The Monarchy

[x.Tag.Youre__Pregnant.]]]

Invictus_88

Indie_Chick

Nebelstern

Would it be due to her psychotic tendencies, perchance? Or something far deeper, more inexplicable that us mere mortals could ever comprehend... confused

Psychotic tendencies? Moi? NEVER!
I just don't see the point: why do we need a monarchy and a goverment? One or the other... I wouldn't mind if it was just the monarchy, its just that as the situation stands, they don't actually have a purpose other than to attract the touristy types. They get paid millions of pounds to cut a ribbon or something.... What's more, everyone really gives a toss about what they do. Like, OMG Prince Harry smoked a bit of draw, he must be an addict. And they say this while they have a joint in their hands.... but yeah. I'll shuttup now. The royal family should be well-behaved, marry who they are meant to etc.
They or the goverment need to be gotten rid of cos with both of them there, the royals end up doing no work.








I found a thing about them which is cool. They have REALLY funny guards. It is VERY fun to try and get those guards to lose their straight face. They are quite literally made of stone.

My dear, at 4:23pm on Friday the 22nd of April, you made an ED thread about the British Monarchy.

I had the decency to utterly pwn it, thrashing your arguments into matchwood, on the 23rd of the same month.

You never responded, please. If you feel confident enough in your arguments, feel free to return and fight your corner.


Regards,

Invictus

Queen Elizabeth II. the Royals in general.

blee. I made that thread ages ago. PLEEEASE dont link to it.  

[Invictus_88]

Indie_Chick

blee. I made that thread ages ago. PLEEEASE dont link to it.

It's been linked for ages, it's one of the threads I chalk up here as "owned".

I believe I'm owed a few replies.  

[Nebelstern]

This is why I never make any more ED threads... for fear of being pwned... gonk  

[Invictus_88]

Nebelstern

This is why I never make any more ED threads... for fear of being pwned... gonk

You never win, if members can't pwn you, the mods will.
*needs modship*
ninja  

[Boolean Julian]

Not sure I've ever been beaten in an argument where I was properly informed. The reason is generally that I argue the strongest case. I'm always reluctant to make up my mind about an issue if I don't have a very clear idea in my head about justifying it. I have a gut feeling that abortion is okay, for instance, but otherwise I'm really not sure. So I tend not to argue that it's right or wrong.  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

Not sure I've ever been beaten in an argument where I was properly informed. The reason is generally that I argue the strongest case. I'm always reluctant to make up my mind about an issue if I don't have a very clear idea in my head about justifying it. I have a gut feeling that abortion is okay, for instance, but otherwise I'm really not sure. So I tend not to argue that it's right or wrong.

Same, and I know monarchy. Foxhunting too..  

[Boolean Julian]

Actually, I really don't think it's at all clear-cut about foxhunting. The question really is what is a better way of killing foxes, marksman or the hunt, and I simply don't know enough about them both to comment. I think the fact that it's a tradition is a very weak argument, though. People said that when it became illegal to beat your wife. Just because a cruel unnecessary practice has been going on for centuaries, that is not a reason to continue with it.
Then, of course, there's the debate about the dogs, and how they'll have to be put down. No comment there really.
I think hunting is undeniably an unnecessarily cruel way of killing foxes, but it may be the case that it's the only effective way. I simply don't know.

Oh, and to make myself clear, I don't want to fudge the issue here. I am most definately anti-ban, but I'm by no means pro-fox hunting. I'm not debating the ban here, merely whether or not fox hunting is right or wrong.  

[Invictus_88]

It's ok, neither of those arguments are ones I use to count in it's favour. I'd back a ban when a better method is found, but so far they haven't.

'Till then, the hunt is the best way. Shame really, both that it is the best, and that they banned it.

*still has his "fight the ban" poster in the window*  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

It's ok, neither of those arguments are ones I use to count in it's favour. I'd back a ban when a better method is found, but so far they haven't.

'Till then, the hunt is the best way. Shame really, both that it is the best, and that they banned it.

*still has his "fight the ban" poster in the window*

Of course all tthe arguments posted rely on the assumption that it is necessary to cull foxes.

Anyway, on topic; The right side of my brain is anti-monarchy, but the left side finds them so funny it overrules the rational part.  

[Boolean Julian]

I don't see how anyone can be anti-monarchy i they know the facts. Either look earlier back in the thread, or wait for Invi to explain. I think he enjoys it.  

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

Anyway, on topic; The right side of my brain is anti-monarchy...

Pour quelle raison?

*draws knife*  

[Fourcolour]

The notion that a democratic state should have a monarchy is a bit odd. The monarchy have very little real power, and certain members have shown themselves to be hideously old fashioned and out of touch (that's a polite way of calling Philip a mouthy racist by the way). They generate cash from tourism, give dullards something to read about in the tabloids, give us something to put on our money, and are a quaint little unit of friendly faces we wheel out when we need someone to shake hands with some foreigners.

Have I missed any reasons?  

[Fourcolour]

Having said that I wouldn't get rid of them. I'd tax them more if I had the chance, but I like the idea of us exploiting foreigners with a grossly outdated image of what Britain is.

Oh and culture and history are different things.

Invictus, could you explain exactly why you'd take up arms to defend the royal family?  

[Invictus_88]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

Having said that I wouldn't get rid of them. I'd tax them more if I had the chance, but I like the idea of us exploiting foreigners with a grossly outdated image of what Britain is.

Why tax them more?

The royals pay the same level of tax as everyone else who earns what they do. Except the queen of course...she gets to pay 100% income tax.

Fourcolour

Invictus, could you explain exactly why you'd take up arms to defend the royal family?

Two reasons. One dogmatic, one practical.

i. Political duty, I am compelled as a citizen of the Channel Islands to fight to prevent overthrow of my leader HM the Queen, my duke. To return from any future capture, and to defend her if she is put at risk by a foreign invasion.

ii. Because the role of the British monarchy is a very good thing for the country, indeed in some respects essential. Also; because if there were a civil war I'd want to be on the winning team, because most people approve of the monarchy and I am a great supporter of pragmatic democracy, because the monarch does a very fine job in working her whole life for the nation and finally, because I want to. It makes sense to me.