate and the sprogs or not?
-
HH #34
Ah, very well said.
Robinson #35
When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.
. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.
-
Ippy
Did you mean to post something?!!
-
It doesn't, Susan: the monarchy/aristocracy is offensive anachronistic nonsense that we should dispose of at the earliest opportunity.
It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians.
"It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians", Thomas Paine.
Susan why should I respect a hereditary Royal system that rather obviously doesn't respect the principle of fair play, equality or a level playing field; as I see this system, as it is at present, is due zero respect from any of us, therefore the use of Betty to describe one of the people involved within this system of granted, unwarranted favour, is hardly that's much out of order when compared to such a personal insult delivered to all of us by this system.
I find it difficult to understand your, what comes over as an almost enthusiastic further for this rotten royalist system that has zero to justify its existence as it is at present.
They are and will remain with all the respect they're due as Betty & Phill the Greek to me.
ippy
-
Sorry, Robinson.
I Thought Elizabeth not-the-second was supposed to be monarch of the so-called united Kingdom, not just of England.
And what does William Mountbatten-Windsor have to do with anything?
Will we have a choicre whether we want him, Kate and the sprogs or not?
Don't be sorry Anchorman, nothing to be sorry about. yes you are right, I should have said United Kingdom instead of England.
As to whether or not the people will have a choice in years to come about the monarchy I beieve if the vast majority of UK citizens want to abolish it, it will happen. At the moment he majority appear to be comfortable with it but things change & the mood of the people has to be taken into account.
As for the Queen changing her mind about being head of CofE, all I said was she might feel differently now to how she felt when she made her coronation vows but I don't know that for a fact. When she is gone and Charles succeeds, which will happen unless he pegs before her, he will probably change all that. He's already voiced opinions about it though not recently. Goodness knows what his heir believes on that score.It's something that seems anachronistic to me.
(Also I apologise for getting mixed up about the 'bimbo' comment, I only scanned that post and should have looked back and read it again before posting.)
I have no resentment towards the royals. All the money and privilege in the world would not convince me to swap places as I value my privacy too much. I've often felt sorry for them but my respect for the Queen grows because regardless of what befalls her she is able to summon the strength to carry on dutiful to the last.
Susan is right, it works because of the Queen. When she departs it may be a different story.
-
"It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians", Thomas Paine.
Susan why should I respect a hereditary Royal system that rather obviously doesn't respect the principle of fair play, equality or a level playing field; as I see this system, as it is at present, is due zero respect from any of us, therefore the use of Betty to describe one of the people involved within this system of granted, unwarranted favour, is hardly that's much out of order when compared to such a personal insult delivered to all of us by this system.
But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.
I find it difficult to understand your, what comes over as an almost enthusiastic further for this rotten royalist system that has zero to justify its existence as it is at present.
I'm a practical sort of person, a realist, and the available current alternatives are not better.
They are and will remain with all the respect they're due as Betty & Phill the Greek to me.
ippy
Tell me, do you watch any of the news, events, parades, etc etc involving members of royalty? I bet you do! :D Even if you walk off in high dudgeon after a few minutes! :D
-
But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.
Don't replace it - just get rid.
-
Just getting rid of a system such as royalty would leave a huge vacuum which something far worse would rush to fill.
-
Don't be sorry Anchorman, nothing to be sorry about. yes you are right, I should have said United Kingdom instead of England.
As to whether or not the people will have a choice in years to come about the monarchy I beieve if the vast majority of UK citizens want to abolish it, it will happen. At the moment he majority appear to be comfortable with it but things change & the mood of the people has to be taken into account.
As for the Queen changing her mind about being head of CofE, all I said was she might feel differently now to how she felt when she made her coronation vows but I don't know that for a fact. When she is gone and Charles succeeds, which will happen unless he pegs before her, he will probably change all that. He's already voiced opinions about it though not recently. Goodness knows what his heir believes on that score.It's something that seems anachronistic to me.
(Also I apologise for getting mixed up about the 'bimbo' comment, I only scanned that post and should have looked back and read it again before posting.)
I have no resentment towards the royals. All the money and privilege in the world would not convince me to swap places as I value my privacy too much. I've often felt sorry for them but my respect for the Queen grows because regardless of what befalls her she is able to summon the strength to carry on dutiful to the last.
Susan is right, it works because of the Queen. When she departs it may be a different story.
By the way, whatever she is, or claims to be, she is certainly not Elizabeth 'II' of what passes for a united Kingdom - 'cos there has never been an Elizabeth I of said kingdom.
-
Just getting rid of a system such as royalty would leave a huge vacuum which something far worse would rush to fill.
Not if you don't try to fill the vacuum.
Seems to be that fans of the monarchy only offer an argument from tradition: that its 'nice to have and keep', and do so without considering the utter lunacy of what the institution of monarchy entails.
-
But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.I'm a practical sort of person, a realist, and the available current alternatives are not better.Tell me, do you watch any of the news, events, parades, etc etc involving members of royalty? I bet you do! :D Even if you walk off in high dudgeon after a few minutes! :D
Tell me how anyone can avoid these people with all of their pomp if you live in England and no I don't watch anything anything that's put on for them, they don't do very much for themselves, I try to avoid anything that might put up my blood pressure.
In some ways this royalist syndrome resembles religious belief, why do otherwise intelligent people etc etc?
I would like to see something resembling fair play and adjustments made on the way that would in the end no longer be an insult to the intelligence of us all.
I don't watch soaps on T V either, I'm sure that is a component part of following the royals; another form of soap.
The sooner they join the Foreign Office the better for all of us, in my opinion.
ippy
I have said it many times, bowing down to royalty is to me as though you've just caught a pick pocket, red handed, and you then bow down to them and back away gratefully from them while at the same time thanking them for bestowing the honour of them choosing your pocket to pick; being a royalist is that ridiculous to me.
ippy
-
And it supports inequality, the House of Lords, the established church and bishops voting. As noted earlier your position is similar to those who supported bear baiting because people enjoyed it.
Or indeed those who support homeopathy on the NHS.
Don't forget most of the bishops obtain a title on retirement and of course guess where do they end up?
ippy
-
TYPICAL
At 96 he had worked bloody hard. Who is perfect hands up? That would be no one then.
He had a difficult start in life with his mum being ill and being left to make his own way with the help of his uncle who
aided him.
Whatever you think... he had served this Country and the Monarch his wife all their married life.
It is life, he has done his part and is entitled to some retirement without the comments made by the ungrateful.
Personally, he won't care so why should you?
-
TYPICAL
At 96 he had worked bloody hard. Who is perfect hands up? That would be no one then.
He had a difficult start in life with his mum being ill and being left to make his own way with the help of his uncle who
aided him.
Whatever you think... he had served this Country and the Monarch his wife all their married life.
It is life, he has done his part and is entitled to some retirement without the comments made by the ungrateful.
Personally, he won't care so why should you?
-
No-one disputes his sense of 'duty', Sass.
Or indeed his service to the monarchy.
The issue is the need for the monarchy he chose to serve.
I try not to fget personal, but I takr iit you realise that his mum was very poorly treated by 'the firm' during the years before and after the bling was crammed on his wife's head - not least dismissed by his uncle, 'kingmaker' Louis.
Oh, and it was Philip's daughter, Anne, who used that epithet, so feel free to use it yourself.
-
When Philip married the Queen (who was not then Queen), the question of relevance of the monarchy didn't arise that often. As an institution, the popularity of the monarchy goes up and down. At the moment it is not too bad while the Queen lives.
Agree with Sassy that it is quite fair for theDuke of Edinburgh to retire at his age, he's done his bit.
(Prince Philip's mother was a heroic woman prepared to help others who were hiding from persecution at the expense of her own liberty.
It was the Queen who insisted she be brought to England to be safe and looked after and she stayed here for the rest of her life quite happily, well regarded by her family. It's an interesting story that we don't hear enough about.)
-
Lizzie's mother - the less than saintly Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - thought Phillip's mother a foriegn destabilising influence. Her visceral hatred of anything whic would change her vision of monarchy dates from the lothing she retainwed for her brother-in -law - whom she refused to acknowledge for decades in a less than Christian gesture.
-
We know some of that Anchor. How is it relevant to anything? We can't help how we feel and the late Queen Mother was no different to anyone else.
I didn't know what she felt about the 'destabilising influence' of Prince Philip's mohter, not heard of that,but doubt she carried that feeling to the grave if indeed she ever felt it or voiced it. In any case the Queen was in charge, not her.
The Duke of Windsor business is a different matter & no-one can blame her for wanting no more to do with him, he and his wife were hardly nice to her after all. However none of this is a really large issue now. You are barrel scraping.
-
We know some of that Anchor. How is it relevant to anything? We can't help how we feel and the late Queen Mother was no different to anyone else.
I didn't know what she felt about the 'destabilising influence' of Prince Philip's mohter, not heard of that,but doubt she carried that feeling to the grave if indeed she ever felt it or voiced it. In any case the Queen was in charge, not her.
The Duke of Windsor business is a different matter & no-one can blame her for wanting no more to do with him, he and his wife were hardly nice to her after all. However none of this is a really large issue now. You are barrel scraping.
Thanks, - you've made my point, Robinson.
If Elisabeth Bowes-lyon was "no different from anyone else" as you put it, then her daughter is equally so - and therefore does not deserve allegiance, oaths of loyalty, unearned titles and the like.
If Elisabeth Mountbatten-Windsor wants to be 'in charge' of her clan. then that is the affair purely of her clan , and should be none of our concern, since she is "no different from anyone else".
No-one has yet given me a single argument as to why I, or anyone else, should acknowledge Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor as in any way superior, or for that matter, as head of state.
-
Sassy - It is really nice to read one of your posts and agree with it. Well said.
-
Thanks, - you've made my point, Robinson.
If Elisabeth Bowes-lyon was "no different from anyone else" as you put it, then her daughter is equally so - and therefore does not deserve allegiance, oaths of loyalty, unearned titles and the like.
If Elisabeth Mountbatten-Windsor wants to be 'in charge' of her clan. then that is the affair purely of her clan , and should be none of our concern, since she is "no different from anyone else".
No-one has yet given me a single argument as to why I, or anyone else, should acknowledge Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor as in any way superior, or for that matter, as head of state.
No different to anyone else when it comes to feelings, health etc. They all have blood and have to go the toilet.
Very different when it comes to duty & then we see personal feelings put aside!
You don't have to think of any of them as superior or bow down whatever. Please yourself what you think but try to leave personal prejudices aside.
I felt as you do in my teens and early twenties.
Sassy - It is really nice to read one of your posts and agree with it. Well said.
Agreed, it was a good post.
-
No different to anyone else when it comes to feelings, health etc. They all have blood and have to go the toilet.
Very different when it comes to duty & then we see personal feelings put aside!
You don't have to think of any of them as superior or bow down whatever. Please yourself what you think but try to leave personal prejudices aside.
I felt as you do in my teens and early twenties.
Agreed, it was a good post.
So there is some group of people who are superior in your obviously non personal non prejudiced opinion when it comes to 'duty'.
BtW I used to think the way you did when I was 6 years old. The question is whether that is relevant in any way?
-
No different to anyone else when it comes to feelings, health etc. They all have blood and have to go the toilet.
Very different when it comes to duty & then we see personal feelings put aside!
But very different when due simply to birth they enjoy lifetime privilege along with a state-funded sinecure: the institution stinks and has no place in an allegedly modern democracy.
You don't have to think of any of them as superior or bow down whatever. Please yourself what you think but try to leave personal prejudices aside.
You do: many years ago Charles & Di were visiting a site where I worked and we given official instruction (by an official of some sort) on how to 'behave' should one of them decide speak to us, including when to bow or curtsy and what to call since presumably ordinary social interaction would be deemed unsatisfactory. I wasn't aware my social skills were so inadequate!
-
But very different when due simply to birth they enjoy lifetime privilege along with a state-funded sinecure:
How do you know they enjoy it?
-
How do you know they enjoy it?
Enjoy is the sense of something beneficial being provided for them by default: such as the various privileges they enjoy.
-
How do you know they enjoy it?
it was used in the sense of 'possess and/or benefit from" obviously.
-
Enjoy is the sense of something beneficial being provided for them by default: such as the various privileges they enjoy.
I know you used it in that sense! But it also sounded as if you think they enjoy it in the usual sense.
-
I know you used it in that sense! But it also sounded as if you think they enjoy it in the usual sense.
So you lied about what was said?
-
They do 'enjoy' privileges of various sorts (even if they don't always 'enjoy' them in the fun sense, a lot arduous and terminally boring, involve extensive travel which isn't all wonderful and the Queen can't afford to have an off day; her recent respiratory illness was an exception), but they really do have to earn them. Not many of us would want their lives even even with all the money and perks. There are plenty of people around who have even more in material terms which they do little to earn as well as having an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
NS Susan hasn't lied FGS. Just difference in understanding. People so keen to accuse others of lying! When will it be my turn I wonder? There's little leeway here.
-
They do 'enjoy' privileges of various sorts (even if they don't always 'enjoy' them in the fun sense, a lot arduous and terminally boring, involve extensive travel which isn't all wonderful and the Queen can't afford to have an off day; her recent respiratory illness was an exception), but they really do have to earn them. Not many of us would want their lives even even with all the money and perks. There are plenty of people around who have even more in material terms which they do little to earn as well as having an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
NS Susan hasn't lied FGS. Just difference in understanding. People so keen to accuse others of lying! When will it be my turn I wonder? There's little leeway here.
Except it is entirely obvious, as Susan has admitted, what Gordon meant. She chose to ignore that, hence lying.
-
They do 'enjoy' privileges of various sorts (even if they don't always 'enjoy' them in the fun sense, a lot arduous and terminally boring, involve extensive travel which isn't all wonderful and the Queen can't afford to have an off day; her recent respiratory illness was an exception), but they really do have to earn them. Not many of us would want their lives even even with all the money and perks.
Which is special pleading.
There are plenty of people around who have even more in material terms which they do little to earn as well as having an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
Which seems like tu quoque
-
I'm no hypocrite Gordon but will bow out of this conv as i can see it going around in circles & sooner or later I'll be accused of lying, i'll leave it to others.
-
But very different when due simply to birth they enjoy lifetime privilege along with a state-funded sinecure: the institution stinks and has no place in an allegedly modern democracy.
You do: many years ago Charles & Di were visiting a site where I worked and we given official instruction (by an official of some sort) on how to 'behave' should one of them decide speak to us, including when to bow or curtsy and what to call since presumably ordinary social interaction would be deemed unsatisfactory. I wasn't aware my social skills were so inadequate!
-
Been there - though it was actually a Kirk Garden Party at General Assembly Week.
I was a youth observer that year - coincidentally the year of Thatcher's infamous 'Sermon on the Mound' diatribe.
We were given a similar, rather intimidating, lecture by some twit from Holyrood House.
Luckily, John Bell - the irreverent Reverend - was with us (We'd just come from a Christian CND demo at Faslane); his words?
"If they come to you, treat them like that couple of old codjers you gave the money to on the street corner this morning.
The vision of Liz and Phil drinking meths and sleeping on a park bench was somehow sustaining.........
-
They do 'enjoy' privileges of various sorts (even if they don't always 'enjoy' them in the fun sense, a lot arduous and terminally boring, involve extensive travel which isn't all wonderful and the Queen can't afford to have an off day; her recent respiratory illness was an exception), but they really do have to earn them. Not many of us would want their lives even even with all the money and perks. There are plenty of people around who have even more in material terms which they do little to earn as well as having an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
NS Susan hasn't lied FGS. Just difference in understanding. People so keen to accuse others of lying! When will it be my turn I wonder? There's little leeway here.
-
I understand that the 'firm' work hard for what they perceive as their 'duty', Robinson.
However, neither you nor anyone else has as yet given a reason why I should defer to them as head of state, or acknowledge rank, style and status gained through accident of birth, or marriage into a family.
-
They do 'enjoy' privileges of various sorts (even if they don't always 'enjoy' them in the fun sense, a lot arduous and terminally boring, involve extensive travel which isn't all wonderful and the Queen can't afford to have an off day; her recent respiratory illness was an exception), but they really do have to earn them. Not many of us would want their lives even even with all the money and perks. There are plenty of people around who have even more in material terms which they do little to earn as well as having an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
NS Susan hasn't lied FGS. Just difference in understanding. People so keen to accuse others of lying! When will it be my turn I wonder? There's little leeway here.
Thank you, Robinson.
-
In what way is it fair to have one of the top jobs in our country given exclusivly to certain members of one family and to no one else?
ippy
-
In what way is it fair to have one of the top jobs in our country given exclusivly to certain members of one family and to no one else?
ippy
No-one said it is 'fair'. It is, however, a system that works and does not need fixing.
-
In what way is it fair to have one of the top jobs in our country given exclusivly to certain members of one family and to no one else?
ippy
Yes just think, we could have Donald Trump instead ( sarcasm)
-
No-one said it is 'fair'. It is, however, a system that works and does not need fixing.
I'm still struggling to see how it 'works' since it seems dysfunctional in every respect.
-
I'm still struggling to see how it 'works' since it seems dysfunctional in every respect.
Well, I suppose I could ask a sort of variation of the NPF and ask you to define howit is dysfunctional! Intellectually , I can accept that there are probably some dry, colourless logical reasons why, but I still think the abandonment of the monarchy would take away something special, a historical part of the fabric of the indefinable specialness of the UK.
We know that the monarch stays in the post until death, unlike elected leaders who come and go and, generally speaking, leave only books and chapters in history, and, again, colourless. We have a non-politically-biased affiliation to the person and family of the monarchy which I do not believe we would have to some president who would be elected.
-
Well, I suppose I could ask a sort of variation of the NPF and ask you to define howit is dysfunctional! Intellectually , I can accept that there are probably some dry, colourless logical reasons why, but I still think the abandonment of the monarchy would take away something special, a historical part of the fabric of the indefinable specialness of the UK.
We know that the monarch stays in the post until death, unlike elected leaders who come and go and, generally speaking, leave only books and chapters in history, and, again, colourless. We have a non-politically-biased affiliation to the person and family of the monarchy which I do not believe we would have to some president who would be elected.
Er.....what 'specialness about the UK', Susan?
Its' history?
Not much there - only three centuries if you believe it's' own propaganda - and less than 90 years in truth, since Ireland gained her freedom.
A shortbread tin mionarch who is 'second; of nothing -except England and Wales.
A Parliament whic claims to be a thousand years old, and, in that claim, dismisses the parliaments of the nations it absorbed like a slug?
Daft pomp and ceremony, most of which was invented by a German prince consort married to a German queen of a UK, who spoke with a German accent till the day she snuffed it?
An opening of Westminster parliament which simply underlines the fact that the said institution ignored the Act of union signed by an alcoholc traitor (Anne)?
No, the system only works for those who are blind to the mess it portrays.
-
No-one said it is 'fair'. It is, however, a system that works and does not need fixing.
If the none to publicised list of people that turn down honours was looked into I wouldn't have thought all of them were turning them down purely for reasons of modersty.
Although I'm unlikely to be awarded an honour of any kind this system, as it is it, removes so much value from the more deserved options, if an honour was offered to me I wouldn't want any part of this lot.
Immagine being awarded an houour from Big Ears, a man that has very little honour of his own that would enable him to pass any honour on to others and we've no choice, he's next, so thanks very much for this rather brain dead idea of a system.
ippy
-
What twit would accept an 'Order of the british Empire" anyway?
-
Well, I suppose I could ask a sort of variation of the NPF and ask you to define howit is dysfunctional! Intellectually , I can accept that there are probably some dry, colourless logical reasons why, but I still think the abandonment of the monarchy would take away something special, a historical part of the fabric of the indefinable specialness of the UK.
I'd have thought accountability and democracy were two areas where the institution of monarchy is dysfunctional, along with their general uselessness: as in doing nothing useful, but at our expense.
We know that the monarch stays in the post until death, unlike elected leaders who come and go and, generally speaking, leave only books and chapters in history, and, again, colourless. We have a non-politically-biased affiliation to the person and family of the monarchy which I do not believe we would have to some president who would be elected.
Which sounds like an argument from tradition. I feel no sense of affiliation with this family whatsoever, and nor do I think that affiliation in itself is relevant since it is essentially subjective opinion.
-
If the none to publicised list of people that turn down honours was looked into I wouldn't have thought all of them were turning them down purely for reasons of modersty.
Although I'm unlikely to be awarded an honour of any kind this system, as it is it, removes so much value from the more deserved options, if an honour was offered to me I wouldn't want any part of this lot.
Immagine being awarded an houour from Big Ears, a man that has very little honour of his own that would enable him to pass any honour on to others and we've no choice, he's next, so thanks very much for this rather brain dead idea of a system.
ippy
I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.
-
I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.
I still don't get how the Queen as head of state 'works': she effectively does what the government decides is policy, so she is unnecessary, and we don't have the option to get rid of her so her position is undemocratic.
Apart from giving some a nice warm and cosy feeling of tradition I've yet to understand why this institution is in any sense worthy of being defended and maintained.
-
I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.
-
Apparantly, one of the daft anachronistic roles Elizabeth claims is the 'fount of honour'. That's why gongs are bestowed by her, or her representative (and a very good reason wwhy I wouldn't take one as a free gift - a group with which I was associated for many years was thinking of nominating me.....I made it clear what they could do with THAT idea in no uncertain terms.)
-
-
Apparantly, one of the daft anachronistic roles Elizabeth claims is the 'fount of honour'. That's why gongs are bestowed by her, or her representative (and a very good reason wwhy I wouldn't take one as a free gift - a group with which I was associated for many years was thinking of nominating me.....I made it clear what they could do with THAT idea in no uncertain terms.)
I often wonder how Phill and Big Ears manage to stand up with the weight of medals they've obviously worked so very hard for?
Is that right they get a medal for going to the lavatory; I hope it's a regular medal; that pair of baboons, it's all so insulting.
ippy
-
I still don't get how the Queen as head of state 'works': she effectively does what the government decides is policy, so she is unnecessary, and we don't have the option to get rid of her so her position is undemocratic.
Apart from giving some a nice warm and cosy feeling of tradition I've yet to understand why this institution is in any sense worthy of being defended and maintained.
Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.
Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.
-
Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.
Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.
Which as an argument could have been used to support bear baiting.
-
Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.
Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.
As I already said I wouldn't replace it - just get rid!
I'm not convinced that the frippery is more important than the unearned and undemocratic privileges this lot enjoy at our expense, regarding which which have no option to disenfranchise them. What about the people who are unswayed by gold coaches and fawning sycophancy?
-
Gordon and N S have summed my reply to you on this subject between them Susan.
I like the bling and waving at a gold carriage as a justification for the hereditary system, this can hardly be considered an argument that matches your more usual application of rational logic on the forum Susan.
ippy
-
Yes, the royal family are at the apex of the hierarchical social structure in the the UK. For this reason alone, I see it as a negative force. And also for this reason, many people will hang on to it for grim death, including people at the bottom.
-
OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.
-
OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.
Quite!
ippy
-
OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.
You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?
It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?
-
Because it symbolizes inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth. And deference.
-
You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?
It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?
Because as I covered a couple of times that contribute to a system of inequality that contributes to sclerotic approach to democracy in the UK. I am happy if you want to day why that isn't a good argument but just saying there are no good arguments is hardly useful.
-
You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?
It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?
I pointed out that it was undemocratic since they enjoy privilege within our governance system without accountability since we didn't elect them and there is no current option to remove them: I'd say that alone was sufficient argument for getting rid.
As far as I can see the only argument offered by the pro-monarchists here is a fallacious argument from tradition.
-
You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?
It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?
*two or three 'thumbs up' emoticons here!!*]
-
Presumably, Udayana doesn't think any arguments offered have been good, but you can't really say that there have been no arguments against monarchy. And if you think the arguments have been poor, probably a good idea to say why.
-
Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.
When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory. This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a part of something solid and reliable. that is beyond price.
I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind. I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.
-
Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.
When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory. This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a part of something solid and reliable. that is beyond price.
I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind. I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.
So if a Christian were to make the same argument about giving their religion privileges?
-
Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.
Which is a nod towards tu quoque, another fallacy.
When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory. This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a part of something solid and reliable. that is beyond price.
Which is yet more argument from tradition with some added special pleading.
I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind. I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.
I get that you're a fan but I've yet to see argument in favour of the monarchy that gets beyond, to paraphrase, 'it's traditional and it's nice to have': some people like steam trains on the same basis but I don't have to contribute the cost of their affections or expect those in charge of these train to have privileged status or an involvement in political governance arrangements.
-
Which is a nod towards tu quoque, another fallacy.
Don't see the tu quoque.
-
Don't see the tu quoque.
I thought the 'although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.' was a nod in the direction of tu quoque by justifying monarchy on the basis that other countries had monarchies too (though, allegedly, ours is special).
-
I thought the 'although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.' was a nod in the direction of tu quoque by justifying monarchy on the basis that other countries had monarchies too (though, allegedly, ours is special).
I read it more as a strawman that someone was claiming that the monarchy was not unique, an irrelevant strawman at that since it may well be but uniqueness isn't an argument in favour.
-
You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?
It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?
-
Sorry, but were I to serve in the armed forces, police, or be elected to Parliament - either Holyrood or Westminster - I could not do so without swearing allegiance, not to a country, not even to a so-called united kingdom, but to an unelected individual who holds their title through genetics.
Please justify this situation.
-
I read it more as a strawman that someone was claiming that the monarchy was not unique, an irrelevant strawman at that since it may well be but uniqueness isn't an argument in favour.
Works that way too, or even special pleading (the 'unique' comment) - I don't think Susan has justified her support for the monarchy beyond that she approves of it.
-
I did hear that the royal lot cost each one of us 66 pence, or there abouts, a year, apart from keeping the buildings going as a part of our history, I object to paying that lot one penny, it's not the amount it's the principle.
It's no small wonder the Greek bloke is over 90 now, I wonder how much longer a lot of us would live if we'd had the ground swept in front of us everywhere we went, had a limo take us anywhere that was more than two or three paces in front of us had all of the best of foods for all of our lives and no worries about where we can get the best education for our children, just because you happen to be born to the right? Family.
If we started to cheer a a plate of wet tripe it'd be about as stupidly brain dead as cheering that lot, I'll save my cheers for those that have achieved and are worth it.
What is it about these people that make otherwise sensible people almost worship them.
As for spoiling a good day out, my arse, some things are so obviously wrong?
ippy
-
Because it symbolizes inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth. And deference.
It does, but people are attached to the symbolism. If a new system was being designed then certainly these may be concerns, but there is no overriding edict against inequality, hierarchy or inherited wealth. Most of our new laws support these in one form or other (despite the speeches).
To overturn the existing constitution you need a republican mandate and I don't think most of the arguments are strong enough to build one - though possibly this could be formed in Scotland as part of the bid for independence?
-
Because as I covered a couple of times that contribute to a system of inequality that contributes to sclerotic approach to democracy in the UK. I am happy if you want to day why that isn't a good argument but just saying there are no good arguments is hardly useful.
But our constitution is democratic and could be changed democratically* - a good argument is one that would persuade people to vote for a republic. Pointing out that the constitution contributes to inequality or is not properly democratic is not good enough - most people don't care and would rather keep to tradition and established symbolism.
* Of-course there is no perfect democratic system, let alone one that can define it's own constitution fully democratically, but assuming that what we have is good enough.
-
But our constitution is democratic and could be changed democratically* - a good argument is one that would persuade people to vote for a republic. Pointing out that the constitution contributes to inequality or is not properly democratic is not good enough - most people don't care and would rather keep to tradition and established symbolism.
* Of-course there is no perfect democratic system, let alone one that can define it's own constitution fully democratically, but assuming that what we have is good enough.
You seem to be defining 'good' here as ones that people agree with. This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave. I don't agree with your definition of 'giid' as it is then simply the ad populum fallacy.
-
I pointed out that it was undemocratic since they enjoy privilege within our governance system without accountability since we didn't elect them and there is no current option to remove them: I'd say that alone was sufficient argument for getting rid.
As far as I can see the only argument offered by the pro-monarchists here is a fallacious argument from tradition.
Well what is a soundly based logical argument argument against monarchy, or dictatorship even? ... I can't see that there is one. You have to start somewhere with a set of incontrovertible rules eg as in the preamble to the US constitution. What goes into that is not logic but based on how people feel about things.
-
You seem to he defining 'goid' here as ones that people agree with. This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave. I don't agree with your definition of 'giid' as it is then simply the ad populum fallacy.
Well democracy is an "ad populum" itself. Slavery was not abolished due to a logical argument or proof.
-
Well democracy is an "ad populum" itself. Slavery was not abolished due to a logical argument or proof.
No, democracy isn't an ad populum, since it doesn't claim that the argument is good in some external sense. You are getting confused here by people using language differently in different contexts.
You are, of course, correct that you cannot get an ought from an is but you can get to how to achieve an ought from an the assumption of some axioms, and those arguments are 'good' and 'logical' within those assumptions. . Now again people are free to disagree with those axioms but we also continue discussions on here with a general presumption that some of those axioms have been accepted. I would suggest here that that has been what is being used here.
Now we could state in every debate on politics and morals what our initial axioms are, and see if there is any point in having discussions but I would suggest that is not how general discussions work.
-
What is it about these people that make otherwise sensible people almost worship them.
'worship'? Now that is a step too far!! I do not worship anything, nor have I ever done so.
Susan
]
-
Well what is a soundly based logical argument argument against monarchy, or dictatorship even? ... I can't see that there is one. You have to start somewhere with a set of incontrovertible rules eg as in the preamble to the US constitution. What goes into that is not logic but based on how people feel about things.
Yeah!! Well said! :D
If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!
And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside, car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!
I'm enjoying this thread!! :D
-
Yeah!! Well said! :D
If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!
And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside, car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!
I'm enjoying this thread!! :D
And again the arguments here justify bear baiting and giving privileges to Christianity if people want that.
-
Yeah!! Well said! :D
If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!
So, that some people like something very much is sufficient reason to make what they like applicable to all by default?
And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside, car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!
There's no accounting for taste, and you seem to be saying that someone who is elected and will be subject to re-election is less of a spectacle than the gold-coach driven frippery of monarchy - maybe so, but provided the elected person performs the elected role appropriately then spectacle doesn't matter.
Some of us don't see the opportunity to wave at someone passing in a car, or a gold coach, as something notable or that tradition alone justifies anything.
-
So, that some people like something very much is sufficient reason to make what they like applicable to all by default?
On the contrary, as I said before, the monarchy and the way it functions today is, in my strongly held opinion, a one-off, and separate, category. It does not today initiate wars, it does not kill people, it is entertaining and the people concerned are flesh and blood, not fictional characters. I'll probably think up a few more things later on! :)
There's no accounting for taste, and you seem to be saying that someone who is elected and will be subject to re-election is less of a spectacle than the gold-coach driven frippery of monarchy - maybe so, but provided the elected person performs the elected role appropriately then spectacle doesn't matter.
academically, yes. But generally speaking, no.
If it had not been an integral part of our history, then it would not now be missed because it would not have been there, but that is not the reality of history and the present-day.
Some of us don't see the opportunity to wave at someone passing in a car, or a gold coach, as something notable or that tradition alone justifies anything.
Obviously!! And lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to choose.
-
On the contrary, as I said before, the monarchy and the way it functions today is, in my strongly held opinion, a one-off, and separate, category.
That would be fine if it was discretionary, but it isn't, therefore it has general implications in relation to both political governance arrangements (e.g. the need for 'royal assent') and since it is funded via taxation.
It does not today initiate wars, it does not kill people, it is entertaining and the people concerned are flesh and blood, not fictional characters.
The same applies to professional tennis, yet it isn't mandatory nor is involved in political governance decisions.
If it had not been an integral part of our history, then it would not now be missed because it would not have been there, but that is not the reality of history and the present-day.Obviously!! And lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to choose.
But when it comes to the monarchy, given its default role in political governance and in being state funded, we don't have the choice.
-
On a wee aside, Gordon; You'll note that when Liz 'assents' to a bill in Westminster becoming law, she does so in Norman French....which is yet another snub to the lie of a 'united Kingdom'.
-
'worship'? Now that is a step too far!! I do not worship anything, nor have I ever done so.
Susan
]
Almost worship them!
Ippy
-
No, democracy isn't an ad populum, since it doesn't claim that the argument is good in some external sense. You are getting confused here by people using language differently in different contexts.
Ok .. maybe should have said " a kind of"
You are, of course, correct that you cannot get an ought from an is but you can get to how to achieve an ought from an the assumption of some axioms, and those arguments are 'good' and 'logical' within those assumptions. . Now again people are free to disagree with those axioms but we also continue discussions on here with a general presumption that some of those axioms have been accepted. I would suggest here that that has been what is being used here.
Now we could state in every debate on politics and morals what our initial axioms are, and see if there is any point in having discussions but I would suggest that is not how general discussions work.
Generally yes, but would be appropriate before trying to overturn and replace the constitution - on which everything else depends.
-
And again the arguments here justify bear baiting and giving privileges to Christianity if people want that.
True, also hunting, meat eating.. continued destruction of the environment.
People act when they understand the extent of the damage being caused. But difficult to see people turning against the monarchy which is seen as a successful and profitable (to the nation) business, constitutionally unable to interfere with government, with which many people have a traditional identification.
-
Ok .. maybe should have said " a kind of" Generally yes, but would be appropriate before trying to overturn and replace the constitution - on which everything else depends.
No, it's not much use you change it to 'a kind of' The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number. I can support democracy as a method of govt and happily accept that the decisions made by the majority can be wrong in my opinion.
Completely at a loss here as to why getting rid of the monarchy is as fundamental to what we think of as the basis axioms of what society should try to achieve.
-
True, also hunting, meat eating.. continued destruction of the environment.
People act when they understand the extent of the damage being caused. But difficult to see people turning against the monarchy which is seen as a successful and profitable (to the nation) business, constitutionally unable to interfere with government, with which many people have a traditional identification.
And those examples apply as well, what I was asking of Susan Doris was would she see these arguments as good in those situations. My take is that she wouldn't - I may be wrong on that but it seems in contradiction of her posting history. Of course, we don't have to accept that hypocrisy , as I would see this is wrong at a fundamental level, but again given SD's posting on other subjects I suspect that she isn't a fan of hypocrisy.
It was once difficult to see people turning against bear baiting, the only way I know how to make reasoned arguments to change someone's mind is to use why such things would be in conflict with basic axioms that you and they agree on.
-
Yes, but equality is not one of the agreed basic axioms.
In fact, "inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth" do appear to be basic axioms.
Society only exits if there is a constitution and framework of rules, otherwise we are back to tribal warfare. The UK constitution is basically a series of agreements over time between monarchs and various rebel groups.
-
Yes, but equality is not one of the agreed basic axioms.
In fact, "inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth" do appear to be basic axioms.
Society only exits if there is a constitution and framework of rules, otherwise we are back to tribal warfare. The UK constitution is basically a series of agreements over time between monarchs and various rebel groups.
There aren't any universally agreed axioms. But if you share them with someone then you can make sound arguments to them based upon them. There isn't a proposal from any one to remove all rules so I'm confused by your reference to it.
-
Didn't mean to suggest anyone would remove all rules or that we would revert to no society.
-
And those examples apply as well, what I was asking of Susan Doris was would she see these arguments as good in those situations.
My answer to whether the ’it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’ argument works for slavery or any other similar ill is no. But the whol context of the monarchy and the way it works does not fit into any other categories (can't think of a better word here) or come under a sort of established different heading. I think the main difference is that one can be as logical as one likes, pointing out all the sensible reasons why such-and-ssuch is not 'right' and should be legislated against. One can also add logical reasons why it isn't fair, or democratic, etc. But I know I am not alone in thinking that somehow this doesn’t apply to the monarchy as it is today.
I'm thinking a thumbs-up to Udayana's posts!My take is that she wouldn't - I may be wrong on that but it seems in contradiction of her posting history.
There is another place where logically I am as certain as I can be that once religious beliefs are seen as entirely humanly thought up, then the sooner can humanity understand itself better., But that is not going to happen in a hurry, and just banning, shutting down the CofE structure in the UK, let alone world-wide, with no clear, established and of course better[/I] non-god replacement structure, then it won't work. It will change gradually and excrutiatingly slowly unfortunately, but not for a while. In the meantime, that is the way things are.
(I think there's a grammatical error there somewhere but I can't find it.)
-
My answer to whether the ’it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’ argument works for slavery or any other similar ill is no. But the whol context of the monarchy and the way it works does not fit into any other categories (can't think of a better word here) or come under a sort of established different heading. I think the main difference is that one can be as logical as one likes, pointing out all the sensible reasons why such-and-ssuch is not 'right' and should be legislated against. One can also add logical reasons why it isn't fair, or democratic, etc. But I know I am not alone in thinking that somehow this doesn’t apply to the monarchy as it is today.
This reads as a definition of special pleading.
I'm thinking a thumbs-up to Udayana's posts!There is another place where logically I am as certain as I can be that once religious beliefs are seen as entirely humanly thought up, then the sooner can humanity understand itself better., But that is not going to happen in a hurry, and just banning, shutting down the CofE structure in the UK, let alone world-wide, with no clear, established and of course better[/I] non-god replacement structure, then it won't work. It will change gradually and excrutiatingly slowly unfortunately, but not for a while. In the meantime, that is the way things are.
(I think there's a grammatical error there somewhere but I can't find it.)
And that's a strawman.
-
NS,
No, it's not much use you change it to 'a kind of' The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number. I can support democracy as a method of govt and happily accept that the decisions made by the majority can be wrong in my opinion.
Yes, but the "in my opinion" is key there. Your opinion is that the moral good is one thing, the opinion of the other 99 is that the moral good is the opposite thing. Absent an objective definition of goodness though, what else is it as a practical proposition but what most people think it to be?
-
NS,
Yes, but the "in my opinion" is key there. Your opinion is that the moral good is one thing, the opinion of the other 99 is that the moral good is the opposite thing. Absent an objective definition of goodness though, what else is it as a practical proposition but what most people think it to be?
Their opinion. There is no objective or even inter subjective way of establishing oughts. If it is taken as popular opinion, then any moral arguments are entirely specious. There is only what happens.
-
NS
I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic! :)
-
NS
I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic! :)
In which case, given you have abandoned rational discussion, I will refrain from further comment in reply.
-
NS
I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic! :)
In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction as being justification for their beliefs.
You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.
-
In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction as being justification for their beliefs.
You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.
I think this needs to qualified. It's not as if there is a doubt on the existence of the monarchy, so on that level the personal conviction is different. The approach to argument by some theists in that logical fallacies have no effect on their experience is similar but there is a difference between the 'is' claim of existence and the 'ought' claim of 'Monarchy should continue'
-
In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction.
You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.
I do not think my support for the monarchy and the Head of State is without reason. My reasons: it works; there is nothing better that will match it in appeal,its attraction in so many ways; it is a story and everyone loves a good story, a perpetually interesting drama, call it a soap opera if you like, but the characters are not fiction; as with my reference to religions, there needs to be something much superior, in all the ways the monarchy appeals, to take its place.
To say that I am as credulous about the monarchy
asbelievers are about religion is totally wrong.
-
NS,
Their opinion. There is no objective or even inter subjective way of establishing oughts.
Pretty much, yes.
If it is taken as popular opinion, then any moral arguments are entirely specious. There is only what happens.
There’s a non sequitur in there somewhere. Moral arguments are fine because they rationalise opinions. When slavery was prevalent and someone said, “actually slavery is wrong because…” that idea caught the wind sufficiently for the majority to support it and so that became the prevailing moral paradigm. While I can’t imagine an argument that would persuade the majority to think slavery was good after all, nonetheless conceptually at least such a thing is possible and so that would become the moral paradigm once again.
“Only what happens” in other words is indeed morality as only what happens, but in general at least it rests on arguments that enough people have found persuasive to be accepted.
Incidentally, as a side issue I note that you said: “This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave.” This happens often – someone picks something currently thought to be morally terrible (slavery) as if that were objectively true, then complains that at one time the fact that the majority thought is was fine meant that they must have been objectively wrong. They don’t though say something like, “actually I think slavery is morally good and it’s just an ad pop to say it isn’t because most people disagree with me”.
In other words they conflate the content of a specific moral position with the generalised phenomenon of the consensus of moral good and bad itself defining contemporaneous moral good and bad.
The arguments and axioms on which morality rests are change apt in a way that, say, facts about gravity or the weak magnetic force aren’t. They can’t be certain, so the moral positions that rest on them for their force can’t be either. All we have then for moral principle is the arguments that currently are the most robust, and all we have for the practical application of morality is whichever of those arguments most people accept.
-
NS,
Pretty much, yes.
There’s a non sequitur in there somewhere. Moral arguments are fine because they rationalise opinions. When slavery was prevalent and someone said, “actually slavery is wrong because…” that idea caught the wind sufficiently for the majority to support it and so that became the prevailing moral paradigm. While I can’t imagine an argument that would persuade the majority to think slavery was good after all, nonetheless conceptually at least such a thing is possible and so that would become the moral paradigm once again.
“Only what happens” in other words is indeed morality as only what happens, but in general at least it rests on arguments that enough people have found persuasive to be accepted.
Incidentally, as a side issue I note that you said: “This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave.” This happens often – someone picks something currently thought to be morally terrible (slavery) is if that were objectively true, then complains that at one time the fact that the majority thought is was fine meant that they must have been objectively wrong. They don’t though say something like, “actually I think slavery is morally good and it’s just an ad pop to say it isn’t because most people disagree with me”.
In other words they conflate the content of a specific moral position with the generalised phenomenon of the consensus of moral good and bad itself defining contemporaneous moral good and bad.
he arguments and axioms on which morality rests are change apt in a way that, say, facts about gravity or the weak magnetic force aren’t. They can’t be certain, so the moral positions that rest on them for their force can’t be either. All we have then for moral principle is the arguments that currently are the most robust, and all we have for the practical application of morality is whichever of those arguments most people accept.
That would be useful if that is what I was doing, but since it wasn't it's irrelevant. I was using it as a reductio of the apparent argument that things are good because they are agreed by most people. This appeared to be the argument, I.e. an ad populum that was being used. I wasn't arguing, and I think in context obviously not arguing, that this is objectively wrong but questioning whether those using the ad populum would agree with that as an outcome.
Anyway the monarchy, what are your thoughts?
-
NS,
That would be useful if that is what I was doing, but since it wasn't it's irrelevant. I was using it as a reductio of the apparent argument that things are good because they are agreed by most people.
No you weren’t. You took an example you wanted everyone to think was obviously morally bad and then complained that, as once most people thought it was fine, then “The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number” as if that was a bad thing.
Well yes, the ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number because of the number, but so what? What else would you point to for rightness and wrongness if not for what most people think it to be?
Sometimes in other words popularity is all we have, albeit resting on arguments that are themselves fluid in character.
This appeared to be the argument, I.e. an ad populum that was being used. I wasn't arguing, and I think in context obviously not arguing, that this is objectively wring buy questioning whether those using the ad populum would agree with that as an outcome.
Then why pick an example that you imply is obviously wrong (slavery) to contrast with a previous majority opinion as if that in some way invalidated the idea that pretty much popular acceptance is all we have to define moral good and bad?
-
NS,
No you weren’t. You took an example you wanted everyone to think was obviously morally bad and then complained that, as once most people thought it was fine, then “The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number” as if that was a bad thing.
Well yes, the ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number because of the number, but so what? What else would you point to for rightness and wrongness if not for what most people think it to be?
Sometimes in other words popularity is all we have, albeit resting on arguments that are themselves fluid in character.
Then why pick an example that you imply is obviously wrong (slavery) to contrast with a previous majority opinion as if that in some way invalidated the idea that pretty much popular acceptance is all we have to define moral good and bad?
Because I was picking the example as a reduction for the person making the argument, that's what a reductio is. I don't share, and made clear that I don't share the idea that what the majority think is right is useful in an argument about what is objectively right! I would appreciate if you didn't lie about my position.
And the monarchy, any thoughts?
-
NS,
Because I was pucking the example as a reduction for the person making the argument, that's what a reductio is. I don't share, and made clear that I don't share the idea that what the majority think is right is useful in an argument about what is objectively right!
That wasn’t the point though. I agree that majority opinion tells us nothing about what’s objectively true about morality, but nor does it claim to (and nor for that matter does anything else). It does though provide an “ought” in the sense that it says, “we ought to behave as follows in respect of moral issue X” with no claims of certainty involved.
I would appreciate if you didn't lie about my position.
I didn’t. You implied that because the majority once thought slavery was good and you (and your contemporaneous majority) now think slavery is bad we shouldn’t take majority opinion for our moral oughts (because that would be just an ad pop).
I merely say that majority opinion is all we have for our moral oughts and that it makes no claim to certainty nonetheless.
-
NS,
That wasn’t the point though. I agree that majority opinion tells us nothing about what’s objectively true about morality, but nor does it claim to (and nor for that matter does anything else). It does though provide an “ought” in the sense that it says, “we ought to behave as follows in respect of moral issue X” with no claims of certainty involved.
I didn’t. You implied that because the majority once thought slavery was good and you (and your contemporaneous majority) now think slavery is bad we shouldn’t take majority opinion for our moral oughts (because that would be just an ad pop).
I merely say that majority opinion is all we have for our moral oughts and that it makes no claim to certainty nonetheless.
And again no, the idea that the majority thinking something is a reason to believe it was good was put forward by Susan Doris, I used a number of different reductios because I believe she would not apply that generally, I.e. that it was a form of special pleading (a charge that has since effectively been admitted).
Anyway, the monarchy, any thoughts?
-
NS,
And again no, the idea that the majority thinking something is a reason to believe it was good was put forward by Susan Doris, I used a number of different reductios because I believe she would not apply that generally, I.e. that it was a form of special pleading (a charge that has since effectively been admitted).
I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?
If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?
Anyway, the monarchy, any thoughts?
Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like.
Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can).
-
NS,
I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?
If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?
Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like.
Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can).
The entirety of Susan's posts on here amounted to people liking it. In the end it doesn't matter whether the ad populum argument is used to claim objevtivity, or jyst to say that even if it is not objective it is an argument in favour of the proposition in any way, it isn't. It is merely descriptive. SD has agreed that she sees this as a unique thing for which she applies this argument I.e. special pleading.
I read wigginhall as saying something much stronger than saying monarchy is a hangover and he seems to me to argue that it is a problematic institution that promotes inequality and privilege, and ergo he is agin' it.
-
NS,
The entirety of Susan's posts on here amounted to people liking it.
Liking something and thinking it to be morally good are not the same though – which is what I think you said she said.
In the end it doesn't matter whether the ad populum argument is used to claim objevtivity, or jyst to say that even if it is not objective it is an argument in favour of the proposition in any way, it isn't.
Actually I think it matters a lot. For the former, I can see no logical path from majority opinion to objective moral truths, and nor for that matter do I think “objective moral truth” to be coherent even conceptually in any case (which tends to be the terrain of clerics with their "sures and certains").
For the latter though, the “descriptive” is all we have. If the majority says, “this is how we ought to behave to be morally good” then it’s describing what it does mean to be morally good albeit only according to its own lights.
It is merely descriptive.
Yes, but “merely” is all it claims to be and – for morality purpose – it’s all we have.
SD has agreed that she sees this as a unique thing for which she applies this argument I.e. special pleading.
I think she described the monarchy as a unique issue, but I’m not sure about whether she extends that exception to include moral significance.
I read wigginhall as saying something much stronger than saying monarchy is a hangover and he seems to me to argue that it is a problematic institution that promotes inequality and privilege, and ergo he is agin' it.
On balance so am I, but it’s not something I get particularly vexed about. Its symbolism is important I agree, but there are many other things I think to be problematic too – private schools for example.
-
I think this needs to qualified. It's not as if there is a doubt on the existence of the monarchy, so on that level the personal conviction is different. The approach to argument by some theists in that logical fallacies have no effect on their experience is similar but there is a difference between the 'is' claim of existence and the 'ought' claim of 'Monarchy should continue'
Fair point - there is a difference between approving of the role occupied by a series of known living people and the claimed existence of divine beings, even if the level on enthusiasm for each by their respective proponents seems similar.
-
NS,
I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?
If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?
Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like. 7
Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can).
The French system doesn't seem to have reduced tourism to France and no I wouldn't want their heads off.
Even if you assume there's a profit having these mollycoddled people supported by the rest of us here in the U K, it doesn't justify their position.
ippy
-
A few more thoughts:
Why should people who want the monarchy ended - without a similarly organised, vastly less colourful or interesting and entertaining system set up to replace it - deny to the next generations the pleasure, the fun, the entertainment, etc of the current system? :) :)
There are many things in life that are not academically and logically moral, but, and here I mention a parable, if an equal sum of money is given to three different people, some will double it, some will have put it in a money box, some will have spent it all. that's human nature and much as as one may think equality would be an ideal, it never will be a reality.
On the subject of whether Charles might tilt people towards a republic, consider the interest of people in the family and remember that William Kate andtheir children are almost certain to be the focus of interest rather than Charles and Camilla themselves.
By the way, bluehillside, what I said was that I am quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre in this particular thread! :D
Okay, that's my say on this topic for the day, well most of it, as I'm going to London for a meeting I have organised of a group of old girls from school. All of us are now over 80.
-
A few more thoughts:
Why should people who want the monarchy ended - without a similarly organised, vastly less colourful or interesting and entertaining system set up to replace it - deny to the next generations the pleasure, the fun, the entertainment, etc of the current system? :) :)
There are many things in life that are not academically and logically moral, but, and here I mention a parable, if an equal sum of money is given to three different people, some will double it, some will have put it in a money box, some will have spent it all. that's human nature and much as as one may think equality would be an ideal, it never will be a reality.
On the subject of whether Charles might tilt people towards a republic, consider the interest of people in the family and remember that William Kate andtheir children are almost certain to be the focus of interest rather than Charles and Camilla themselves.
By the way, bluehillside, what I said was that I am quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre in this particular thread! :D
Okay, that's my say on this topic for the day, well most of it, as I'm going to London for a meeting I have organised of a group of old girls from school. All of us are now over 80.
It looks to me Susan going by the text of your post where you seem to know who did what to whom plus apparently an exhaustive knowledge of the family tree; why not latch on to one of the T V soaps of your choice, stop fawning over the royals and say goodbye to this unjustified unfair royal system we have to suffer, due to the general public's love of soap, oh yes very logical.
Very crudely: I love soap and need to fawn over someone, some family, so that justifies the royalist system.
It's not so much broke so don't fix it, it fell apart some time ago and now needs replacing, more it has served its time.
ippy
-
You know, for a moment there, I think I heard Synthetic dave read something by Ippy! ... I think he mentioned the royal Family, but I could well be mistaken/ :) :)
Ten of us had a most enjoyable three hours today, with a great deal of chat and laughter. They all want me to organise it again next year.
-
You know, for a moment there, I think I heard Synthetic dave read something by Ippy! ... I think he mentioned the royal Family, but I could well be mistaken/ :) :)
Ten of us had a most enjoyable three hours today, with a great deal of chat and laughter. They all want me to organise it again next year.
Do you know I was just thinking, having a good day out with your friends would be a terrific and realistic way of lifting your spirits, Susan, hope you have many more days out of a similar nature, good on you.
Regards ippy.